9th Circuit Puts the Kibosh on California ‘Assault Weapon’ Ruling

9th Circuit Puts the Kibosh on California 'Assault Weapon' Ruling
California Attorney General Rob Bonta cheered the ruling. (Photo: Rob Bonta Facebook)

In a widely anticipated move, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals blocked California judge Robert Benitez’s ruling that overturned the state’s “assault weapon” ban and called the law a “failed experiment.”

In its one-page ruling, the court issued a stay on implementing Benitez’s decision until another related “assault weapon” case, Rupp v. Bonta, plays out. The stay remains in effect until “further order of this court,” according to the document.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta had vowed to appeal the decision, and he celebrated in a Twitter post the 9th Circuit’s ruling.

“This leaves our assault weapons laws in effect while appellate proceedings continue,” he said. “We won’t stop defending these life-saving laws.”

SEE ALSO: Judge Benitez’s California Assault Weapon Ruling is Pure Gold, and the Media Totally Missed the Point

The Firearms Policy Coalition, a party in Benitez’s case, Miller v. Bonta, blasted the 9th Circuit’s ruling as a decision to choose “tyranny over human lives and rights.”

“Tens of millions of Californians have suffered under the State’s unconstitutional and oppressive gun control scheme for far too long,” the organization said. “Today the Ninth Circuit chose government tyranny over human lives and rights. If the federal courts wish to remain a relevant part of this Republic’s system of ordered liberty, then they should do their [well-paid, lifetime-tenure] jobs and stand up for the rights of the people of the United States in every case—not merely when it is convenient to them and anti-rights radicals like Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta.”

SEE ALSO: California Lawmakers Move to Force ‘Microstamping’ on Gun Industry

The three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit that issued that stay is composed of U.S. Circuit Court Judges Dorothy Nelson, Jacqueline Nguyen, and Barry Silverman, who were appointed by Presidents Carter, Obama, and Clinton, respectively.

The 9th Circuit is a historically anti-gun court and has issued a wide variety of rulings upholding some of the country’s most restrictive gun control policies.

The Supreme Court has punted on the “assault weapon” question in recent years, but this year, the court agreed to hear a gun control case for the first time in over a decade. With the addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, many observers hope the court has enough pro-2A justices to rule in favor of gun rights. Whether the Miller case ends up at the Supreme Court or another “assault weapon” case, it’s likely the court will have an opportunity to tackle the topic in the next few years.

***Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! All Local Sales are FREE!***

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • SEABEETOM January 7, 2022, 1:23 pm

    Hey Rob, Yes Rob. You deserve no respect for you violation of Oath Of Office. You must resign your office and go into private practice if you can find someone to hire you.

  • Bill July 23, 2021, 10:10 am

    The courts have again ignored the US Constitution aka “The law of the land” once again by ignoring the exact words of the 2A. The rights of the sheeple are once again being denied by clever words of art to suppress their inherent rights and freedom.

    The warnings of tyrannical government have been told for decades to dumbed-down state residents and citizens that have no clue whatsoever, and can only wail and cry at the present outcome. When will they wake up and find they were the ones who put the chains of slavery on themselves? The public must bear the full blame for doing nothing but complain like children. Are there no more patriots?

  • Norm Fishler June 26, 2021, 1:10 am

    Dr. Michael Savage was right on the money when he called the 9th Circuit, “The 9th Jerk-it Court of Schlemiels.”

  • Mont Schroeder June 26, 2021, 12:02 am

    Guns don’t kill people, cars do! The dummycratz need to start banning cars, then the oil companies will put a contract out on them and that will end all this leftist BS!

  • John June 25, 2021, 5:56 pm

    As always the ban is useless as we know since crooks don’t go by laws, they are just a feather in the cap of the failed lawyers who work for the government. Real lawyers have their own business.

  • oldedude June 25, 2021, 12:21 pm

    “These life saving laws…” REALLY? Take every city with an extreme (and burgeoning) crime rate and you will find a city with extremely restrictive gun laws. Chicago is a prime example – the last gun store in Chicago closed years ago because it’s almost impossible to sell (or buy) a gun there. Yet halfway through 2021, the city is well on its way toward breaking last year’s record (and last year was a record). Mayor Lightfoot blames guns coming in from Indiana, but her own police and court records don’t support that argument. The failure is entirely Chicago’s. Ditto DC. Ditto Baltimore. Ditto San Fran and LA. One would think the commonality of these experiences would suggest an answer, but, for the Leftist/Liberals, logic is a foreign concept. Oh, and since knives and blunt objects actually are involved in more homicides than guns, can Mayor Lightfoot explain how further gun restrictions will make her city a safer place? Yeah, I didn’t think so…

  • Billy Long June 25, 2021, 12:08 pm

    “We won’t stop defending these life-saving laws.”

    ….meanwhile, he can’t point to *one* *single* life that has been saved by his asinine law. not one.

  • Michael J June 25, 2021, 10:53 am

    This is how Bonta, Becerra, Harris and all democrats game the system. If lower courts rule in their favor, game over the law stays. If ruled against, they take their challenge to the 9th Circuit, but the law still stays. If 9th rules in their favor game over, it’s law. If against, they challenge the 9th to make sure they really meant their decision, if the 9th changes their mind it’s law. If they lose, the law remains, and they take their challenge to the Supreme Court which may or may not hear the case but regardless the bad law stays.

  • Paul R Labrador June 25, 2021, 9:28 am

    Did anyone really have any doubt that the 9th Circuit Court would do that? I mean, c’mon, they are the only reason why the Left Coast gets away with all of their crazy laws.

  • III Percenter June 25, 2021, 8:40 am

    As long as those we elect to honor and uphold our Constitution and our Bill of Rights continue to dishonor their oath to “preserve, protect and defend” the same but rather hold allegiance to lobbyists, big tech, their political party and the NWO globalist agenda, I am no longer obligated to respect or obey any of them or any law they pass that is in even the slightest conflict with The Constitution and Bill of Rights. Rather I/we are ALL duty bound to peacefully resist any and every law, deed, mandate or action they attempt to implement regardless of motive that is counter to those tried and true principles”. I will not comply. It no longer matters what the 9th Circuit rules.

  • SuperG June 24, 2021, 9:20 am

    The 9th Circuit is made up of liberal septuagenarians and octogenarians, who should have retired decades ago. They live in their ivory towers and dodder about thinking that they understand law. They hold the record for the most overturned decisions of all the circuit courts.

  • Mark N. June 23, 2021, 2:20 am

    It was a chicken shit ruling. Typically, a motion for stay requires a showing of a probability of success on the merits and a risk of harm unless a stay is issued. But instead of addressing the State’s motion for stay (that was well defended by Plaintiffs’ counsel and numerous amici), the Court simply punted, staying the case because of at least one (,maybe two) other cases pending before the court whose resolution may impact the ruling in this case. Thus it never addressed the merits (or absence thereof) of the State’s stay motion. To make matters worse, it didn’t just stay the appeal, as would normally be done in like circumstances, it stayed Benitez’s ruling itself without ever having to say why a stay would be appropriate. And the final ignominy is that the first case in line at the Ninth was stayed pending the Supreme Court ruling in the NYSPRA v. Corlett concealed carry case, and the second case was stayed pending the first case. The Supreme Court will not likely issue its decision in the Corlett case for another year, and that means that Rupp will not be decided for at least another year after that, and Duncan (an attack on the 10 round mag limit that was argued today) a year after that. Justice, it would seem that justice will be delayed for years to come.

    I have no doubt the antis are thrilled that the assault weapons ban will remain on the books for years.

Send this to a friend