"Assault weapons" ban ruled unconstitutional | Beaufort County Now | Judge applies Heller correctly

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

"Assault weapons" ban ruled unconstitutional

A placard about gun rights in the United States hangs on the wall next to assault rifles for sale at Blue Ridge Arsenal in Chantilly, Virginia, on October 6, 2017. (Photo by JIM WATSON / AFP) (Photo credit should read JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images)

Brietbart is reporting:

California’s “assault weapons” ban was ruled unconstitutional Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

The case, Miller v. Bonta, argued California’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” violated the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment “elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” Heller, 554 U.S., at 635. The Supreme Court clearly holds that the Second Amendment protects guns commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. At the same time, “the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms . . . that ‘have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.’”

He added:

And although the Supreme Court cautioned that the Second Amendment does not guarantee a right to keep and carry “any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose,” Heller, 554 U.S., at 626, lower courts have often cited this proviso about extreme cases to justify gun laws in average contexts. There is no evidence that the Supreme Court intended that language to be a license to avoid its common sense holding in average contexts.

Benitez also noted:

Heller took the already expansive zone of protection for weapons that could be used by the militia and focused on the core use of firearms for self-defense. “The [Heller] Court determined that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right held by the people, and not limited by the prefatory clause — ‘a well regulated Militia’ — only to ‘the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service.’

Benitez also zeroed in on the phrase “assault weapons,” noting, “As an aside, the ‘assault weapon’ epithet is a bit of a misnomer. These prohibited guns, like all guns, are dangerous weapons. However, these prohibited guns, like all guns, can be used for ill or for good. They could just as well be called ‘home defense rifles’ or ‘anti-crime guns.’”

Benitez ruled against the “assault weapons” ban, finding it unconstitutional but issuing a 30-day stay on his injunction in order to give California Attorney General Rob Bonta a timeframe in which to appeal the ruling.

After 30 days, the following ruling is in effect:

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, are enjoined from implementing or enforcing the 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”), and 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).

Miller’s case was supported by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC).

Alan Gottlieb, SAF founder and executive vice president, commented on Benitez’s ruling, saying, “It is clear that the judge did his homework on this ruling, and we are delighted with the outcome.”

 

Go Back

HbAD0

Latest Op-Ed & Politics

Often times in politics, we hear phrases which sound simple and unassuming, but we later find that there is far more behind those words than what we know.
Experts say North Carolina will be on the vanguard of emerging technologies in the insurance and financial products sector if a bill that has passed both chambers of the General Assembly becomes law.
Dan McLaughlin of National Review Online ponders Vice President Kamala Harris’ approach to her role as the Biden administration’s point person on the Southern border.
Updated forecast confirms historic opportunity to meet the needs of North Carolina communities and ensure a shared recovery from the pandemic
Helen Raleigh writes at National Review Online about an aspect of “clean” energy that its advocates try to hide.

HbAD1

One customer caused the major internet outage that made several well-known websites crash earlier this week, according to the cloud service at the root of the problem.
Many people have resisted getting what has been described as "The Vaccine Shot".
Emily Brooks of the Washington Examiner highlights a new national Republican effort to promote South Carolina’s Sen. Tim Scott.
Governor Roy Cooper signed the following bills into law today: Senate Bill 248 & 2 others
We will offer this allotment of three with more to come; some old, most new, but all quite informative, and, moreover, necessary to understanding that in North Carolina, there is a wiser path to govern ourselves and our People.

HbAD2

The State Board of Elections invites public comment on an amendment to a permanent rule related to the arrangement of official ballots.

HbAD3

 
Back to Top