California's assault weapons ban overturned as federal judge compares AR-15 to a Swiss Army knife
Category: News & Politics
Via: sister-mary-agnes-ample-bottom • 3 years ago • 69 commentsBy: Timothy Bella (MSN)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A federal judge Friday night overturned California's longtime ban on assault weapons, saying the state's law was unconstitutional and that prohibiting such firearms for decades was "a failed experiment."
© Rich Pedroncelli/AP Three variants of the AR-15 rifle on display at the California Department of Justice in Sacramento.
In a 94-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez of the Southern District of California said that sections of the state ban in place since 1989 regarding military-style rifles violate the Second Amendment. Benitez characterized the assault weapons Californians are barred from using as not "bazookas, howitzers or machine guns" but rather "fairly ordinary, popular, modern rifles."
The judge then compared an AR-15 to a Swiss Army knife.
"Like the Swiss Army Knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment," Benitez said in the ruling.
In addition to issuing a permanent injunction Friday, Benitez granted a request from California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) for a 30-day stay of the ruling, which will bring about an appeal from the state.
"Today's decision is fundamentally flawed," Bonta said in a news release. "There is no sound basis in law, fact, or common sense for equating assault rifles with Swiss Army knives — especially on Gun Violence Awareness Day and after the recent shootings in our own California communities."
Benitez's ruling comes at a time when the nation continues to grapple with gun violence and pushes from lawmakers to ban assault weapons. After pushing for a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines, President Biden announced in April a series of executive actions to help curb gun violence. Last month, the Justice Department released a proposed rule that would put new restrictions on "ghost guns" — kits that allow buyers to assemble firearms without a serial number.
Though the actions were part of the president's first substantive response to mass shootings, he and lawmakers nationwide have faced many of the same cultural and political divisions that have stymied efforts on passing assault weapons bans.
The California ban has been revised multiple times over the past three decades. The state has argued that assault weapon restrictions have also previously been upheld by several federal district and appeals courts.
The judge's decision stems from a lawsuit filed in 2019 by a state resident and a political action committee for gun owners. The lawsuit against California said the state is "one of only a small handful of states to ban many of the most popular semiautomatic firearms in the nation because they possess one or more common characteristics, such as pistol grips and threaded barrels" that are frequently used with detachable ammunition magazines.
The AR-15, a lightweight, customizable version of the military's M16, soared in popularity after a 10-year federal ban on assault weapons expired in 2004. It has also been slammed by lawmakers and gun-control advocates for its use in mass shootings.
The state previously argued in a court filing that a spike in sales in the past year of more than 1.16 million other types of pistols, rifles and shotguns "has not prevented law-abiding citizens in the state from acquiring a range of firearms for lawful purposes, including self-defense."
But Benitez pushed back on that notion in his ruling. Despite the ban, there are an estimated 185,569 assault weapons registered with the state, the judge said.
"This is an average case about average guns used in average ways for average purposes," Benitez wrote. "One is to be forgiven if one is persuaded by news media and others that the nation is awash with murderous AR-15 assault rifles. The facts, however, do not support this hyperbole, and facts matter."
The judge made another mention of knives in his ruling, claiming that "murder by knife occurs seven times more often than murder by rifle" in California.
It's not the first time Benitez has ruled in favor of gun rights since he was appointed by President George W. Bush and confirmed by the Senate in 2004. Benitez has previously ruled the state's ban on high-capacity magazines was unconstitutional and also struck down the restriction on remote purchases of gun ammunition. The state is appealing both of those decisions.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) lashed out at the judge's ruling in a late-night tweet, saying that Benitez comparing an AR-15 to a Swiss Army knife was a "disgusting slap in the face to those who have lost loved ones to gun violence."
"This is a direct threat to public safety and innocent Californians," Newsom said. "We won't stand for it."
The California ruling reverberated across the nation Saturday. Fred Guttenberg, whose 14-year-old daughter Jaime was killed in the 2018 mass shooting in Parkland, Fla., denounced the judge for using "the exact language of the gun lobby" in his ruling. A version of the AR-15 was used to kill 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.
"My daughter's in a cemetery ... because a Swiss Army knife was not used. Because it was an AR-15," Guttenberg told CNN. "If a Swiss Army knife was used, my daughter and most of those other kids and adults would be alive today."
Brandon Wolf, a survivor of the 2016 mass shooting at Pulse nightclub in Orlando, also criticized Benitez on Twitter for the word-choice in his ruling on the assault weapon ban: "I can assure you — if a Swiss Army knife was used at Pulse, we would have had a birthday party for my best friend last week. Not a vigil."
