A federal judge has struck down an unconstitutional ban on what are often referred to as “assault weapons” in California.
U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, ruled that the state’s long-standing ban on semi-automatic firearms, which has been in place for three decades, infringes upon the constitutional right to bear arms.
Judge Benitez argued that a small number of criminals should not have the authority to set the regulations for the millions of responsible American households. He emphasized that the majority of individuals who own firearms like AR-15 rifles are law-abiding citizens who possess them for self-defense.
“California’s answer to the criminal misuse of a few is to disarm its many good residents,” Benitez wrote in a 79-page ruling.
“That knee-jerk reaction is constitutionally untenable, just as it was 250 years ago.
“The Second Amendment stands as a shield from government imposition of that policy.”
Benitez sided with various gun advocacy organizations that had contested the Assault Weapons Control Act and additional state laws that were seen as infringing on the U.S. Constitution.
It’s important to note that California has some of the most stringent anti-gun laws in the country. John Dillon, an attorney representing the plaintiffs who filed a lawsuit against the state to challenge these laws, commended the judge’s decision.
Dillon said in a statement to The Associated Press that the ruling was “constitutionally sound and addresses the many inadequacies of the State’s arguments and so-called justifications for this unconstitutional ban.”
“We will continue to fight for our Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights through any appeal until the State is forced to start respecting these rights,” he added.
In 1989, California made history by becoming the first U.S. state to implement such legislation in response to a tragic school shooting incident that claimed the lives of five children.
Reportedly, Judge Benitez invalidated this law in 2021, deeming California’s effort to restrict residents from acquiring specific firearms as an unsuccessful experiment. He famously likened the AR-15 to common knives in his prior ruling and emphasized this comparison once more in the introduction to his recent decision.
“Like the Bowie Knife which was commonly carried by citizens and soldiers in the 1800s, ‘assault weapons’ are dangerous, but useful,” Benitez wrote.
“But unlike the Bowie Knife, the United States Supreme Court has said, ‘[t]here is a long tradition of widespread lawful gun ownership by private individuals in this country.’”
The federal judge has consistently invalidated various California firearm-related laws, including a recent ruling last month that deemed the state’s ban on magazines with more than ten rounds of ammunition unconstitutional. However, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals permitted California to uphold the law during the ongoing legal process, and state authorities lodged an appeal against the decision.
In response, Judge Benitez issued an injunction, temporarily halting his latest ruling for ten days to allow the state to pursue an appeal. California’s Attorney General, Rob Bonta, a Democrat, filed a notice of appeal seeking to overturn the district court’s judgment, describing it as “dangerous and misguided.”
“Weapons of war have no place on California’s streets,” Bonta said in a news release.
“This has been state law in California for decades, and we will continue to fight for our authority to keep our citizens safe from firearms that cause mass casualties.
“In the meantime, assault weapons remain unlawful for purchase, transfer, or possession in California.”
The ruling represents another triumph for supporters of constitutional rights, echoing the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision from the previous year, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. vs. Bruen, which found that New York’s longstanding restrictions on concealed firearms violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights of Americans.
Judge Benitez made this ruling following the 9th Circuit of Appeals sending the case back to him in light of the Bruen decision.
