Second Amendment Foundation - COURT VICTORY
pickenup
Member Posts: 22,844 ✭✭✭✭
SAF COURT VICTORY: JUDGE SAYS CAL. ‘ASSAULT WEAPON BAN’ UNCONSTITUTIONAL
BELLEVUE, WA — The Second Amendment Foundation has won a significant court ruling in the case of Miller v. Bonta , which challenged the constitutionality of California’s ban on so-called “assault weapons,” with U.S. District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez declaring the state’s statutes regarding such firearms to be unconstitutional.
SAF was joined in this action by the Firearms Policy Coalition, California Gun Rights Foundation, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, Poway Weapons and Gear, Gunfighter Tactical, LLC, and several private citizens including James Miller, for whom the case is named.
“In his 94-page ruling, Judge Benitez has shredded California gun control laws regarding modern semi-automatic rifles,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “It is clear the judge did his homework on this ruling, and we are delighted with the outcome.”
In his opening paragraph, Judge Benitez observes, “Like the Swiss Army Knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment. 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. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and United States v Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). Yet, the State of California makes it a crime to have an AR- 15 type rifle. Therefore, this Court declares the California statutes to be unconstitutional.”
Later in the ruling, Judge Benitez observes, “The Second Amendment protects modern weapons.” A few pages later, he adds, “Modern rifles are popular. Modern rifles are legal to build, buy, and own under federal law and the and the laws of 45 states.” Perhaps most importantly, the judge notes that California’s ban on such firearms “has had no effect” on shootings in the state. “California’s experiment is a failure,” Judge Benitez says.
“There is not much wiggle room in the judge’s decision,” Gottlieb stated. “Today’s ruling is one more step in SAF’s mission to win back firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time.”
Comments
FED. JUDGE RULES CAL’S ‘3-TO-1’ HANDGUN LAW PROVISION MAY VIOLATE 2A
((in california no less.))
"BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation is applauding a ruling by a federal judge in Southern California that a provision in the state’s new handgun roster law, requiring the removal of three handguns already on the roster that can be sold, to make room for each new handgun added to the list may violate the Second Amendment.
The ruling by U.S. District Chief Judge Dana Sabraw, is a slap at California’s law, which took effect Jan. 1 of this year. The lawsuit was brought by SAF, the San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, Firearms Policy Coalition and a private citizen, Lana Rae Renna, for whom the case Renna v. Becerra is named. They sued California in November. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Raymond DiGuiseppe of Southport, N.C. and Michael Sousa of San Diego.
In his 15-page ruling, Judge Sabraw, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled that plaintiffs “have sufficiently pled the UHA (“Unsafe Handgun Act”) substantially impacts their Second Amendment rights and thus burdens conduct protected by the Amendment.”
The judge also observed that the defendants offered “no justification for why the statute requires the removal of three handguns for each new handgun added (to the roster), instead of, for instance, a proportional one-to-one.”
He also noted, “Plaintiffs allege the UHA’s roster imposes a significant burden on their Second Amendment rights. Specifically, the (complaint) alleges the number of handguns available for purchase on the roster continues to decline and ultimately will ‘shrink into oblivion’ as handguns are removed from the roster, including by AB 2847’s three-for-one provision. Taking Plaintiffs’ allegations as true, this limits the ability of law-abiding citizens to acquire firearms, which is critical to ensuring the Second Amendment right to keep arms.”
“This case shows California’s amended handgun law seems ultimately designed to shrink the available number of approved handguns to virtually zero,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Judge Sabraw appears to recognize this unconstitutional dilemma near the end of his opinion.”
https://www.saf.org/fed-judge-rules-cals-3-to-1-handgun-law-provision-may-violate-2a/
There may be hope for California yet.
Yes I saw that the other day and thought wow California may be starting to get it...
It would be great to see California put a stop to the idiocy regarding firearms started by Ronald Reagan when he was Governor.
It will be even better if the United States puts his firearm control legacy in its rightful place in the dustbin of history.
Brad Steele
Indeed it would.
Some good news right there! Go SAF!!! Crickets from the other outfit.....
Yep this is a great decision. It's going to be a long haul before it truly means anything tho. It's being appealed to the 9th circus and then will likely get appealed to the SCOTUS, before anything is decided.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
Guess what - the media blitz against the judge has already started:
First - they want you disable your add blocker - then this blitz.
Best Regards - AQH