California: FPC Wins “Assault Weapon” Lawsuit in Historic Victory for Second Amendment Rights

Davo308

Major Hide Member
Full Member
Minuteman
Feb 18, 2019
1,296
3,352
Firearms Policy Coalition
BREAKING: FPC Wins “Assault Weapon” Lawsuit in Historic Victory for Second Amendment Rights
FRIDAY, JUNE 04, 2021 POSTED BY FIREARMS POLICY COALITION
GET UPDATES AND ALERTS VIA EMAIL
(WE NEVER SPAM OR SHARE YOUR INFO)

Email
Email address
Home News
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 Iwin points the way to victory everywhere these unconstitutional bans exist.”


California will almost certainly contest this, but if it happens it would become active July 4th.
 

Davo308

Major Hide Member
Full Member
Minuteman
Feb 18, 2019
1,296
3,352
Basic summary...

A 30 day stay was issued with the ruling.

During that 30 day window, CA DOJ can appeal the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

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.

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.
 

Choid

Slinging it. Left and right.
Full Member
Minuteman
Feb 13, 2017
4,248
2,742
well the 9th is sure to rule against however, they may think twice as it would go higher, be challenged and if shot down, then it resonates across the country much to the shagrin of the lefty communists.
It's problematic for them no matter how you slice it. If they don't hear the appeal, then there is a circuit split, which makes it very likely that state AWB laws will be heard in the SC.
 

Choid

Slinging it. Left and right.
Full Member
Minuteman
Feb 13, 2017
4,248
2,742
we need them heard
I don't know how long they can avoid doing it. We'll see if they build the foundation for a good ruling with the case coming up this next term, and how far they are willing to go. My assumption is that they would prefer not to hear it at all, and would prefer the circuits to strike down the AWBs, based on the precedent they have already set, but that doesn't seem to be happening.
 

supercorndogs

Ham Fisted Gorilla
Full Member
Minuteman
Feb 17, 2014
8,251
8,611
Colorado
The ninth district court ruled the constitution does not provide for open carry.
Of course they will vote in favor of comifornia's assault weapons ban.
9th circuit has had a few seats changed over the last 4 years. Lets hope they are no longer the rubber stamp the left desires.
 

FWoo45

Supporter
Supporter
Minuteman
Jun 19, 2020
38
97
8FD2E946-E85C-4B12-83D2-0AEA458B720D.jpeg
 

GUNNER10

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Mar 10, 2005
895
628
41
md
Brutal put down of a silly , unconstitutional law , but just remember that the carry case ultimately was decided the same way by the same judge at the same district only to be affirmed by the district 3 judge panel, and reversed En Banc when they basically said, yeah, great argument but the 2nd amendment does not apply to firearms outside of the home, if you don't like it you can always petition SCOTUS to see if they can fit it in between that weeks Tranny bathroom case load.

K thanks Bye!!!!!!
 

Davo308

Major Hide Member
Full Member
Minuteman
Feb 18, 2019
1,296
3,352
Brutal put down of a silly , unconstitutional law , but just remember that the carry case ultimately was decided the same way by the same judge at the same district only to be affirmed by the district 3 judge panel, and reversed En Banc when they basically said, yeah, great argument but the 2nd amendment does not apply to firearms outside of the home, if you don't like it you can always petition SCOTUS to see if they can fit it in between that weeks Tranny bathroom case load.

K thanks Bye!!!!!!

You aren't wrong.

Still its hard seeing the fail in California later applying to other states.
 

Dirty D

I reckon I like biscuits and mustard
Full Member
Minuteman
Mar 29, 2010
9,468
44,119
79
Uranus
The ninth district court ruled the constitution does not provide for open carry.
Of course they will vote in favor of comifornia's assault weapons ban.
Which will set the stage for an appeal to the SCOTUS, does the CA AG really want to risk SCOTUS ruling against the AWB. CA is between a rock and a hard place.
 

judgedelta

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Aug 22, 2010
698
76
77
Mississippi
I read on one write-up that the voters of California had, by referendum, approved the "assault weapon" ban and the magazine ban. It appears that in California a majority of the people can vote to remove your constitutional rights; I guess that the first, fourth and fifth amendments will be next?...
 
