Federal judge again rules that California’s ban on assault weapons is unconstitutional

[M14 Shooter]

SAN DIEGO (AP) — A federal judge who previously overturned California’s three-decade-old ban on assault weapons did it again on Thursday, ruling that the state’s attempts to prohibit sales of semiautomatic guns violates the constitutional right to bear arms.

Federal judge again rules that California's ban on assault weapons is unconstitutional

A federal judge who previously overturned California’s three-decade-old ban on assault weapons did it again, ruling Thursday that the state’s attempts to prohibit sales of semiautomatic guns violates the constitutional right to bear arms.

apnews.com

I haven't found the actual opinion,. but have read excerpts
Suffice it t say: You man not like Benitez's ruling - but you cannot soundly argue against it.
This will be borne out by the 9th circuits reversal.

It is impossible to soundly argue that a ban on AR15s does not violate the constitution.

 

[1srelluc]

10-day stay.....As much as I like St. Benitez nobody is coming to save CA.

 

[2aguy]

The full 9th will over turn him, with the hope the democrats win in 2024 and a democrat replaces Thomas and Alito with left wing Justices making the ban Constitutional.

 

[2aguy]

SAN DIEGO (AP) — A federal judge who previously overturned California’s three-decade-old ban on assault weapons did it again on Thursday, ruling that the state’s attempts to prohibit sales of semiautomatic guns violates the constitutional right to bear arms.

Federal judge again rules that California's ban on assault weapons is unconstitutional

A federal judge who previously overturned California’s three-decade-old ban on assault weapons did it again, ruling Thursday that the state’s attempts to prohibit sales of semiautomatic guns violates the constitutional right to bear arms.

apnews.com

I haven't found the actual opinion,. but have read excerpts
Suffice it t say: You man not like Benitez's ruling - but you cannot soundly argue against it.
This will be borne out by the 9th circuits reversal.

It is impossible to soundly argue that a ban on AR15s does not violate the constitution.

The opinion is linked here and it is asngood as the other opinions by this judge

Almost every one of the 79 pages of U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez’s opinion striking down California’s ban on so-called assault weapons contains something worth highlighting and probably deserving of a blog post on its own, and we’ll be doing a deep dive into the decision over the coming days here at Bearing Arms. l

SAN DIEGO (AP) — A federal judge who previously overturned California’s three-decade-old ban on assault weapons did it again on Thursday, ruling that the state’s attempts to prohibit sales of semiautomatic guns violates the constitutional right to bear arms.

Federal judge again rules that California's ban on assault weapons is unconstitutional

A federal judge who previously overturned California’s three-decade-old ban on assault weapons did it again, ruling Thursday that the state’s attempts to prohibit sales of semiautomatic guns violates the constitutional right to bear arms.

apnews.com

I haven't found the actual opinion,. but have read excerpts
Suffice it t say: You man not like Benitez's ruling - but you cannot soundly argue against it.
This will be borne out by the 9th circuits reversal.

It is impossible to soundly argue that a ban on AR15s does not violate the constitution.

Here...the link to the incredible opinion.....the left will ignore it, but they won't do this based on facts the truth or reality...

Where is Clayton to tell us ipso facto, post modern reducto ad absurdum....and the other mumbo jumbo he spews to lie about the Right to keep and bear arms...

