FINALLY? BREAKING: FPC Wins “Assault Weapon” Lawsuit in Historic Victory for Second Amendment Rights SAN DIEGO, CA (June 4, 2021) — Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that Judge Roger T. Benitez of the Southern District of California has issued an opinion in Miller v. Bonta (previously Miller v. Becerra), holding that California’s tyrannical ban on so-called “assault weapons” is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The opinion, along with other filings in this case, can be viewed at AssaultWeaponLawsuit.com. In 2019, FPC developed and filed Miller v. Becerra, a federal Second Amendment challenge to California’s Assault Weapons Control Act (AWCA) ban on common semiautomatic arms with certain characteristics, including those with ammunition magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds. Throughout the lawsuit, FPC argued that the State’s ban prohibits arms that are constitutionally protected, no more lethal than other certain arms that are not banned, and commonly possessed and used for lawful purposes in the vast majority of the United States. In the opinion, the Court ruled that many categories of firearms California bans as so-called “assault weapons” are protected by the Second Amendment, and that “[t]he Second Amendment stands as a shield from government imposition of that policy.” It went on to order an injunction against “Defendant Attorney General Rob Bonta, and his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with him, and those duly sworn state peace officers and federal law enforcement officers who gain knowledge of this injunction order or know of the existence of this injunction order,” preventing them “from implementing or enforcing” the following: California Penal Code §§ 30515(a)(1) through (8) (defining an “assault weapon” by prohibited features); § 30800 (deeming those “assault weapons” a public nuisance); § 30915 (regulating those “assault weapons” obtained by bequest or inheritance); § 30925 (restricting importation of those “assault weapons” by new residents); § 30945 (restricting use of those registered “assault weapons”) ; §30950 (prohibiting possession of those “assault weapons” by minors); and, the penalty provisions §§ 30600, 30605 and 30800 as applied to “assault weapons” defined in Code §§ 30515(a)(1) through (8). “In his order today, Judge Benitez held what millions of Americans already know to be true: Bans on so-called ‘assault weapons’ are unconstitutional and cannot stand,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “This historic victory for individual liberty is just the beginning, and FPC will continue to aggressively challenge these laws throughout the United States. We look forward to continuing this challenge at the Ninth Circuit and, should it be necessary, the Supreme Court.” “We are delighted with Judge Benitez’s careful consideration of the law and facts in this case,” commented Adam Kraut, FPC’s Senior Director of Legal Operations. “The State’s ban on these common semi-automatic firearms with common characteristics flies in the face of the Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, and the natural right to keep and bear arms.” “At trial, we presented dispositive evidence that the term ‘assault weapon’ has always been an arbitrary label used by anti-gun governments to ban constitutionally protected firearms,” explained FPC attorney George Lee. “In the end, the State’s rationale for banning these firearms simply could not hold up. This win is a watershed moment for civil rights, and will restore liberty to countless Californians that have been subjected to gross tyranny for years.” “While this victory is most certainly a valuable one, it’s also important to understand how impactful this decision will be in restoring Second Amendment rights not only in California, but across the entire country,” noted FPC Attorney John Dillon. “This landmark trial win points the way to victory everywhere these unconstitutional bans exist.” “We are pleased that the district court engaged in the detailed and thoughtful analysis required when a fundamental constitutional right is at stake,” explained FPC appellate counsel Erik Jaffe. “Unlike some appellate decisions in this area, Judge Benitez held the government to its burdens of proof, recognized the high hurdles the government must overcome when burdening the right to keep and bear arms, and gave the Second Amendment the weight and respect it deserves. Such a standard was rightfully unable to be met by such a broad and oppressive law, leading to a huge victory for the People, their right to keep and bear arms, and FPC. We now must urge the Court of Appeals to give the same respect to that express constitutional right, rather than engage in the ad hoc balancing and functionally zero weighting of a fundamental right that is too often the norm in Second Amendment cases.” Individuals who want to support the Miller v. Bonta case can become a member of the FPC Grassroots Army for just $25 at JoinFPC.org.
Now it has to stand against the antis who will surely challenge it, and demand a full enblock ruling, which depends of how big it goes! I expect to see it go to SCOTUS, and that is a big IF, as in if they will even step in! Fingers crossed!!!
not a coincidence that this CA ruling is in advance of this fall's SCOTUS review of 2A Rights >> it's a big azz legal deal to have your lower court rulings used by SCOTUS - this ruling ties in nicely with the NYC case that made it into the SCOTUS docket ....
