Stranger Than Fiction: California Judge Nixes “Assault Weapons” Ban June 7, 2021 By David Bronson
Before reading this post, we strongly urge you to sign up for our free newsletter. It could be the only lifeline to free thought and commentary on pro-freedom, free society and love of the outdoors. We can no longer rely on social media. See above to subscribe.
Pictured: Soon-to-be-legal purchases for Californians
I don’t know about you, but I’m going out and buying a lottery ticket today.
Here’s a sentence that I never thought I’d have the joy of writing: A California judge has just dismissed California’s so-called “Assault Weapons” ban in a decision that is nothing less than a massive bitch- slap to every single nonsensical argument that anti-gunners have made against semi-automatic, civilian-legal rifles.
Man, that felt good! Now on to the notice that we received this morning from our friends at the Second Amendment Foundation, who got the ball rolling on today’s decision with the case Miller v. Bonta.
The Second Amendment Foundation has won a significant court ruling in the case of Miller v. Bonta , which challenged the constitutionality of California’s ban on so-called “assault weapons,” with U.S. District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez declaring the state’s statutes regarding such firearms to be unconstitutional.
SAF was joined in this action by the Firearms Policy Coalition, California Gun Rights Foundation, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, Poway Weapons and Gear, Gunfighter Tactical, LLC, and several private citizens including James Miller, for whom the case is named.
“In his 94-page ruling, Judge Benitez has shredded California gun control laws regarding modern semi-automatic rifles,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “It is clear the judge did his homework on this ruling, and we are delighted with the outcome.”
In his opening paragraph, Judge Benitez observes, “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 AR-15 is the kind of versatile gun that lies at the intersection of the kinds of firearms protected under District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and United States v Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). Yet, the State of California makes it a crime to have an AR- 15 type rifle. Therefore, this Court declares the California statutes to be unconstitutional.”
Later in the ruling, Judge Benitez observes, “The Second Amendment protects modern weapons.” A few pages later, he adds, “Modern rifles are popular. Modern rifles are legal to build, buy, and own under federal law and the and the laws of 45 states.” Perhaps most importantly, the judge notes that California’s ban on such firearms “has had no effect” on shootings in the state. “California’s experiment is a failure,” Judge Benitez says.
“There is not much wiggle room in the judge’s decision,” Gottlieb stated. “Today’s ruling is one more step in SAF’s mission to win back firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time.”
Poster Comment:
Has the Ninth Circuit emerged from the Twilight Zone?
I saw a comment at the source which says someone would move to California just to support him. Go ahead if you can find a place to live. Homeless people populate the areas under the interstate highway bridges and in many places they are out in the right lane of traffic, or at least there used to be traffic in that lane. One bus driver who makes $35,000 a year is living in his van.