U.S. judge overturns California’s ban on assault weapons

[Belsnickel]

https://apnews.com/article/california-gun-politics-government-and-politics-3d72caa3b52667b2a450cae41a087468

Quote:SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A federal judge Friday overturned California’s three-decade-old ban on assault weapons, ruling that it violates the constitutional right to bear arms.

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez of San Diego ruled that the state’s definition of illegal military-style rifles unlawfully deprives law-abiding Californians of weapons commonly allowed in most other states and by the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Under no level of heightened scrutiny can the law survive,” Benitez said. He issued a permanent injunction against enforcement of the law but stayed it for 30 days to give state Attorney General Rob Bonta time to appeal.

Gov. Gavin Newsom condemned the decision, calling it “a direct threat to public safety and the lives of innocent Californians, period.”

In his 94-page ruling, the judge spoke favorably of modern weapons, said they were overwhelmingly used for legal reasons.

“Like the Swiss Army knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment. Good for both home and battle,” the judge said in his ruling’s introduction.

That comparison “completely undermines the credibility of this decision and is a slap in the face to the families who’ve lost loved ones to this weapon,” Newsom said in a statement. “We’re not backing down from this fight, and we’ll continue pushing for common sense gun laws that will save lives.”

Bonta called the ruling flawed and said it will be appealed.

California first restricted assault weapons in 1989, with multiple updates to the law since then.

Assault weapons as defined by the law are more dangerous than other firearms and are disproportionately used in crimes, mass shootings and against law enforcement, with more resulting casualties, the state attorney general’s office argued, and barring them “furthers the state’s important public safety interests.”

Further, a surge in sales of more than 1.16 million other types of pistols, rifles and shotguns in the last year — more than a third of them to likely first-time buyers — show that the assault weapons ban “has not prevented law-abiding citizens in the state from acquiring a range of firearms for lawful purposes, including self-defense,” the state contended in a court filing in March.

Similar assault weapon restrictions have previously been upheld by six other federal district and appeals courts, the state argued. Overturning the ban would allow not only assault rifles, but things like assault shotguns and assault pistols, state officials said.

But Benitez disagreed.

“This case is not about extraordinary weapons lying at the outer limits of Second Amendment protection. The banned ‘assault weapons’ are not bazookas, howitzers, or machine guns. Those arms are dangerous and solely useful for military purposes,” his ruling said.

Despite California’s ban, there currently 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,” the ruling said. “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.”

“In California, murder by knife occurs seven times more often than murder by rifle,” he added.

In a preliminary ruling in September, Benitez said California’s complicated legal definition of assault weapons can ensnare otherwise law-abiding gun owners with criminal penalties that among other things can strip them of their Second Amendment right to own firearms.

“The burden on the core Second Amendment right, if any, is minimal,” the state argued, because the weapons can still be used — just not with the modifications that turn them into assault weapons. Modifications like a shorter barrel or collapsible stock make them more concealable, state officials said, while things like a pistol grip or thumbhole grip make them more lethal by improving their accuracy as they are fired rapidly.

The lawsuit filed by the San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee, California Gun Rights Foundation, Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition is among several by gun advocacy groups challenging California’s firearms laws, which are among the strictest in the nation.

The lawsuit filed in August 2019 followed a series of deadly mass shootings nationwide involving military-style rifles.

It was filed on behalf of gun owners who want to use high-capacity magazines in their legal rifles or pistols, but said they can’t because doing so would turn them into illegal assault weapons under California law. Unlike military weapons, the semi-automatic rifles fire one bullet each time the trigger is pulled, and the plaintiffs say they are legal in 41 states.

The lawsuit said California is “one of only a small handful 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,” frequently but not exclusively along with detachable ammunition magazines.

The state is appealing Benitez’s 2017 ruling against the state’s nearly two-decade-old ban on the sales and purchases of magazines holding more than 10 bullets. That decision triggered a weeklong buying spree before the judge halted sales during the appeal. It was upheld in August by a three-judge appellate panel, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in March that an 11-member panel will rehear the case.

The state also is appealing Benitez’s decision in April 2020 blocking a 2019 California law requiring background checks for anyone buying ammunition.

Both of those measures were championed by Newsom when he was lieutenant governor, and they were backed by voters in a 2016 ballot measure.

I'm interested to see how this plays out. AWBs have been upheld in many challenges over the years. I could be wrong, but this may be the most substantial challenge to them since Heller, which may make a difference.

[Au165]

(06-05-2021, 09:52 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: https://apnews.com/article/california-gun-politics-government-and-politics-3d72caa3b52667b2a450cae41a087468


I'm interested to see how this plays out. AWBs have been upheld in many challenges over the years. I could be wrong, but this may be the most substantial challenge to them since Heller, which may make a difference.

His “test” saying they aren’t bazookas or howitzers is such a crap argument because who gets to decide what is that “extreme” category that the are fine limiting? This is my issue with all the rules around the 2nd amendment, for instance banning felony from owning them, why do we all just agree that some arbitrary rules are cool and others aren’t? I know that argument works both ways, which is why I try to point out to people we restrict these often considered absolute rights all the time but yet people don’t tend to care as long as it isn’t restricting them.

