California assault weapons ban found unconstitional

[DenverGP]

JUDGMENT. Following a bench trial and the Courts Decision in this matter dated June 4, 2021, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that: 1. Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiffs. 2. California Penal Code ?? 30515(a)(1) through (8) (defining an assault weapon by prohibited features), 30800 (deeming certain assault weapons a public nuisance), 30915 (regulating assault weapons obtained by bequest or inheritance), 30925 (restricting importation of assault weapons by new residents), 30945 (restricting use of registered assault weapons), and 30950 (prohibiting possession of 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) are hereby declared unconstitutional and shall be enjoined.

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).

Defendant Attorney General Rob Bonta shall provide forthwith, by personal service or otherwise, actual notice of this order to all law enforcement personnel who are responsible for implementing or enforcing the enjoined statute. Within 10 days, the government shall file a declaration establishing proof of such notice. Alternatively, the parties may file a stipulation. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 6/4/2021.(mme) (Entered: 06/04/2021)


Here's a direct link:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16069141/116/miller-v-becerra/

[DenverGP]

It's yet another decision from our favorite judge Roger T Benitez, who previously ruled the california mag ban violated the 2nd amendment.

[DenverGP]

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-wins-assault_weapon-lawsuit-in-historic-victory-for-second_amendment-rights

(https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-wins-assault_weapon-lawsuit-in-historic-victory-for-second_amendment-rights)FPC is fighting the good fight.

[DenverGP]

And here is the full opinion.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.642089/gov.uscourts.casd.642089.115.0.pdf

Full of even more amazing quotes from Judge Benitez.

Right from the first paragraph:



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.

[DenverGP]

Yet another great quote:


The evidence described so far proves that the “harm” of an assault rifle being used in a mass shooting is an infinitesimally rare event. More people have died from the Covid-19 vaccine than mass shootings in California. Even if a mass shooting by assault rifle is a real harm, the evidence also shows that AWCA’s prohibited features ban has not alleviated the harm in any material way


But really, the entire opinion is one amazing 2A quote after another.

[whitewalrus]

It's yet another decision from our favorite judge Roger T Benitez, who previously ruled the california mag ban violated the 2nd amendment.

Wonder where they found him, reading some of these rulings he puts out tends to have some good quotes in them.

[DenverGP]

One point of detail:

Following the letter of the law, Judge Benitez himself adds a 30 day stay to his ruling, so the judgement in the top post will take full force and effect after 30 days (assuming no other stay is granted during that time).



Because this case involves serious questions going to the merits, a temporary stay is in the public interest. This declaration and permanent injunction are stayed for 30 days
during which time the Attorney General may appeal and seek a stay from the Court of Appeals. After 30 days, the following Order will take full force and effect.

[Scanker19]

Yet another great quote:


But really, the entire opinion is one amazing 2A quote after another.

What page is that one on? I’m
Only to page 8 right now, but I’m hooked.

[Great-Kazoo]

One point of detail:

Following the letter of the law, Judge Benitez himself adds a 30 day stay to his ruling, so the judgement in the top post will take full force and effect after 30 days (assuming no other stay is granted during that time).

And like all rulings against any entity, in CA, when it comes to guns. They will appeal it.

[def90]

30 day stay and it is a given that California will appeal, so no change for now.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

If a Dem had written it, he would have made it effective immediately and apply it nationwide, just like the Dems did when one court would find Trumps actions on immigration. That way it would get jacked to the Supremes directly. The Dems don’t fool around and follow the law. We need to before they pack the court.


https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/05/us/california-gun-ban-overturned/index.html

Parkland dad almost strokes out.

Blood o our hands? How about blood on his hands for going after inanimate objects and not the deeper societal causes and individual actors. Interesting that he never mentioned the actual shooter, who hasn’t stood trial yet.

[wctriumph]

Even if it stands as unconstitutional, the state will still require registration of the firearms. As they do with all firearms in the state.

[kidicarus13]

Surprise, surprise...
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-06-21/appeals-court-blocks-judges-decision-to-overturn-states-assault-weapons-ban

[Eric P]

So delay till sleepy Joe packs the court full of puppets...

[68Charger]

This COULD open up the case to be heard by SCOTUS... with a verdict that affects the entire nation.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

I’m just glad that they’re hearing the magazine case en banc in next few days. Scotus holding onto Obama care has taken a bit of the wind out of the sales on packing the court. I don’t know when the mag decision would come, but it can’t come to soon.

[Irving]

I thought each article I've read on this has mentioned that the judge elected to have a 30 day stay. The way it was written makes it sound like that was a choice he made. If that's the case, then what is the long play behind that decision?

[Erni]

I thought each article I've read on this has mentioned that the judge elected to have a 30 day stay. The way it was written makes it sound like that was a choice he made. If that's the case, then what is the long play behind that decision?

I read that he did that so the DA would be forced to file an appeal in 30 days or less. Otherwise them could play the postponement game for several years requesting 6mo extensions before filings. And by staying it for 30 days he killed their ability to ask for an emergency stay from a different judge that they could ride for years.
We shall see.

[Irving]

Hmmm, so that was an accelerated move on his part. Sounds like he wasn't playing around.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

I don't like that they can just say that they are going to put it on hold while they decide other cases that are similar. How long for the en banc decision? 6 months? Sometime this year?

[Gman]

I don't believe this will come to anything of benefit for 2A. I wish it would, but my expectations based on my over half a century of life experience are nil.

[Great-Kazoo]

If a Dem had written it, he would have made it effective immediately and apply it nationwide, just like the Dems did when one court would find Trumps actions on immigration. That way it would get jacked to the Supremes directly. The Dems don’t fool around and follow the law. We need to before they pack the court.


https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/05/us/california-gun-ban-overturned/index.html

Parkland dad almost strokes out.

Blood o our hands? How about blood on his hands for going after inanimate objects and not the deeper societal causes and individual actors. Interesting that he never mentioned the actual shooter, who hasn’t stood trial yet.

They can't go after the shooters. Because they're out on No Bail Release, before end of day. Can't be shining a light on another failed D contrived social program.

[Irving]

I don't believe this will come to anything of benefit for 2A. I wish it would, but my expectations based on my over half a century of life experience are nil.

You are probably right here.

[theGinsue]

The 9th Circuit, acting on a June 10 appeal filed by Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, put Benitez’s ruling on hold pending decisions in other gun cases that are now before the court.

“This leaves our assault weapons laws in effect while appellate proceedings continue,” Bonta said in a tweet. “We won’t stop defending these life-saving laws.”

The above quote is from the article linked by kidicarus13 provided. Not one bit surprised that the 9th Circuit pulled this - it's part of their standard playbook.

As to the AG's comment about supporting "life-saving laws", where's the evidence of the laws saving even one life and not resulting in the loss of life?