Gun rights advocates celebrated Benitez's decision overturning the assault weapons ban. Alan M. Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, a Washington state-based group involved in the lawsuit, said Benitez had "shredded California gun control laws regarding modern semiautomatic rifles." Brandon Combs, the head of the Firearms Policy Coalition, which helped bring the lawsuit to court, said in a statement that the judge's ruling "held what millions of Americans already know to be true: Bans on so-called 'assault weapons' are unconstitutional and cannot stand."
"This historic victory for individual liberty is just the beginning," Combs said.
Rachel Siegel contributed to this report.
Tags
Who is online
432 visitors
Now I know what I want for Christmas.
Why wait? Is something preventing you from making a purchase now?
This will be appealed, for sure. I don’t think you’ll see the weapons people want in stores until all appeals are exhausted.
Let me ask again: Is something preventing you from making an AR-15 purchase now?
Yes. The versions of these guns that are available in California have state-required modifications that make them such a pain to use that it’s not worth the purchase.
I feel for anyone in cali really , and its not just limited to ARs , my understanding is unless a firearm is on the states list of "approved " firearms and comply with all the states regulations , they are illegal .
The recent purchase i made of a derringer , in the configuration i purchased it ( shoots both a pistol round and a shotgun round ) is illegal for posession in Cali . Its so bad that the company that makes the one i got wont sell in california at all , so state residents have to find used ones if they want a cali compliant model.
I wanted a thompson with several 100 round drums while I watched the 1/6 insurrection on TV.
I prefer the Leatherman Free P4.
I think the AR is easier to operate, and it's got longer range, but I'm not sure you can get a scissor attachment for it.
Still beats a Swiss Army knife.
Personally, I prefer the MP 40 or the Stg 44 myself.
Was actually looking for a Ruger Mini-14 when I fell across a Bushy AR-15
The perfect ranch rifle for all occasions. From a rest it Fills 2" groups at 500 yards.
There is even a kit to convert it to shoot .22 LR and another to launch golf balls.
Doesn't get more American than that.
I guess a Swiss army knife isn't a very popular Christmas gift in America - one can't kill enough people fast enough with it.
Unrelated.
It isn't more palatable my friend, just more convenient when a seed isn't locked for 10 or whatever hours.
I can't moderate my seeds/articles when I'm asleep, and as I said it would be unlocked in around 10 hours (as it happens it was 9 hours) so I guess patience is not a common virtue.
But I guess I should have realized that when it comes to guns, my feelings aren't at all the same as most Americans'.
Happiness is a warm gun....
.
Im happiest when mine stay at room temp , it means i have been able to remain a peaceful human.
They're extremely popular, but I already have a couple.
The judge then compared an AR-15 to a Swiss Army knife.
"Like the Swiss Army Knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment," Benitez said in the ruling.
What bothers me is the 'homeland defense equipment' suggestion.
In truth, like a Swiss Army knife, they are extremely versatile can be modified with a range of accessories. It’s an only an analogy. I doubt the judge was trying to equate their relative lethality.
While that is a circumstance I hope never happens, the founders did seem to have that in mind when they proposed the 2nd Amendment. Federalist No. 46, for example, written by James Madison, is all about that.
46 is another example of a Federalist paper that illustrates naivete. The Federalists talk about the militia and invariably cite their chosen Officers and their loyalty to their State leadership. The 2nd Militia Act makes it clear what the Founders meant by a 'well regulated militia'. Those mandates were far from a bunch of wannabees with AR 15s.
My entire issue with the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment is this, "A well regulated militia". It seems like that has been COMPLETELY ignored in all modern interpretations of the 2nd amendment. I have yet to see a SCOTUS ruling that takes the very first fucking words of the amendment into account.
Militias are regulated by state gun laws.
Think they need more regulation talk to your state govt
Not just by gun laws but state statutes that regulate militias and who can form them and under what authority , or at least that is the case here in Wyoming .
federally there are 2 forms of militia , the organized which is comprised of the various national guards paid for by both the feds and the state , feds pay for equipment and training , the state supplies and pays the manpower part unless the guard is nationalized , then the feds kick in a little .
federally the 2nd militia is the unorganized , it basically is comprised of those not members of the active duty military or the national guard , up to specified ages .