[NATI BENGALS]

^legalize nukes and AI killer drones

Stop infringing on my 2nd amendment right

[NATI BENGALS]

California would be a good place to go shooting though

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Yeah, I'm cautiously optimistic on this one, it involves a 30 day stay which will likely be extended when the case is appealed. However the response from left leaning "news" organization has been predictable.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/05/california-assault-rifles-ban-gavin-newsom-judge-roger-benitez-ar-15-swiss-army-knife

Read this line from this hard news item and discover all you need to know about the integrity of "journalists".

Assault-style rifles are disproportionately used in crime

This is a flat out, bold faced lie, at least as phrased in this article. They are disproportionately under used, representing a minute fraction of gun related crimes. Don't take my word for it, look at the Uniform Crime Report.

This is a deliberate and utterly false statement in a supposed "hard news" story.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

[CarolinaBengalFanGuy]

(06-05-2021, 12:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, I'm cautiously optimistic on this one, it involves a 30 day stay which will likely be extended when the case is appealed. However the response from left leaning "news" organization has been predictable.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/05/california-assault-rifles-ban-gavin-newsom-judge-roger-benitez-ar-15-swiss-army-knife

Read this line from this hard news item and discover all you need to know about the integrity of "journalists".

Assault-style rifles are disproportionately used in crime

This is a flat out, bold faced lie, at least as phrased in this article. They are disproportionately under used, representing a minute fraction of gun related crimes. Don't take my word for it, look at the Uniform Crime Report.

This is a deliberate and utterly false statement in a supposed "hard news" story.

Well of course, how are you going to use them if they are banned?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-05-2021, 05:29 PM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: Well of course, how are you going to use them if they are banned?

Criminals, somehow, find a way.  

[Belsnickel]

(06-05-2021, 12:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, I'm cautiously optimistic on this one, it involves a 30 day stay which will likely be extended when the case is appealed. However the response from left leaning "news" organization has been predictable.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/05/california-assault-rifles-ban-gavin-newsom-judge-roger-benitez-ar-15-swiss-army-knife

Read this line from this hard news item and discover all you need to know about the integrity of "journalists".

Assault-style rifles are disproportionately used in crime

This is a flat out, bold faced lie, at least as phrased in this article. They are disproportionately under used, representing a minute fraction of gun related crimes. Don't take my word for it, look at the Uniform Crime Report.

This is a deliberate and utterly false statement in a supposed "hard news" story.

My only guess is that they would say something about how they are used more than other rifles in crimes. That's the sort of data manipulation they would use to justify their position.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-05-2021, 08:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: My only guess is that they would say something about how they are used more than other rifles in crimes. That's the sort of data manipulation they would use to justify their position.

Very possible, but you're being kind in your assessment.  It's a blatant lie in a hard news item.  People get in a twist over OP-ED's, but I literally don't care who gets an opinion piece in whatever news source.  What I do care about is blatant misinformation and disinformation in articles masquerading as hard news items.  It happens all the damned time.  Like I've stated before Trump's attacks on the media were over the top, but they had a foundation in reality.  Especially when the media decided to ramp it up due to extreme butthurt.

[Au165]

Update: 9th circuit blocked the lower court's ruling on this. This will go on for a while, but this one is potentially heading for SCOUTS.

[Belsnickel]

(06-23-2021, 11:19 AM)Au165 Wrote: Update: 9th circuit blocked the lower court's ruling on this. This one is potentially heading for SCOUTS.

Oh, it was 100% going to SCOTUS. Much like many abortion law cases, this filing was designed to head to SCOTUS from the outset. These organizations know how to work the system in that way.

[Au165]

(06-23-2021, 11:23 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Oh, it was 100% going to SCOTUS. Much like many abortion law cases, this filing was designed to head to SCOTUS from the outset. These organizations know how to work the system in that way.

I wonder if they will actually touch it though? I am not sure they will.

[Belsnickel]

(06-23-2021, 11:24 AM)Au165 Wrote: I wonder if they will actually touch it though? I am not sure they will.

The rules in California are much more arbitrary and capricious than those in MA and Cook County that the SCOTUS refused to hear, before. It's more likely to be granted cert in my opinion. But we shall see.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-23-2021, 11:32 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The rules in California are much more arbitrary and capricious than those in MA and Cook County that the SCOTUS refused to hear, before. It's more likely to be granted cert in my opinion. But we shall see.

That's my opinion as well.  California has been playing loose and fast with gun laws for some time now, and arbitrary is the perfect word for it.  In a lot of ways the gun control push is its own worse enemy.  They were destined to go too far in a deep blue state and I, for one, hope they lose all of their "gains" and then some.  You want to stop gun related homicides?  Aggressively prosecute anyone using a gun in an offense to the full extent of the law.  Anything else is infringement misrepresented as public safety.