Judge overturns California’s assault weapon ban

June 5, 2021

A federal judge overturned California’s assault weapon ban on Friday, saying the law is unconstitutional because it violates the Second Amendment.

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez of the Southern District of California compared the AR-15 to a Swiss Army knife in his ruling. The judge found that most people use military-style rifles legally.

In 1989, California prohibited the sale of weapons that have “such a high rate of fire and capacity for firepower that its function as a legitimate sports or recreational firearm is substantially outweighed by the danger that it can be used to kill and injure human beings.”

Judge Benitez stayed his ruling for 30 days, to allow California Attorney General Rob Bonta time to appeal and seek a stay from the Court of Appeals.

“Today’s decision is fundamentally flawed, and we will be appealing it,” Bonta said in a press release.


Loading...

21
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
Adam Trask

Good for the second amendment folks. Now they can finally get one of those fancy guns and tear up the target range or blow apart some innocent animal. Let’s just hope that’s all they’re used for.


Francesca Bolognini

I get a real kick out of the folks who see themselves as challenging the US Military with their little collection of weapons of potential death to other civilians and usually innocent people. Seriously? Perhaps you are unaware that they could just drop some ordinance on your “stand-off”, as has happened in the past. And you also tell yourselves that you are prepared to fend off an ever present threat of foreign invasion. By whom? Who is it that you fantasize will swarm over our shores and challenge our freedom with you bravely standing your ground? Please be specific.


I am just curious here. Would love to hear the answer. I have trouble imagining what you are imagining is the threat to your personal freedom. I know putting on a mask during a global pandemic was an egregious affront to your sense of personal entitlement. But I have trouble visualizing the hoards you want the rest of us to believe will endanger our freedom and our lives.


I mean, I would like to know a little more about how ya’ll think. If that term can be applied. If you can come up with even one legitimate scenario, perhaps you wouldn’t appear so paranoid or delusional to the rest of us. You are expecting us to be living in the midst of random people with the potential to massacre innocent civilians in large numbers and I, for one, am curious as to just why any of you feel you need that.


Just asking. A load more “down votes” shows you have no good answer. I’m betting on that.


ViolentFelon

Imagine if North Korea had a second amendment.


Buchon

Or pre-WWII Germany. Or today’s China…


codysan

It’s not a foreign invasion we are afraid of, nor is it the military or the government that gun owners want to overthrow. The second amendment was made to maintain “the security of a free state.” I suggest you do some studies on dictatorships. Maybe you’re the one that should start doing some thinking, rather than making judgemental stereotypes of people. Imagine if African slaves had AR-15’s…


ratherbefishing

LOL. You don’t need a reply, in your self determined omniscience you’ve covered all the requisite bases. It’s a shame that others have a vote in opposition to yours, self-determination is a pesky thing, no?


codysan

I just don’t understand what’s so controversial about having a “free state”


commonsenseguy

I get a kick out ya’ll who can’t handle the shoe on the other foot. I guess your okay with Progressive judges overturning the votes of Californians a few years back on several things. Hypocrites.


FoxtrotYankee

If history teaches us anything, it’s that the military doesn’t always win. Al Qaeda, Isis, Vietkong, American Whigs, all stood up to invading forces with guerilla tactics and firepower that was significantly dwarfed by their opponent. The fact that the invaders retreated — tells the story of why being ‘armed’ actually works.


Now, take ‘war’ out of the equation and look at smaller examples of oppression.


Back in the 60’s the Black Panther’s were “copwatching” in Oakland. If the police made a stop, the Panthers would supervise the interaction — while fully armed (since Open-Carry was legal). Do you think any unarmed black people were shot by police during those supervisions? Obviously, not. Shortly after the “Mulford Act” outlawed the ability to Open Carry in California and we continue to see “Oscar Grant” events.


It sounds like you’re left-leaning. What do you think of all citizens being disarmed and a fascist Trump-like president being in power? For example, all citizens are disarmed, a “Trump” loses the election but then via military force (and propaganda) overthrows the government via coup. Those who peacefully protest are executed in the streets. You know, the exact scenario that is happening today in Myanmar. Would you feel safe and secure knowing you and your neighbors have absolutely no way to defend your community? I’m sure the police would be there to protect you, right?


It might seem far-fetched because you get to browse your phone while sitting in the drive-through at Starbucks, but outside of your bubble it’s very real. And your bubble may not last forever.


Gun control is designed to oppress law-abiding citizens and especially the minorities within.


kevin rise

The right to have arms and form a militia was more so intended as slave upheaval prevention, as were police forces. Any other interpretation is one with the times, but the origins and truth matter, blacks could not own guns during the founding of these rights, nor for a long time afterward including up to so recent, many of your lifetimes, the civil rights in the 60s. Npr, I can reference, places with more gun regulations have less mass shootings, and nationalism is a massive influence in these crimes. Nationalism ends empires.


Messkit

Any free Black was fully in his right to own and carry arms, since BEFORE the American Revolution.


Militias were not only very common in towns and villages throughout the early frontier, but nearly all were required to participate. The 2ndA was written at a time, when the arguments for and against a standing Army were still being debated. 80% of the Continental Army, was made of militia members, NOT enlisted Soldiers. The absolute basis of the 2ndA, was to have a viable resistance to tyrannical government…much like the one Americans just fought against for 8 years. The entire concept of the US Constitution, is to limit the power of government.


