Posted on 10/19/2023 3:10:46 PM PDT by CFW
U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez delivered another scathing rebuke to the state of California on Thursday, just weeks after declaring the state’s ban on “large capacity” magazines unconstitutional. This time around it was the state’s ban on “assault weapons” that was before the judge, in a case known as Miller v. Bonta. Benitez was unsparing in his criticism of the law, which he says bars ordinary Californians from possessing commonly-owned arms that are protected by the language of the Second Amendment.
Modern semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15 platform rifle are widely owned by law-abiding citizens across the nation. Other than their looks (the State calls them “features” or “accessories”) these prohibited rifles are virtually the same as other lawfully possessed rifles. They have the same minimum overall length, they use the same triggers, they have the same barrels, and they can fire the same ammunition, from the same magazines, at the same rate of fire, and at the same velocities, as other rifles. What is it, then, that animates the State’s criminalization of possessing certain rifles as “assault weapons”? It is that similar rifles have been used in some mass shootings and that by virtue of this law, the legislature hoped to keep these modern weapons out of the hands of mass shooters. The California legislature, at a time in the past when the lower courts did not recognize an individual’s right to keep firearms and in a state that has no constitutional analogue to the Second Amendment, balanced that interest above and against its law-abiding citizens who wanted these firearms for self-defense.....
(excerpt of the judge's ruling continued at link)
(Excerpt) Read more at bearingarms.com ...
More from the order:
“People have heard about the Robb Elementary School shooting in Uvalde, Texas. They have heard about Sandy Hook, Parkland, the Pulse nightclub, and other tragic mass shootings. But they do not hear of the AR-15 used in Florida by a pregnant wife and mother to defend her family from two armed, hooded, and masked home intruders. As soon as the armed intruders entered the back door of her home they pistol-whipped her husband — fracturing his eye socket and sinus cavity. Then they grabbed the 11-year old daughter. The pregnant wife and mother was able to retrieve the family AR-15 from a bedroom and fire, killing one of the attackers while the other fled.”
Again he idiot lawmakers can’t decipher “shall not be infringed”.
ABOUT TIME !!!!!!!
He is working his way to becoming a SCOTUS candidate...
Although, when moochelle is in the WH, the SCOTUS will probably be expanded to 30 in order to represent all sex labels and Islamic law...
The plan by the 9th Circus is to ignore Bruen, overrule Benitez and force the decision to SCOTUS to drag it out another couple years, probably hoping Thomas or another conservative will die.
“the legislature hoped to keep these modern weapons out of the hands of mass shooters”
False.
The legislature hoped to keep these modern weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens.
force the decision to SCOTUS to drag it out another couple years, probably hoping Thomas or another conservative will die.
= = =
And, just before SCOTUS gets it, they will withdraw, and then reintroduce, for another couple of years..
Here is another article on the ruling that is a fun read.
“Benitez Disses Busse in California “Assault Weapons” Decision:”
Now we await the 7th circuit’s decision on the filthy Pritzker’s outrageous ban.
So he could be The Wise Latino.
“So he could be The Wise Latino”
Well, if we gotta have one, beats the crap outta the current one!
I always say to the Democrats that voting is a right and so is owning a firearm.
And applying their beloved 14th Amendment it should be no harder to vote than it is to buy a firearm.
Meaning I want the same strictures on voting that are applied to buying and owning firearms.
Any specifics? Does this ruling eliminate the fixed magazine requirement and the previous “bullet button” requirement?
...as well as essentially render the Constitution impotent.
Of course, it will not require moochelle. There are a (growing) number of radical D's such as senators Jerry Nadler and Cory Booker to name just two who have already tried to do it, who are as eager to try it again. It is the stuff of nightmares.
Several years back the Cali ban was put on hold. Magpul then shipped thousands of magazines to California in cardboard boxes that looked like they were giving California the “finger”. Maybe they will do it again.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSIGc3B6QXzG45nMDl6eTjgKjK1hNiXfgBSyhBAoGYbUpR5IE3Cqh2L6c_D-vFhd3gfesM&usqp=CAU
“Any specifics? Does this ruling eliminate the fixed magazine requirement and the previous “bullet button” requirement?”
I’m not sure of the answer to that question. I’m reading the decision (it is over 70 pages) and have not seen that addressed at all thus far. I’m not really sure of the text of the law that is the subject matter of this litigation and if the “button” ban is part of this law or another. If I find the answer to that question, I’ll let you know.
“Any specifics? Does this ruling eliminate the fixed magazine requirement and the previous “bullet button” requirement?”
I think that detachable magazine law is another case.
Here is an article regarding that law being overturned by the same judge last month. His ruling has been appealed so the law is back in place for the moment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.