They shouldn't be working on this long enough to even need to have their black robes sent to the cleaners. The lower court has done all the work. 2A means EXACTLY what it says. SCOTUS concurs with brief statements by the Justices. Done. We shall see if it's that simple.
What does it mean? (from Calguns.net) 1. A 30 day stay was issued with the ruling. 2. During that 30 day window, CA DOJ can appeal the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 3, If CA DOJ does appeal----> then the stay remains in place until the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals makes a ruling, which can take 2-5 years. 4, If CA DOJ does not appeal ----> then after the 30 day stay is up, CA assault weapons laws will no longer be legal. This is when it will be legal to no longer abide by CA assault weapons laws.
This also affirms the Heller vs D.C. ruling, and further adds to what Scalia wrote! Should be a slam dunk IF if goes that far! SCOTUS might not even hear this case if it came to them, it would then set president in other courts who have upheld bans like this! This is where Chief Justice Roberts lords over all he surveys, we got proof of it when he blocked the court from hearing the election fraud cases even when the entire panel of justices demanded the court hear them, he was afraid of what would happen if they did! Same thing here, if the court suddenly sides with the 2nd properly, it blows everything out of the water and undos a century of anti gun culture!
Assume its appealed... then the 9th Circuit clock begins.... and we see if the work Pres. Trump put in replacing 9th circuit lib justices with real judges bears fruit. They either hear it, or better yet refuse it on its merits... then we have a serious win. The next appeal is then to the SCOTUS, and even they won't side with the libs on this... or this might trigger conservatives to finally revolt. There will be rioting in the streets.. I'm hoping they follow the 9th in refusing to hear it. Then we can party! yep... the key is backing the SCOTUS into a corner.. forcing them to capitulate to the Constitution... (which they should do by default)
Gov. Newsome says he wants the legislature to pass “An Assault Weapons Ban”… He said this last Wednesday… then Friday, Californian Assault Weapons Ban was declared UnConstitutional by a Federal Judge… What is wrong with this picture..
Gav. Is gonna get recalled and he knows it, so he is taking his last shots at We the People to punish us for voting his rotten ass out! He really is the biggest piece of shit to hold office there in some time, and the good people of Cali know it!
I think this year or next will definitely see some changes, good or bad, concerning the 2A. We're holding our breath and hoping for the best. I am currently trying to decide if I want to go through the insanity of going through the ATF paperwork to obtain my first SBR or...simply buy a IWI X95 (a Bullpup) which is even shorter even with a 16 inch barrel yet needs no ATF paperwork. Stupid.
I was really surprised at this ruling, didn't expect it coming from a Judge appointed by Bush II. But I'll take it and sit back down!
SCOTUS has 2A Rights on the fall docket - a NYC case that's even more basic violations than this >>> SCOTUS can use any materials they want in writing up their arguments and the final decision >>> these lesser court decisions are prime material - I'd guess that this judge's almost 90 page rant wasn't a coincidence - he aimed it at SCOTUS ...
I'm thinking he took aim at The Gov'ner first, then Cali and the ninth second! Still, he is a keeper!
Agree he's a keeper. That said, I sincerely hope he was aiming to correct an unjust law, and not at any particular entity other than the law maker's guild (the Cali legislature) as inept and apt to ignore pre-existing law, say like the Constitution.
Speaking of leaders... I lived in CA for many years and all of their shinanigans never discouraged me from having any weapons I wanted.
judges put a little bit of everything into these decisions without mentioning them - they aren't isolated in life and see the crime rate, M13 Cartel rise, ANTIFA & BLM, open border, unemployment, police defunding, and even the Chinese ....
Remember, these Judges are Lawyers in Black Robes, don't expect them to uphold anything, especially if they are political appointments! And we all know about trusting lawyers, especially those who weediled their way through to get where they could be appointed to a bench!
IMHO many people watched the shit show up north and elsewhere in the US and said... OH SHIT! heard over and over defund the police... and such... watched areas where it happened... realized many things... like they are the first line of defense for themselves and their loved ones... then went out and bought a firearm... thinkin these same people then got a message off to their local politicians and such... sayin knock off the bullshit... or we vote different???
