California’s Assault Weapons Ban Overturned by Federal Judge
A federal judge has ruled that California's 33-year-old law banning assault weapons is unconstitutional, violating the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. The decision, issued on Thursday by US District Judge Roger Benitez, is a major blow to the state's strict gun control measures, which have been challenged by several lawsuits in recent years.
The law, enacted in 1989, prohibits the ownership of high-capacity, semi-automatic rifles, such as the AR-15, which have been used in many mass shootings across the country. Judge Benitez argued that the law is "extreme" and has "no historical pedigree", as required by a landmark Supreme Court decision last year that changed the test courts are to use when determining the constitutionality of firearms regulations⁴.
"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 decision⁵. "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.'"
Benitez also contended that the law infringes on the rights of "law-abiding" citizens who use assault weapons for self-defense, hunting, or recreational purposes. He cited examples of Californians who defended themselves or their families from home invaders or wild animals with such firearms. He also dismissed the state's argument that the law aims to prevent mass shooters from gaining access to assault weapons, saying that such criminals can easily obtain them from other sources or use other types of weapons.
"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," he added.
The ruling was immediately denounced by California officials and gun control advocates, who vowed to appeal it to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Governor Gavin Newsom called the decision a "direct insult to every victim of a mass shooting and their families." He also criticized Benitez as a "stone-cold ideologue" who has repeatedly ruled against California's gun laws¹.
"Californians' elected representatives decided almost 35 years ago that weapons of war have no place in our communities. Today, Judge Benitez decided that he knows better, public safety be damned," Newsom said in a statement⁴.
Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a notice of appeal shortly after the ruling, arguing that it is "dangerous and misguided." He also requested a stay of the decision until the appeal is resolved, meaning that California's assault weapons ban remains in effect for now. Benitez granted Bonta's request, noting that he was bound by precedent to do so⁵.
"Weapons of war have no place on California's streets," Bonta said in a statement⁴. "This has been state law in California for decades, and we will continue to fight for our authority to keep our citizens safe from firearms that cause mass casualties."
The lawsuit Benitez ruled on was filed by several gun rights groups and individuals, who claimed that California's assault weapons ban violated their Second Amendment rights and prevented them from exercising their right to self-defense. They were represented by attorney John Dillon, who praised the decision as "constitutionally sound" and "addresses the many inadequacies of the State’s arguments and so-called justifications for this unconstitutional ban."¹
The ruling is one of several that have been issued by Benitez in favor of gun rights in recent years. In 2021, he struck down California's ban on high-capacity magazines, which limit the number of bullets a firearm can hold. He also ruled against the state's background check requirement for ammunition purchases and its prohibition of certain types of ammunition. However, all of these decisions have been appealed by the state and are pending before the Ninth Circuit⁶.
The outcome of these cases could have significant implications for gun laws not only in California, but across the nation. Many Democratic lawmakers and President Biden have expressed support for enacting federal legislation similar to California's assault weapons ban and other gun control measures. However, such proposals face strong opposition from Republican lawmakers and gun rights advocates, who argue that they infringe on constitutional rights and do not reduce crime or violence.
The issue of gun regulation is also likely to reach the Supreme Court again soon, as the justices have agreed to hear a case challenging New York's restrictive law on carrying concealed handguns in public. The case, which will be argued in the next term starting in October, could result in a major expansion of Second Amendment rights or a reaffirmation of states' authority to regulate firearms.
Source: Falcon News, 10/20/2023
(1) California assault weapons ban is overturned by federal judge | CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/20/us/judge-blocks-california-assault-weapon-ban/index.html.
(2) Judge rules California assault weapons ban is unconstitutional. https://nypost.com/2023/10/20/judge-rules-california-assault-weapons-ban-is-unconstitutional/.
(3) Federal Judge Strikes Down California’s Decades-Old ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban: ‘No Historical Pedigree’. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/federal-judge-strikes-down-california-s-decades-old-assault-weapons-ban-no-historical-pedigree/ar-AA1iwXtd.
(4) Federal judge rules California ban on high-capacity gun magazines .... https://www.jurist.org/news/2023/09/federal-judge-rules-california-ban-on-high-capacity-gun-magazines-unconstitutional/.
(5) California federal court allows ban on large-capacity gun magazines to remain in effect. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/california-federal-court-allows-ban-on-large-capacity-gun-magazines-to-remain-in-effect/ar-AA1i3Ize.
(6) Federal judge strikes down decades-old California ban on assault weapons. https://au.lifestyle.yahoo.com/federal-judge-strikes-down-decades-045730138.html.