States if they have the provisions for militias , not all do , have their own criteria pretty much the same as the feds criteria , but have some added verbage to form another one or two forms of militia .
where i live they still have in state statute a provision for the unorganized irregular militia , this would be anyone not of age acceptable for either the organized or unorganized militias , have heard it said if conscription for this group comes about , there be deep shit going on and the age limit for state induction is set at 68 years old i think , been a while since i checked to see if that changed ..
My state also has a provision in statutes for a 4th militia which can only be activated by the legislature OR the governor called the State guard , supposedly only to be used if the organized and unorganized and irregulars have already been activated and deployed and were or are only suppose to be used , In state , at the sole expense of the state . this one only states a max age limit of 72 years old but it can call those younger than the others , basically a bunch of old farts and kids , scraping the bottom of the man power barrel.
My point is some people dont know what the state has authorized that the state can do in statutes already , so its always a good idea to take a look in whatever state one lives , what exactly the state has tucked away for so called rainy days .
Yeah, that was a bizarre comment, to say the least. Maybe he's one of the Oath Keepers.
A group easily led...
image source
I admit , i find that somewhat concerning myself , but it also depends on how one choses to view it , and i can think of a couple different views to see it from .
a judge should not use verbiage of ambiguity in his ruling rationalization action(s), miss interpretation can meet mister, then a brother is marrying his sister cuz cuz wasn't availabull shit analogy that i've meta B for, cause an ambiguous ruler can't measure, only gargle, with the scope of a metric system, scoped out like i scream that melts ears of corn husked just for the shuck of it, but hey, i N joy guns, yet also have difficulty in comprehending how N E infringement on gun owner ship sinks to the deep end of if ANY concession is made, ALL and EVERY GUN will be taken away, because that WILL NEVER HAPPEN IN THE USA, and apparently, neither will anything be done to stop the slaughter of innocent Americans, but hey, even when wearing long sleaves, you have a right to bear arms , and i will
LOL. Great line.
At best bear arms are a clumsy bludeoning tool/ melee weapon and after a while they tend to stink up the place unless stored properly.....
i use bear arms for support, of that which requires a bearing post to bear wait not anticipated, cause barely being able to weight that which lifts, is a wait too long and heavy, so i drop, slippery, after it got on my Acid, and made it slippery, thus Y eye sea myself droppin Acid often, then tying my boots to gether, to take trips to outer limitless non boundaries, due to the gated community i reside inn, so as i could find some wholes in my offended 2% of Tolerance time, i can't tolerate, due to a Lactaid of preponderance of inevidence that evidently, is only superficial to the supercritical toadies mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm N mmmm's
Only when I wave.
First of all, a Swiss Army Knife is not a perfect... anything. Second, a shotgun is a better home defense weapon. Any rifle is much more likely to kill bystanders who, by the way, may be your own children.
As for homeland defense? Many people who own or want AR-15s want them to overthrow my homeland.
I would say that is an argument that is debatable and cuts both ways .
Some may think that it is a tool of overthrow of a form of government , some may see it as a tool to keep in check a government that in their eyes and thoughts have over reached the limits of authority. so the debate is basically one of overthrow and change , or preservation of what exists, the answer to that debate lies entirely in the view of the individual debating the question.
it is just the same as which would make a better home defense weapon , the answer falls strictly to the individual themselves , it is simply opinion hopefully came to after a certain amount of study and research by the individual with the thought of the particular set of issues that the circumstance has . and that falls down to individual choices .
Counting the electoral college votes is not over reaching authority.
That's what made the comment less than appreciated. It's like he was delivering a message from his main squeeze, Trump.
Trump wrote the declaration of independence too?
LOL
The notion that the people have the right to remove an invading or oppresive govt is the basis of our countries foundation.
It's all inside my head...click click boom.
never claimed that action of counting EC votes could be considered a government over reach now did i?
I simply pointed out other ways it can be viewed by other individuals ,and i didnt agree with any position taken.
Yet when push came to shove, Washington put his foot down and squelched a rebellion by calling up the militia of multiple states and marching on the rebels. THAT too is the basis of our country's foundation.
This ruling doesnt change anything from what i have read , a stay is in place from what i understand until an appeal can be decided .
And based on how the appeal goes will determine any number of things since many states that have enacted such bans , somewhat based their bans on the california model , it should be making those states take a good look at their own legislations to see what might happen depending on the outcome of the appeal.
So I live in Montreal an urban area of some 3 million residents and only know of 2 gun owners. One is a Glock whatever that he must keep at a shooting range, the other was owned by a deceased American expat, a 3-shot bolt action rifle that his wife recently turned into whatever authorities take them. Montreal averages 20-30 homicides per year half of them by guns and 90% of those are by 'bad guy' killing 'bad guy'. There is no part of the City that I fear to walk at any time of the day. The fear of all and any of the boogiemen (bad guys to gooberment) that Americans wrap themselves in has become a societal disease. Something is deeply wrong if the only solution is to equip oneself with an armory and a bonus room full of bullets.
