A federal judge has struck down California's ban on so-called "assault weapons," declaring in his ruling that the state of California continues to willfully misrepresent landmark decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, and continues to trample the Second Amendment rights of Golden State residents by turning law-abiding citizens into felons in a quest to disarm would-be mass shooters.
On Oct. 19, U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez declared unconstitutional California's ban on AR-15 rifles and other semiautomatic firearms designated by the state as "assault weapons."
"... The Second Amendment takes certain policy choices and removes them beyond the realm of permissible state action," Benitez wrote in his opinion. "California’s answer to the criminal misuse of a few is to disarm its many good residents.
U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez
| wikipedia.org
"That knee-jerk reaction is constitutionally untenable, just as it was 250 years ago. The Second Amendment stands as a shield from government imposition of that policy.
"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," Benitez said.
The judge further entered an injunction barring the state from enforcing the law. However, Benitez put a stay on his order for 10 days, apparently to allow California Attorney General Rob Bonta the chance to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Bonta immediately filed a notice of appeal. In a statement released immediately following Benitez's ruling, Bonta called the decision "dangerous and misguided" and said he intended to continue "to fight for our authority to keep our citizens safe from firearms that cause mass casualties" caused by so-called "weapons of war."
The so-called "assault weapons" ban constitutes several laws which, together, make criminals of anyone in California who manufactures, purchases or owns a wide range of semiautomatic weapons that are widely owned elsewhere in the country.
The legal challenges to the state laws were filed in 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. In 2020, Judge Benitez issued a ruling invalidating certain portions of the law. That ruling was put on hold by the Ninth Circuit on appeal, pending expected action from the Supreme Court in the case known as New York State Pistol and Rifle Association v. Bruen.
The Supreme Court handed down its ruling in that case in 2022, strengthening Americans' Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms, by barring states from banning gun ownership or otherwise restricting gun rights, unless the states can demonstrate the regulations are in keeping with America's history and tradition dating back to ratification of the Second Amendment in 1791.
That standard built on the Supreme Court's holding in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the high court ruled would-be gun banners must demonstrate that the weapons that are being restricted are both dangerous and unusual.
Following the Bruen ruling, the case was sent back to Benitez for another look. And on remand, Benitez said the Bruen ruling only further demonstrates how far short the California "assault weapons" ban falls under the Constitution.
In his ruling, Benitez took particular aim at the contention of Bonta and California Gov. Gavin Newsom, and other state officials, that the state's interest in preventing mass shootings should allow the state to strip gun ownership rights from millions of law abiding Californians.
"The American tradition is rich and deep in protecting a citizen’s enduring right to keep and bear common arms like rifles, shotguns, and pistols," Benitez wrote. "However, among the American tradition of firearm ownership, there is nothing like California’s prohibition on rifles, shotguns, and handguns based on their looks or attributes.
"Here, the 'assault weapon' prohibition has no historical pedigree and it is extreme," the judge said.
Judge Benitez further blasted Bonta for appearing to willfully misrepresent the reasoning of the Heller decision.
The judge noted that, while the Supreme Court specifically declared guns can't be banned unless they are both dangerous and unusual, Bonta, on behalf of the state, continuously argued the state could ban any weapons it wishes, so long as it can demonstrate the weapons are either dangerous or unusual.
In this instance, Bonta argued the banned "assault weapons" are "unusually dangerous."
That reasoning is echoed in other briefs filed by other attorneys general defending other "assault weapons" bans in other states, including Illinois. There, federal judges in Chicago sided with the state, upholding the bans on the supposedly "particularly dangerous" weapons.
But in his ruling, Benitez said it is a fact that "all firearms are dangerous."
"The Second Amendment is unconcerned with Nerf guns and foam baseball bats," he said.
The judge further batted down the argument advanced by the state, and upheld by other courts elsewhere, that states should be free to ban "unusually dangerous" weapons, so long as residents continue to maintain access to other kinds of guns.
"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," Benitez said.
"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."
Benitez's ruling, however, may face an uncertain future at the Ninth Circuit court.
Last month, Benitez also struck down as unconstitutional a state law that would ban Californians from owning firearm ammunition magazines that are capable of holding more than 10 rounds at a time. In that case, the state had advanced the same kinds of arguments under Bruen and Heller that it advanced in defending the "assault weapons" ban.
Following Benitez's ruling, however, a group of seven judges on the Ninth Circuit, all of whom were appointed to the court by Democratic presidents, took the unusual and perhaps unprecedented step of short-circuiting appellate court norms and rules, and slapping a hold on Benitez's ruling in the ammo magazine case. The decision will allow that law to remain on the books and in force until the Ninth Circuit hears arguments in the appeal, which could come months in the future or longer.
Bonta indicated he hoped for another action from the left-wing judges on the Ninth Circuit to allow the law to remain in force pending appeal.
The Ninth Circuit has not yet issued any orders in the "assault weapons" ban case.
Plaintiffs in the "assault weapons" ban case have been represented by attorneys George M. Lee, of Seiler Epstein LLP, of San Francisco, and John W. Dillon, of Dillon Law Group APC, of Carlsbad.