California Assault Weapon Ban Declared Unconstitutional

[Rightguide]

Judge rules California assault weapons ban is unconstitutional, violates Second Amendment​

By
Victor Nava
Published Oct. 20, 2023, 12:11 a.m. ET

California’s 33-year-old law banning assault weapons is unconstitutional, violating the right to bear arms, a federal judge declared Thursday.

US District Judge Roger Benitez pointed to the Second Amendment’s right to “keep and bear arms” and the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which established that gun restriction measures must be “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation” in ruling against California’s assault weapons ban.

“Like the Bowie Knife which was commonly carried by citizens and soldiers in the 1800s, ‘assault weapons’ are dangerous, but useful,” Benitez wrote in his 79-page decision.

“But unlike the Bowie Knife, the United States Supreme Court has said, ‘[t]here is a long tradition of widespread lawful gun ownership by private individuals in this country.’”

More here: https://nypost.com/2023/10/20/judge-rules-california-assault-weapons-ban-is-unconstitutional/

Judge Benitez did so with a brilliantly composed ruling that can be read here:

https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/znvnzqnrjvl/10192023california_assault.pdf

 

[dkovic77]

Judge rules California assault weapons ban is unconstitutional, violates Second Amendment​

By
Victor Nava
Published Oct. 20, 2023, 12:11 a.m. ET

California’s 33-year-old law banning assault weapons is unconstitutional, violating the right to bear arms, a federal judge declared Thursday.

US District Judge Roger Benitez pointed to the Second Amendment’s right to “keep and bear arms” and the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which established that gun restriction measures must be “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation” in ruling against California’s assault weapons ban.

“Like the Bowie Knife which was commonly carried by citizens and soldiers in the 1800s, ‘assault weapons’ are dangerous, but useful,” Benitez wrote in his 79-page decision.

“But unlike the Bowie Knife, the United States Supreme Court has said, ‘[t]here is a long tradition of widespread lawful gun ownership by private individuals in this country.’”

More here: https://nypost.com/2023/10/20/judge-rules-california-assault-weapons-ban-is-unconstitutional/

Judge Benitez did so with a brilliantly composed ruling that can be red here:

https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/znvnzqnrjvl/10192023california_assault.pdf

Took you long enough to dig this one up.. guess your ammosexual news was slow this morning.

 

[Rightguide]

From the decision:

VIII. CONCLUSION
The State’s attempt to ban these popular firearms creates the extreme policy that a handful of criminals can dictate the conduct and infringe on the freedom of law-abiding citizens. As Heller explains, the Second Amendment takes certain policy choices and
removes them beyond the realm of permissible state action. California’s answer to the criminal misuse of a few is to disarm its many good residents. That knee-jerk reaction is constitutionally untenable, just as it was 250 years ago.245 The Second Amendment stands
as a shield from government imposition of that policy.

There is only one policy enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Guns and ammunition in the hands of criminals, tyrants and terrorists are dangerous; guns in the hands of lawabiding responsible citizens are necessary. To give full life to the core right of selfdefense, every law-abiding responsible individual citizen has a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear firearms commonly owned and kept for lawful purposes. In early America and today, the Second Amendment right of self-preservation permits a citizen to “‘repel force by force’ when ‘the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent that injury.’”246 Unfortunately, governments tend to restrict the right of armed self-defense. Punishing every good citizen because bad ones misuse a gun offends the Constitution. A state supreme court in 1878 said it succinctly: “If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege.”247 “Today . . . many Americans have good reason to fear that they will be victimized if they are unable to protect themselves. And today, no less than in 1791, the Second Amendment guarantees their right to do so.”248

Plaintiffs in this case challenge California Penal Code §§ 30515(a)(1) through (8) (defining an “assault weapon” by prohibited features), 30800 (deeming certain “assault weapons” a public nuisance), 30915 (regulating “assault weapons” obtained by bequest or inheritance), and 30945 (restricting use of registered “assault weapons”). It is declared that these statutes unconstitutionally infringe the Second Amendment rights of American citizens. These statutes and the penalty provisions §§ 30600, 30605 and 30800 as applied to “assault weapons” defined in §§ 30515(a)(1) through (8) are hereby enjoined.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: Judgment is entered for Plaintiffs. The Attorney General respectfully requests a stay of any judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor for a sufficient period to seek a stay from the Court of Appeals. That request is granted. Therefore, the enforcement of the injunction is hereby stayed for ten (10) days.