Slavery was hotly contested by the Founding Fathers, and the practice of it was gradually being diminished by law and rote. The Republican party was specifically founded in 1852, to abolish slavery in the US. Democrats fiercely fought against any rights or privileges being given to Blacks, demanding “states rights” be law above all else. War was declared. Immediately after the Civil War, Republicans passed numerous bills and laws giving Blacks full Constitutional freedoms, each one thwarted by Democrat politicians, or totally ignored by those states run by Democrats. In turn, Democrats gave us Jim Crow laws, nationwide federal segregation, and the KKK.


Despite raving against civil rights bills for 100 years (Al Gore’s father filibustered against all of the 1950’s and 60’s Civil Rights bills in Congress, as did Robert Byrd of the KKK…Joe Biden’s self proclaimed mentor), Democrats realized a new voting bloc, and regretfully passed the ’64,’65, and ’68 Civil Rights acts. No, the south didn’t “flip”. No, the parties didn’t “flip” either.


As to your cities or places with heavy gun laws being the safest? I give you Chicago.


The very first Police force, was the Metropolitan Police Service in London…where slavery had already been outlawed, and all citizens had equal rights.


The first in America, was Boston. When officials decided that the violence directed at Blacks and immigrants was too much.


I will give you “Nationalism ends Empires” as that is exactly how the USA came to be.


(CCN, there is nothing rude, crude, or misinformed about this comment. Please, allow it to be published.)


Francesca Bolognini

Wow. Until this gets taken down (which it will) it will create so much raw excitement for all those whose lust to see blood and mayhem in our schools, shopping malls, train stations, etc., etc., Obviously there just isn’t enough killing now to satisfy them.


But the outcome of calling an assault rifle a “Swiss Army knife” will likely backfire BIG TIME . Since there is really no way to equate every crazy yahoo who needs to prop up their insecurity with a BIG GUN as being anything even remotely approaching a “well regulated militia” and all those illegal paramilitary gangs certainly don’t qualify, that whole “anyone who wants one can have anything they want” thing will likely disappear. And high time!


It is just about time for some of those weapons to be taken away for real. Then ya’ll will have to find some other way to get off besides shooting things or animals or whatever you do with them. Perhaps if you are concerned about who is running the government, you could get involved, which was the intent of our founders, rather than sitting at home stroking your gun and fantasizing killing people who don’t vote for your “team”..


I’m sure that the Law Enforcement that ya’ll purport to support so avidly would much rather not have to worry about running into some whack job with an AK every time they go out on a call. Ask one.


ViolentFelon

1) All able-bodied males aged 17 to 45 are unorganized militia (10 U.S. Code § 246).

2) To be regulated is to be in a combat-ready condition (e.g. army regulars vs irregular infantry or guerrillas).

3) To be a combat-ready member of the “unorganized militia,” which is necessary to the security of a free State, my right to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.


Francesca Bolognini

I’m sure you’ll come in real handy.


Francesca Bolognini

Perhaps if all you wanted to possess was a device that fired one shot at a time, not very accurately and took significant time to reload,, I would be more inclined to agree with you. The irony of the above citations is that you don’t seem to consider being classified as militia, for whatever purpose the government might dictate, without your consent, to be any sort of overreach.


varian08

Well ,this is your interpretation, and i do not agree with it.

They are many other things in life ,other than guns,to be loved.


mullyman

F B I respect your opinion but this is just another automatic rifle and was given the name assault rifle to make it sound like a evil thing. Have you ever heard of this gun going out by itself and shooting someone? It’s the person behind the gun that’s the problem.as you can shoot a lot of bullets at once with any automatic rifle. The majority of the people who own these types of guns don’t go around killing people. I don’t have any desire to own one but the people who do should be allowed to if they follow the laws to have one. Do you feel that Alcohol should be outlawed as the person who uses it and kills someone ” more than this gun ” may not of killed that person if Alcohol was illegal or they could get it on the black market like they can the AR and anything else they want. When Biden lets China take us over because of all his cuts to make us weak you may want to have a AR owning friend around.


Gordo

I asked two officers tonight what they thought about this decision and they said they thought the judge’s decision was right. They also said that a lot of cops own these types of rifles for hunting and recreational shooting. I will continue asking officers I know what they think about this ruling, but as of now, it’s 2 to 0 in favor of striking down the ban.


I asked them if they worry about facing a nut armed with an assault weapon and they said yes, but not anymore than a nut armed with any kind of gun. They said the officer who was killed in SLO was shot with a hunting shotgun.


They said we needed “nut control” more than gun control. Not sure how we control the “nuts”, but there it is.


skidmark

Finally! A glimmer of hope…


Buchon

My own view of California “assault weapons” has changed dramatically since 1989. Back then, I was gravely concerned, even paranoid about being in compliance with the laws. No more. Not after more than 30 years of ridiculous, ever-changing laws and self-serving politics from a bunch of losers.


I purchase all of my firearms legally here in CA. If I have a desire to aesthetically modify one of my AR-15 pattern rifles – modifications that will in no way change the operation of the firearm, then I do it. Even if the aesthetic-only change magically makes the firearm illegal in CA, based upon the state’s labyrinthine network of crazy, often conflicting rules.


I simply don’t care anymore. Things have become that absurd, that political when it comes to firearms in this state.


Maven

Does no good for the judge to make this correct ruling if he is just going to stay it’s implementation.