Today, the Supreme Court has very clearly ended modern interest balancing when it comes to the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment, the Court said, “is the very product of an interest balancing by the people and it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms for self- defense.”10
----
Here, the “assault weapon” prohibition has no historical pedigree and it is extreme. Even today, neither Congress nor most states impose such prohibitions on modern semiautomatic arms. In contrast, laws that punish criminal acts committed with any gun, like the crime of assault with a deadly weapon, remain perfectly constitutional. Those criminal laws are not at issue here.
-----
In any event, the arms the State bans as “assault weapons” are no more dangerous than other arms the State does not ban. The banned arms are just modern versions of rifles, shotguns, and pistols.
----
In any event, the arms the State bans as “assault weapons” are no more dangerous than other arms the State does not ban. The banned arms are just modern versions of rifles, shotguns, and pistols.
--
It is not permissible for a state to ban some books simply because there are other books to read, or to close synagogues because churches and mosques are open. In their normal configurations, the so-called “assault weapons” banned in California are modern firearms commonly-owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes across the nation.31 Under Heller, McDonald, Caetano, and Bruen, they may not be banned.
---
The State argues, and some courts have reasoned, that modern semiautomatic rifles are “most useful in military service” and therefore, can be banned.33 The Supreme Court said no such thing. Caetano addresses this question and says, “Heller rejected the proposition ‘that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.’”34 Heller was
explaining Miller.
---
Under California’s law one commits a crime by simply possessing one of these firearms called “assault weapons.” Likewise, one commits a felony by lending, giving, exposing for sale, offering for sale, keeping for sale, importing into the state, transporting, distributing, manufacturing, or causing to be manufactured one of these firearms. Since possessing one of these prohibited firearms is protected by the Constitution, it should go without saying that criminalizing selling, lending, and manufacturing also impinges on a citizen’s constitutional right to acquire these firearms for self-defense. “This acquisition right is protected as an ‘ancillary right’ necessary to the realization of the core right to possess a firearm for self-defense.”41
---
1. Already Determined: No Historical Pedigree
This Court has previously determined that the State’s ban on modern semi- automatics has no historical pedigree. Prior to the 1990’s, there was no national history of banning weapons because they were equipped with furniture like pistol grips, collapsible stocks, flash hiders, flare launchers, or threaded barrels. In fact, prior to California’s 1989 ban, so-called “assault weapons” were lawfully manufactured, acquired, and possessed throughout the United States.
---
Plaintiffs want to possess and carry firearms deemed “assault weapons” by California Penal Code § 30515. Plaintiffs are law-abiding citizens who want to possess (or keep) and carry (or bear), firearms like the AR-15 rifle that are commonly-owned for lawful purposes. The conduct is covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment. Therefore, Plaintiffs have met their burden of showing that the prohibited firearms fall within the text of the Second Amendment.
----
1. No Prohibitions on Possessing Guns
It is remarkable to discover that there were no outright prohibitions on keeping or possessing guns. No laws of any kind.86 Based on a close review of the State’s law list and the Court’s own analysis, there are no Founding-era categorical bans on firearms in this nation’s history.87
-----
In the Northern States there was no tradition of criminalizing the simple act of keeping or carrying any firearm. There were hardly any firearm laws at all.
----
3. No Gun Laws In The Southern States For 50 Years
South of the Mason-Dixon Line, where slavery was practiced, there were many laws restricting firearms for slaves, African-Americans, and Indians. Setting aside that obviously unconstitutional tradition, among the southern states firearm ownership was largely unregulated for at least the first 50 years after 1791.
----
The state may punish crimes carried out with a gun. But prohibiting the carrying of a gun, by itself, is not within the police power of the state. Huntly reminds its readers, “it is to be remembered that the carrying of a gun per se constitutes no offence. For any lawful purpose--either of business or amusement-- the citizen is at perfect liberty to carry his gun. It is the wicked purpose--and the mischievous result--which essentially constitutes the crime.”189 The United States Supreme Court makes special mention of Huntly in Bruen.190 Reading Huntly and other cases, the United States Supreme Court concludes, “those who sought to carry firearms publicly and peaceably in antebellum America were generally free to do so.”191
----
Governments did, and do, enjoy a police power to criminalize the use of a firearm to commit another crime such as assault. And the police power could be said to include restricting carrying a firearm concealed as long as it does not also restrict openly carrying. However, governments did not possess the power to regulate who among law- abiding citizens could possess firearms. And governments did not possess the police power to regulate which firearms could be possessed and used.
----
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 law- abiding responsible citizens are necessary. To give full life to the core right of self- defense, every law-abiding responsible individual citizen has a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear firearms commonly owned and kept for lawful purposes.

https://saf.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/MIller-Decision-2023.pdf

Again....where is Clayton to tell us about ipso facto, prestidigitation, .....and the other crap he spews every time he supports the unConstitutional assault on the 2nd Amendment.

I like that the Judge specifically calls out Donahue, an anti-gun extremist, for his shoddy research....

 

[JohnDB]

 

[Flash]

Too bad that piece of shit Diane Feinstein was not alive to hear it.



I love this part of the ruling:


Like Baghdad Bob during the first Gulf War in 1991, the State clings to a wish.

The State wants to believe that the firearms prohibited by the “assault weapon” ban are
not commonly owned or are not commonly owned for self-defense.

 

[Flash]

Another excellent point made in the ruling. The Miller case is often quoted by the anti gun nuts as an example where a class of firearms were restricted and they are wrong.


United States v. Miller held that sawed-off shotguns were not protected because there was no evidence that they were useful for military purposes.32 The obvious corollary was that weapons that could be useful for military purposes would be protected by the Second Amendment. It would be a mistake to think Heller and Miller are inconsistent.