The following permanent injunction will be entered:1. Defendant Attorney General Rob Bonta, and his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with him, and those duly sworn state peace officers and federal law enforcement officers who gain knowledge of this injunction order or know of the existence of this injunction order, are enjoined from implementing or enforcing California Penal Code §§ 30515(a)(1) through (8) (defining an “assault weapon” by prohibited features), 30800 (deeming those “assault weapons” a public nuisance), 30915 (regulating those “assault weapons” obtained by bequest or inheritance), 30945 (restricting use of registered “assault weapons”), and the penalty provisions §§ 30600, 30605 and 30800 as applied to “assault weapons” defined in Code §§ 30515(a)(1) through (8).2. Defendant Rob Bonta shall provide, by personal service or otherwise, actual notice of this order to all law enforcement personnel who are responsible for implementing or enforcing the enjoined statute.3. This injunction is stayed for ten (10) days from the date of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 19, 2023 ____________________________________HON. ROGER T. BENITEZSenior United States District Judge

 

[ll74]

ReichGad-"here's the link to the decision, which is worth a read"

Also ReichGad - fuck it's im posting the whole thing because it gave me an orgasm.

 

[Rightguide]

Took you long enough to dig this one up.. guess your ammosexual news was slow this morning.

The ruling dropped yesterday. Just got around to reading it in full and posting it today.

 

[Rightguide]

ReichGad-"here's the link to the decision, which is worth a read"

Also ReichGad - fuck it's im posting the whole thing because it gave me an orgasm.

I didn't post the whole thing it is over 70 pages. Just the conclusion and order for clarity.

 

[ll74]

I didn't post the whole thing it is over 70 pages. Just the conclusion and order for clarity.

Lol..of course

 

[dkovic77]

The ruling dropped yesterday. Just got around to reading it in full and posting it today.

Most read it already, but since it gets you off to think you got the scoop…

 

[phrodeau]

every law-abiding responsible individual citizen has a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear firearms commonly owned and kept for lawful purposes.

The Second Amendment only says arms, not firearms.

 

[AlexBailey]

Yet another reinforcement for the need and eventual inevitability of repealing or amending of the 2a.

 

[Rightguide]

Lol..of course

I know it's bad news for you, Newsom, and the rest of the left but it was a decades-old battle fought by patriotic citizens who prevailed in the end against a monolithic wall of un-American and unconstitutional governance by the communist-oriented Democrat Party in California. At least now the law-abiding in California will have the means to defend themselves against the unbounded criminal chaos Democrats have brought about in the once great state. Several other cases that will bolster that ability are still pending and certain to suffer the same legal fate.

 

[Rightguide]

Most read it already, but since it gets you off to think you got the scoop…

It dropped yesterday. You didn't read it.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Good catch! This is excellent news for sporting rifle enthusiasts in California. The state’s evolving definition of an “assault weapon” is absurd and so convoluted that lawmakers and law enforcement officers don’t even understand it. Thanks for posting.

 

[ll74]

I know it's bad news for you, Newsom, and the rest of the left but it was a decades-old battle fought by patriotic citizens who prevailed in the end against a monolithic wall of un-American and unconstitutional governance by the communist-oriented Democrat Party in California. At least now the law-abiding in California will have the means to defend themselves against the unbounded criminal chaos Democrats have brought about in the once great state. Several other cases that will bolster that ability are still pending and certain to suffer the same legal fate.

It doesn't affect me at all, actually. But you can keep ascribing as you need.

 

[Rightguide]

It doesn't affect me at all, actually. But you can keep ascribing as you need.

It affects California and the 9th Circuit which is much of the western states, including my state, and it is the largest Federal District court. There will be an appeal to the 9th Circuit, and if it has to go back to the SCOTUS it will be upheld as it follows to the letter both Heller and Bruen. It will then have a bearing on every state.

 

[ll74]

It affects California and the 9th Circuit which is much of the western states, including my state, and it is the largest Federal District court. There will be an appeal to the 9th Circuit, and if it has to go back to the SCOTUS it will be upheld as it follows to the letter both Heller and Bruen. It will then have a bearing on every state.

Yes, I get that gun cases are really important to you. Hence my comment regarding your orgasm.

I lobby for additional gun control and will continue to do so. These cases don't change that in any way.

 

[SmokingFap]

Took you long enough to dig this one up.. guess your ammosexual news was slow this morning.

Uh, the ruling was made yesterday. I'd say it's still timely. Try a different zinger.

