“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. He compared the modular firearm to a “Swiss Army Knife” and noted its use for home defense and civil defense. Eventually, it banned the possession of unregistered “assault weapons” before the latest iteration of the ban was challenged by gun-rights groups in federal court.īenitez said the AR-15’s versatility made it widely popular in the United States, and that popularity is part of what gives it protection under the Second Amendment. The state added more guns and features to the ban. It was instituted in 1989 but has been expanded multiple times in the decades since. “This is an average case about average guns used in average ways for average purposes.”Ĭalifornia’s ban is one of the oldest and most aggressive in the country. Instead, the firearms deemed ‘assault weapons’ are fairly ordinary, popular, modern rifles. Those arms are dangerous and solely useful for military purposes. “The banned ‘assault weapons’ are not bazookas, howitzers, or machineguns. “This case is not about extraordinary weapons lying at the outer limits of Second Amendment protection,” Benitez wrote. He said the state ran afoul of the Constitution in restricting access to them. Judge Roger Benitez ruled the guns targeted by California are in common use. The court found the state’s ban on the sale of AR-15s and other popular rifles violated the Second Amendment. Posted in Democrats, Supreme Court, video | 15 Comments »Ī federal judge ruled Friday that California’s “assault weapons” ban is unconstitutional. Bruen, Roger Benitez, Supreme Court, video
Bonta, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Heller, Democrats, Firearms Policy Coalition, gun control, Miller v. Tags: 9th Circuit Court, Anthony Miranda, Assault Weapon, California, DC vs. It would be nice if the citizens of California could enjoy the Second Amendment rights enjoyed by American citizens in the overwhelming majority of the other 49 states… Also, all the harm California claims that will be suffered if the state is lifted has also been found 100% illegitimate prior by Benitez himself.” California “acts as if Judge Benitez did not consider text as informed by history, when in fact he actually did in his original ruling.Something that was put in place or didn’t pop up until the 1930s or the 1940s or 50s doesn’t actually align with the historical pedigree that the supremeĬourt commands that courts must look at.” “Benitez ultimately found that those arguments were exactly the type that the Supreme Court and Heller broadly caution courts against when deciding whether analogous regulations were long-standing.To whit: “Prior to the 1990s, there was no national history of banning weapons because they were equipped with features like pistol grips, collapsible stocks, flash hiders, flare launchers or barrel shrouds.”.The district court “found that California’s ban on modern firearms was not one of the presumptively lawful measures that was identified in Heller, and also found that the ban on modern firearms has no historical pedigree.”.
California also falsely announced that in striking down the two-step approach, the Supreme Court had created a new legal framework, when in fact they had merely explicitly affirmed the existing framework of Heller.In short, California was still trying to argue that the two-step approach to exercising Second Amendment would be upheld on appeal despite the fact that the Supreme Court had explicitly bitch-slapped the two-step approach into oblivion.“ just obliterated all the State of California’s arguments in their reply, and they completely trapped the State of California with their own words.”.This was the State of California’s effort to stall this case out as long as possible because that’s really one of the only cards they have left.” California “requested that the Ninth Circuit vacate Judge Benitez’s ruling and remand the case back down to him for him to have to completely rehear the case all over again from square one.“The state of California just backed themselves into a major corner in the California ‘assault weapons’ ban case, Miller v Bonta.”.In an attempt to subvert the Supreme Court’s clear directions in the Bruen decision, California’s gun grabbing Democrats have actually made their case weaker through their own arguments.
0 kommentar(er)