It seems we use guns for population control.
The gubmint taking our guns away seems to be a rallying cry to some. Kind of stupid, some yawhoos with AR15 against a light infantry company. The first time the M240 lite machine gun rattled off 30 or 40 rounds there would be a lot of stained underwear. Oh, hell throw in a couple of mortar rounds and a javelin for good measure.
This isn't ''Red Dawn'' it's the real world.
Yes, that is partially true. Those fellows were well trained and had been in combat for close to 30 straight years and they had a hell of a lot more than semi autos. Motars, AK47 and the DP lite machine guns played hell with us. That is a whole different world than a bunch of yahoos here with AR15.
The calculus, though, (and this was how Madison saw it back in the day) is that there are just over a million federal armed forces stationed at various places around the country. But there 330 million citizens. Over 200 million of them are adults. So, yes, the military has superior firepower, but they are outnumbered 200 to 1 - and they’re not bulletproof.
The US military is mighty, no question. But in 20 years, it couldn’t bring Iraq or Afghanistan completely to heel. I mean, you can do it if you totally destroy everything, but then what have you really won?
You’re not going to find a lot of US troops willing to open up on American citizens. How many would simply abandon federal authority and fight with their neighbors?
You're making a lot of assumptions. First what in the world makes you think that all US citizens would be part of an insurrection? Second, what makes you think that if the military was fired upon by so called citizens then wouldn't return fire.
Most of the 200,000 adults have never in their life seen real combat. That is a whole different world.
It's just more of the Red Dawn syndrome.
I think tacos brings up some good points
isnt an insurrection usually made up of citizens from a nation? or is it agitators from outside the country ?
IF i had to guess as to what military members would do in such a situation , i would guess that some would follow orders , and some would not , even military planners cant answer that question with any confidence , it would be my guess is , like what happened in the 1860s each member following their own conscience.things they will or will not do.
thats not even considering that the professional military might look at the civilians and say we are standing down and you all sort this out yourselves . and simply protect the borders from outside influence .
This is now going off topic in my estimation , so ill end here.
Of course. So are you. I think that's inherent in the topic. There's no avoiding it.
Madison envisioned a scenario where the federal government was acting tyrannically relative to the states to such a degree that there would be a kind of universal outrage. Obviously, a couple dozen extremists in the woods with political chips on their shoulders is a completely different scenario.
So much depends on the situation. What makes you think our military would march into American cities and neighborhoods with families, prepared to kill?
It's 200 million, not 200 thousand. And most people in our Armed Forces never make it to combat, either. Many get deployed to a combat zone, but even most of them don't actually see combat.
I'm aware of what Madison envisioned, but I do not see that scenario taking place. It's much more realistic that a group (s) of yahoos would be involved.
I did not say that our military would march in to Amerian cities prepared to kill. What I said if the were fired on by citizens what makes you think that they wouldn't fire back.
That was a typo on my part I realize that you did say 200 million. Around 75 million are gun owners in the US.
All Marine and combat arms of the US Army are highly combat-trained each is an infantryman no matter their MOS. (Marines) Being in a combat zone is quite different than some citizens talking about deadly combat.
As I stated earlier it seems to be a ''Red Dawn'' dream for many.
You seem be presuming that all of those 200 million disagree with the what the government will be doing. Based on polling and elections, the US is pretty evenly divided. So that whittles the numbers down considerably and of those that are left over 50% are women who aren't known for being gung ho trained militia members.
Statistically, about 45% of Americans own at least ONE gun. An even smaller percentage actually know how to use one well.
A study done in WWII found that only about 20% of trained soldiers shot their weapons and an even smaller percentage shot to kill. I can't imagine that the percentage would be higher for untrained civilians. I do imagine that a higher percentage of our present volunteer military are more likely to shoot their weapons with purpose.
It really surprised me that during Katrina, in 2nd Amendment loving Louisiana, the military and LEOs took to confiscating legally owned guns from 'law abiding citizens'. Even more surprising is that there wasn't much of an uproar about it.
They had been fighting off "invaders" for decades. Practice makes perfect.
Not all, but enough to that you could say there was broad agreement. Anything else is a different conversation. That isn’t just my presumption. That was the scenario the founders conceived. I have already said that some small band of angry people is an entirely different scenario.