A concurring opinion in a decision vacated and remanded by the Supreme Court is not the most persuasive authority. Even so, the very large number of AR-15s owned by citizens who are not using them to commit crimes is sufficient evidence of common use for lawful purposes to be covered by the text of the Second Amendment.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And...
Silence from the anti-gun loons.

 

[Flash]

And...
Silence from the anti-gun loons.

They think the Libtard 9th Court will save their asses.

The 9th will probably over rule the decision because it is staffed with Leftest loons but hopefully the Supremes will make it right.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

United States v. Miller held that sawed-off shotguns were not protected because there was no evidence that they were useful for military purposes.32 The obvious corollary was that weapons that could be useful for military purposes would be protected by the Second Amendment. It would be a mistake to think Heller and Miller are inconsistent.

There is a lot that was wrong with the U.S. vs Miller ruling. Nobody was present to argue for Miller's side, and those arguing in defense of the NFA were pretty much able to make up and claim anything with no one to challenge their claims.

For one thing, it was a fact that sawed-off shotguns were in use, at the time, by our Army. They were colloquially called “trench sweepers”. So the premise that they had no military application was simply false. Had anyone been present to competently argue for Miller's side, the premise that a weapon needed to have a military application to be protected under the Second Amendment might, itself, have been successfully refuted as well.

But taking the Miller ruling at face value, the ban on “assault weapons” might stand, on the basis that they are not genuine military weapons, and that what is really protected is our right to own weapons comparable to those issued to our soldiers, which would be genuine assault riffles, capable of fully-automatic fire.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

…but hopefully the Supremes will make it right.

Has anyone yet asked Diana Ross what she thinks of the issue?

 

[Flash]

But taking the Miller ruling at face value, the ban on “assault weapons” might stand, on the basis that they are not genuine military weapons, and that what is really protected is our right to own weapons comparable to those issued to our soldiers, which would be genuine assault riffles, capable of fully-automatic fire.

Interesting point.

However, if semi autos can be banned because they are not fully auto like military weapons then, the remedy to that is to stop taxing NFA restricted firearms and to vacate the Hughes Amendment.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Interesting point.
However, if semi autos can be banned because they are not fully auto like military weapons then, the remedy to that is to stop taxing NFA restricted firearms and to vacate the Hughes Amendment.

Yes. Given that fully-auto, or at least three-shot burst weapons, are now standard issue to our soldiers, the language of the Miller ruling would seem to clearly protect the right to posses and bear them.

 

[Flash]

The history of the NFA is interesting.

The gangsters of the 1930s were using F-A Thompson machine guns to do their thug work. The Thompsons gave them tremendous fire power. They were also using the fully auto BAR.

Congress knew they couldn't ban those guns because of the Second. They figured they could get away with taxing them. They put a $200 tax on them, which was a lot money back in those days.

Miller was the only real challenge to the NFA law and everything was convoluted because Mr. Miller never showed up and no case was ever put on to argue the NFA was unconstitutional.

The ruling was the Constitution protected weapons in general use by the military it did not protect a sawed off shotgun because the military didn't use them. Of course that was erroneous because the military did use sawed off shotguns in WWI.

The real challenge to the NFA should be to the Hughes Amendment. That is a defacto ban and is illegal. A great example of how the filthy government can take away your rights by "grandfathering" in whatever is in existence.

 

[marvin martian]

Too bad that piece of shit Diane Feinstein was not alive to hear it.



I love this part of the ruling:


Like Baghdad Bob during the first Gulf War in 1991, the State clings to a wish.

The State wants to believe that the firearms prohibited by the “assault weapon” ban are
not commonly owned or are not commonly owned for self-defense.

Hopefully, the news made it down to hell.

 

[2aguy]

Well......waiting for

They think the Libtard 9th Court will save their asses.

The 9th will probably over rule the decision because it is staffed with Leftest loons but hopefully the Supremes will make it right.

And they are also hoping the democrats win in 2024, so they can replace Thomas and Alito, both of whom are in their 80s and likely to either retire or die in the next Presidential term, giving the democrats control of the Supreme Court again......

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well......waiting for


And they are also hoping the democrats win in 2024, so they can replace Thomas and Alito, both of whom are in their 80s and likely to either retire or die in the next Presidential term, giving the democrats control of the Supreme Court again......

Thomas 75
Alito 73

 

[2aguy]

Thomas 75
Alito 73

Thanks, but still.......we can't give the democrats a chance to replace either one, or any of the Justices......

 

[M14 Shooter]

Thanks, but still.......we can't give the democrats a chance to replace either one, or any of the Justices......

Of course not.

 

[Flash]

Thomas 75
Alito 73

If they stay in good health that could be three more administrations.
'
Or they could retire when there is a Republican President.