Federal Judge: California’s Ban on ‘Assault Weapons’ Is Unconstitutional

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

California’s Semi-Auto Ban Overturned

In a landmark ruling, a U.S. District Court judge declared the longstanding California ban on “assault weapons” unconstitutional, sparking widespread reactions.

A Triumph for Second Amendment Foundation (SAF)

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), along with partners like San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee and California Gun Rights Foundation, celebrated their victory in the case known as Miller v. Bonta.

James Miller, one of the private citizens involved, stands as a namesake for the case.

Leading attorneys George M. Lee of Seiler Epstein, LLP and John W. Dillon of the Dillon Law Group, APC represent them.

Judge Benitez Takes a Firm Stand

Judge Roger T. Benitez, in his extensive 79-page decision, made a striking comparison, equating the banning of specific guns to the prohibition of books or religious places.

He emphasized that constitutional rights can’t be selectively applied, rejecting the state’s recycled justification for the ban.

Judge Benitez wrote:

Falling back on an old, recycled justification, the State says that its ban should stand because a person can have as many other rifles, shotguns, and pistols as one wants…Heller demolished that argument. The same argument – that a handgun ban might be justified because government-approved alternatives are available – was rejected in Heller and it is rejected here. Heller said quite clearly that it is no constitutional answer for government to say that it is permissible to ban some guns so long as other guns are allowed. This is not the way American Constitutional rights work. 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. Under Heller, McDonald, Caetano, and Bruen, they may not be banned.

SAF’s Rejoicing and Forward Look

Adam Kraut, SAF’s Executive Director, voiced his contentment, stating that the foundation has always viewed California’s ban as unconstitutional.

He expressed optimism in the light of the recent ruling, confident that their stance was legally and morally right.

Potential Ripple Effects in Washington

Given the recent ruling, SAF anticipates similar repercussions in Washington.

Both states come under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court. SAF’s founder, Alan M. Gottlieb, highlighted the broader implications: if the ban is unconstitutional in California, it’s equally so in Washington.

The Road Ahead: Supreme Court in View?

Drawing attention to the broader horizon, Gottlieb indicated SAF’s readiness for a potential Supreme Court face-off, emphasizing their commitment to the cause.

He expressed confidence in prevailing should the matter escalate to the nation’s highest court.

Judge Benitez Speaks on Self-Defense

In his detailed ruling, Benitez accentuated the pivotal role of guns in self-defense.

He cited various surveys underscoring the high frequency of defensive gun uses in the country, challenging the narrative that portrays these weapons as primarily offensive.

Judge Benitez wrote:

While criminals already have these modern semiautomatics, the State prohibits its citizens from buying and possessing the same guns for self-defense. At the same time these firearms are commonly possessed by law-abiding gun owners elsewhere across the country. Guns for self-defense are needed a lot because crime happens a lot. A recent large-scale survey estimates that guns are needed defensively approximately 1,670,000 times a year. Another report, originally commissioned and long cited by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that there are between 500,000 and 3,000,000 defensive gun uses in the United States each year.

A Paradigm Shift in Gun Rights Discussion

Adam Kraut opined that Judge Benitez’s decision represents a turning point, sending a clear message to gun prohibitionists.

“Judge Benitez’ ruling is a stinging rebuff to the gun prohibition movement,” said Kraut. “His detailed discussion of the history of firearms regulation, along with his dismantling of the state’s arguments and assertions of its experts sends a signal that the days when gun banners could simply attack the Second Amendment without challenge are finished. We will take this challenge to the Supreme Court if necessary, as part of our commitment to restore firearms freedom, one lawsuit a time.”

The ruling, laden with historical and legal discussions, indicates a shifting tide in the gun rights conversation.

SAF reaffirmed its commitment, ready to challenge and restore firearms freedom, one lawsuit at a time.

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