A federal court judge has ruled that California’s ban on certain types of semi-automatic rifles, so-called “assault weapons,” is an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment.
Gun rights groups celebrate the ruling in Miller v. Bonta, even though they acknowledge that the fight is not over.
“Federal Judge Roger T. Benitez’ ruling will almost certainly be appealed to the Ninth U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco, but for the moment, the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in the lawsuit ... are celebrating a victory,” a press release from the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) read.
“Judge Benitez is hellbent on making it more dangerous for our kids to go to school, for families to go to the mall or to attend a place of worship,” Mr. Newsom’s statement reads.
“We are working with Attorney General Rob Bonta to fight this extreme and logically incoherent ruling and keep California safer.”
Mr. Newsom announced that Mr. Bonta had filed an appeal of the ruling.
“Falling back on an old, recycled justification, the State says that its ban should stand because a person can have as many other rifles, shotguns, and pistols as one wants … Heller demolished that argument,” the decision reads.
In his decision, Judge Benitez points out that the banned rifles use the same ammunition, perform the same functions, and fire at the same rate as rifles that are not banned. He wrote that legislators selected the rifles to ban based on the rifle’s appearance.
“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 ... In their normal configurations, the so-called ‘assault weapons’ ... are modern firearms commonly-owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes across the nation. Under Heller, McDonald, Caetano, and Bruen, they may not be banned,” Judge Benitez wrote.
The Supreme Court decisions cited by Judge Benitez affirmed that the Second Amendment protects individuals’ right to own and carry firearms outside their homes for self-protection.
In the last decision, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, the high court ruled that the previous method of determining if a gun law is constitutional, so-called means testing, was incorrect.
Under this method, courts weighed whether a law would obtain a favorable objective—such as crime reduction—even if it were not strictly in line with the text of the Second Amendment.
In Bruen, a majority ruled that courts must go by the amendment’s text and the existing laws at the time of the Amendment’s ratification. If the law in question doesn’t strictly follow the Second Amendment’s language or has a “historical analog” from the time of its ratification, it is considered unconstitutional.
The Second Amendment Foundation joined the San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee, California Gun Rights Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, and four private citizens, including James Miller.
Judge Affirmed Plaintiff’s Case
“Judge Benitez has once again affirmed what we have argued since the beginning of this case,” SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut stated. “California’s ban on so-called ‘assault weapons’ is, and always has been, unconstitutional.SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb echoed Mr. Kraut’s sentiments in the SAF statement.
“We were encouraged by last year’s Supreme Court ruling in the Bruen case, which rejected the notion of ‘interest balancing’ when it comes to Second Amendment challenges. Judge Benitez came down on the side of the Constitution and history,” Mr. Gottlieb is quoted.
In his press release, Mr. Newsom said such reasoning is why he is taking his campaign beyond the courts.
“This is exactly why I’ve called for a Constitutional amendment, and this is why I’ll keep fighting to defend our right to protect ourselves from gun violence,” he wrote.