  • Like
Reactions: RUTGERS95

deersniper

What would BurtGummer do?
Supporter
Full Member
Minuteman
  • Feb 22, 2007
    11,381
    14,522
    Northeast
    I read on one write-up that the voters of California had, by referendum, approved the "assault weapon" ban and the magazine ban. It appears that in California a majority of the people can vote to remove your constitutional rights; I guess that the first, fourth and fifth amendments will be next?...

    Didn’t they vote against gay marriage by referendum then the courts said nope
     
    • Like
    Reactions: RUTGERS95

    mcameron

    Two Star General
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Nov 17, 2011
    5,828
    14,435
    Didn't a judge also rule against CA's mag restrictions also?

    Where's that stand atm?
     

    Tims

    Sergeant
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Jan 7, 2008
    650
    818
    Orange, California
    Didn't a judge also rule against CA's mag restrictions also?

    Where's that stand atm?

    Judge Benitez ruled in our favor on this case also. A 9th circuit 3 Judge panel ruled in our favor. Attorney general for CA appealed to the 9th circus for en banc review by the 9th circuit. En banc review was granted. Waiting for the results of the en banc hearing.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: MJF and Davo308

    Choid

    Slinging it. Left and right.
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Feb 13, 2017
    4,248
    2,742
    I read on one write-up that the voters of California had, by referendum, approved the "assault weapon" ban and the magazine ban. It appears that in California a majority of the people can vote to remove your constitutional rights; I guess that the first, fourth and fifth amendments will be next?...
    CA is one of the few states without a right to keep and bear arms in the state constitution. Given that the 2nd wasn't incorporated until McDonald, it was probably well within the rights of the mob to do that.
    Didn’t they vote against gay marriage by referendum then the courts said nope
    Referendum and was overturned. Then they amended the state constitution, and that was upheld by the same judges.
     

    Davo308

    Major Hide Member
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Feb 18, 2019
    1,296
    3,352
    I read on one write-up that the voters of California had, by referendum, approved the "assault weapon" ban and the magazine ban. It appears that in California a majority of the people can vote to remove your constitutional rights; I guess that the first, fourth and fifth amendments will be next?...

    Yup a lot of the recent gun purchases were first time gun buyers and suburban women. So they vote to eliminate firearms as they buy firearms.

    And they don't blink an eye when they do so.
     

    Davo308

    Major Hide Member
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Feb 18, 2019
    1,296
    3,352
    Didn’t they vote against gay marriage by referendum then the courts said nope

    Yeah and the politicians just ignored it. The media blamed Mormons for that measure when it was actually blacks and Hispanics that led to it passing.
     

    theLBC

    Shiftless
    Supporter
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Jun 21, 2019
    14,291
    35,172
    many californians enjoyed freedom week courtesy of judge b., and that (10rd limit) may be removed as well, i hope.
     

    Zane1844

    Sergeant of the Hide
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    May 31, 2020
    130
    72
    • Like
    Reactions: Baron23

    Baron23

    Check 6
    Supporter
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Mar 19, 2020
    2,087
    2,104
    68
    Maryland
    How many times can their bullshit laws be ruled unconstitutional just for the 9th circuit to issue a “stay?”
    While historically NOT a fan of the 9th, with appointments in recent years they have moved...surprisingly...maybe...a bit to the middle. Or at least they don't seem to be quite the Communist Party organ they were in the past.

    In any case, this was ALWAYS going to be put on a stay to allow CA time to appeal. AND, the 9th seems to have a similar case before it now...of some sort.

    As I said, not a fan of the 9th, certainly not a fan of CA firearms laws/regulations, but a stay was a dead cinch to be put in place. Should not be a surprise...100%