It’s hardly their fault that closed minded people might think that way. I would not assume, though, that civilian women would be unwilling to fight for their rights, lives, and families in such a scenario. And anyway, the same is true of people serving in the armed forces. Not everyone is a front line killer. Most just drive trucks or cook or program computers.
Yeah, and the ones that do, often own several (I personally own 9) and would likely be willing to share with their unarmed neighbors if they were trying to build a militia. It’s estimated that there are more guns than people in the United States.
I think the whole thing in modern times is truly the unlikeliest of scenarios. I think the federal government would have to do something truly egregious and aggressive - like a genuine military coup (not just a few crackpots with clubs) in Washington D.C.; or like the WWII Japanese camps, but for like all Texans or something before the people of any state would rise up in armed resistance.
I would have said generations , going back all the way to when china had an emporer and an empire ....
LMFAOROTF.
all i can say is wow.
Some of the best shots i have ever seen in my lifetime, both in the military and outside of it , have been women , dont have to be militia/ military trained to be able to shoot accurate and effectively.
with that i will just shake my head and laugh at that comment .
How does any of that refute that most women are not gung ho trained militia members? Hint: It doesn't.
I didn't argue that women can NOT be proficient with firearms. READ more carefully.
BTW, among other weapons, my wife is a crack shot with an AR15. She worked as a tower guard at a maximum security state prison with orders to shoot to kill. They staked their lives on the well founded belief that she would.
There were nearly 60 current and former military members who participated in the insurrection on January 6. Another 10 participants were current and former members of law enforcement. Those folks had no problem attacking their own brothers and sisters with spears, bear spray, metal pipes, etc. Do you think for one instant they would have a problem attacking you and your family if your politics didn't mirror theirs?
On a somewhat related note, Trump ordered the U.S. Park Police and the National Guard to use tear gas and other forms of excessive force on peaceful protestors so he could pose for a photo op at a church. That was June of last year. On October 9th, a plot to kidnap and murder Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer was discovered and stopped. Two of those arrested were former military. How about U.S. Army Veteran Tim McVeigh? He murdered 168 men, women and children, and maimed another 700. In November of 2009, U.S. Army Major, Dr. Nidal Hasan executed 13 and wounded 30 more at Fort Hood, his home base. In fact, there are many examples of military members who turned to mass murder as a way to express themselves while they were still military members.
While you are correct when you say that 'not a lot' of US troops would be willing to open up on American citizens, there is cause for concern for the number that has.
source
source
source
Having lived in Toronto most of my life (but not for the past almost 15 years) my experience was similar. The very rare gun death was usually gang-related and in the worst areas of Toronto. I knew of only two people who owned a pistol - a client and friend movie actor who had concerns about personal safety and had a permit, although I never saw his gun, and a biker client who didn't have a permit for one and the best I could do was get him a suspended sentence, so he walked (one of the only two criminal cases I had during my whole practice). Even today, Canada experiences a gun-violence rate either one eighth or one sixth (not sure) of that of the USA. Of course, now I have absolutely no fear whatsoever of experiencing gun violence.
Oh, and I forgot to add that I am also fully aware of Americans' pride and joy in their armaments. Many years ago, when vacationing in my golf condo in Florida (inherited by my brother and myself from our parents) our next door neighbour brought his pistol in to show it to me. He was so proud of it. He asked me if I wanted to hold it, but no way, i was totally repelled by it - he was so disappointed. But I don't criticize little kids with toy guns because that would make me hypocritical - when I was a little kid I had a water pistol, and as I grew a little older a had a cap pistol that I loved for the noise and smoke it made. But then I grew up.
America's girls and boys
MUST have their lethal toys
It's not easy to read, but the sign on that store says "AMMOLAND".
It's not easy to recognize, but the blue smoke says 'phony'.
I can't open the picture you posted, and since you directed it to me I assume you meant for me to see it. You most likely copied it directly from a google picture and then pasted it here. For me to see it you would have to copy and save the picture to your computer's picture library, make sure it is regular jpg format, and then copy it from your picture library and paste it here.
Says Magnaport to me.
Ya got that right.
AR-15 sales will go up in California until people there get them and because they are not going to be banned sales will level off after a while
The NRA constantly sends me literature based on fear.
Fear of the other and fear of government regulations.
Jumping the gun a bit( pun intended) there is still a whole appeals process that needs to be gone through, for now , cali still has its regulations intact pending the process.
I think this is one of the best decisions of a court since Roe vs Wade, guns and abortion are both rights of Americans