 

[Rightguide]

Good catch! This is excellent news for sporting rifle enthusiasts in California. The state’s evolving definition of an “assault weapon” is absurd and so convoluted that lawmakers and law enforcement officers don’t even understand it. Thanks for posting.

The problem is the Democrats do not respect the law or the Constitution and knowingly work to subvert them. Sad but true.

 

[dkovic77]

The problem is the Democrats do not respect the law or the Constitution and knowingly work to subvert them. Sad but true.

How’s your candidate and the 14th?

Oh you like the amendments you like.. got it.

Sad..but true.

 

[Bray123]

Lucky you. You can now go to Los Angeles and assault your weapon.

 

[SmokingFap]

The problem is the Democrats do not respect the law or the Constitution and knowingly work to subvert them. Sad but true.

Kinda like all the Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices who testified before Congress that they considered Roe v Wade to be settled law and abortion a Constitutional right before they overturned that decision?

 

[TomTeacher19]

The problem is the Democrats do not respect the law or the Constitution and knowingly work to subvert them. Sad but true.

Democrats who want to amend the constitution don't respect it? The founding fathers wrote it intentionally to be able to be amended, as it has been several times. Pretending it's wrong to amend it actually shows incredible ignorance and disrespect of the Constitution. Of course so does owning firearms unless you are part of a well regulated militia, which are essential when your nation is young and doesn't have a solid military but once you have a solid military you absolutely should not have private firearms - at least if you actually want to respect the founding fathers and their mission with Constitution and this nation. Unfortunately there are a lot of people who are more interested in their own selfish and murderous desires than in loving this country or the Constitution or Americans.

 

[bijedi]

We are aware that the Roberts court sees the 2nd amendment as an individual right as well as it being a near absolute right. This decision is inline with that thinking.

The great thing is thanks to the current court's attack on stare decisis, when the court is more in line with the Warren court's interpretation of the second amendment, they will have no problem throwing out these trash rulings.

 

[HisArpy]

We are aware that the Roberts court sees the 2nd amendment as an individual right as well as it being a near absolute right. This decision is inline with that thinking.

The great thing is thanks to the current court's attack on stare decisis, when the court is more in line with the Warren court's interpretation of the second amendment, they will have no problem throwing out these trash rulings.

The problem with your line of thinking is that these "trash rulings" aren't anything new.

In the past the court has previously decided that 2A rights are individual rights. US v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542 (1876) said that the 2A was an individual right which predated the Constitution and that the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment prevented Congress from taking that right away from the people. Presser v. Illinois, 116 US 252 (1886) agreed with that determination. As did Logan v. United States, 144 US 263 (1892). That's nearly 150 years of precedent which defeats your beliefs.

This line of decisions also include precedent which is supported by modern precedent such as United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) and is continued in the most recent cases (which you call trash) beginning with DC v. Heller, 554 US 570 (2008), continuing with Caetano v. Mass., 577 US 411 (2016), and the most recent case of NYSRPA v. Bruen, 597 US _ (2022).

The logical reasoning in those US Supreme Court cases is also found in state level cases such as Nunn v. State, 1 Ga 243 (1846) as well as Bliss v. Commonwealth, 12 Ky 90 (1822). Other cases which were decided near the time of the founding also show this line of thinking was prevalent at the time the Constitution was ratified.

Basically, what you write above only goes to show that you're uninformed and that you follow the rest of the lemmings in repeating lies which are fed to you by those who have an agenda. An agenda which is intended to keep you dependent and ignorant of the truth. Because if you weren't dependent upon them, they wouldn't have control over you and your life and the moment you begin to realize the truth, that dependency ceases.

 

[HisArpy]

Democrats who want to amend the constitution don't respect it? The founding fathers wrote it intentionally to be able to be amended, as it has been several times. Pretending it's wrong to amend it actually shows incredible ignorance and disrespect of the Constitution. Of course so does owning firearms unless you are part of a well regulated militia, which are essential when your nation is young and doesn't have a solid military but once you have a solid military you absolutely should not have private firearms - at least if you actually want to respect the founding fathers and their mission with Constitution and this nation. Unfortunately there are a lot of people who are more interested in their own selfish and murderous desires than in loving this country or the Constitution or Americans.

So far there hasn't been an attempt at amending the 2nd Amendment.

Perhaps if there ever is one, the world will begin to believe that Democrats respect the Constitution. Until then however, it's rather obvious that they don't.