HOME ABOUT  MOBILE APP OPINION WORLD  NATIONAL SECURITY BRANCHES  STORE MORE 

Login SEARCH AMN... 

FEATURED

Fed. judge rules California’s AR-15 ‘assault weapons’

ban unconstitutional

Subscribe to our
newsletter and breaking
news alerts
* indicates required
Email Address *

First Name *

SU BSC R I BE

An AR-15 build, magazines and Federal ammunition. (docmonstereyes/Flickr)

JUNE 05, 2021 RYAN MORGAN

On Friday, a federal judge in California ruled the state’s

“assault weapons” ban, which prohibited the sale of standard
AR-15 style rifles and magazines with an ammunition
capacity over 10 rounds, unconstitutional.

California’s Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 had banned

1 of 5
 numerous firearms models by name and any semiautomatic,
centerfire rifle that have the capacity to accept a detachable
magazine in addition to one or more other features including
a “pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the
action of the weapon,” a thumbhole stock or collapsable
stock. The law also prohibited magazines with an
ammunition capacity beyond 10 rounds.

From the start of his decision in the case of Miller vs Bonta,

Judge Roger T. Benitez, of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California, said, “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 AR15
type rifle. Therefore, this Court declares the California
statutes to be unconstitutional.”

Benitez, who was nominated to the court by President

George W. Bush, said, “This case is not about extraordinary
weapons lying at the outer limits of Second Amendment
protection. The banned “assault weapons” are not bazookas,
howitzers, or machineguns. Those arms are dangerous and
solely useful for military purposes. Instead, the firearms
deemed “assault weapons” are fairly ordinary, popular,
modern rifles. This is an average case about average guns
used in average ways for average

2 of 5
 purposes.”

Benitez said, “A ban on modern rifles has no historical

pedigree.
Prior to the 1990’s, there was no national history of banning
weapons because they were equipped with furniture like
pistol grips, collapsible stocks, flash hiders, flare launchers,
or barrel shrouds. In fact, prior to California’s 1989 ban, so-
called assault weapons were lawfully manufactured,
acquired, and possessed throughout the United States.”

The judge said each of the features banned under California’s

law could be reasonably used by a homeowner under durress
in a home invasion scenario.

“Standard size magazines are ubiquitous. With the

physiological stress of waking to the noise of home invaders,
one may need many rounds to overcome the difficulty of
aiming in the dark at multiple attackers making furtive
movements,” Benitez’ decision reads. “The adjustable stock
can be quickly set for one’s arm length. The pistol grip gives a
homeowner a secure hold with one hand while the other
hand holds a telephone or spare magazine.”

While declaring California’s law unconstitutional, Benitez

included a 30-day stay on the ruling, which would allow
Attorney General Rob Bonta to appeal the decision.

Bonta has vowed to appeal the decision.

“There is no sound basis in law, fact or common sense for

3 of 5
 equating assault rifles with Swiss Army knives — especially
on Gun Violence Awareness Day and after the recent
shootings in our own California communities,” Bonta said,
according to the New York Times.

Gun rights activists celebrated the decision on Friday.

Brandon Combs, the president of the Firearms Policy

Coalition (FPC) which helped bring the lawsuit forward, said,
“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. 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.”

Alan Gottlieb, the president of the Second Amendment

Foundation which also helped move the lawsuit forward,
said, “Judge Benitez has shredded California gun control laws
regarding modern semi-automatic rifles. It is clear the judge
did his homework on this ruling, and we are delighted with
the outcome.”

Democrat California Gov. Gavin Newsom criticized the

judges decision on Friday.

Newsom said, “As the son of a judge, I grew up with deep

respect for the judicial process and the importance of a

4 of 5
 judge’s ability to make impartial fact-based rulings, but the
fact that this judge compared the AR-15 — a weapon of war
that’s used on the battlefield — to a Swiss Army knife
completely undermines the credibility of this decision and is
a slap in the face to the families who’ve lost loved ones to this
weapon. We’re not backing down from this fight, and we’ll
continue pushing for common-sense gun laws that will save
lives.”

HOME ALL BRANCHES TECH LEADERSHIP

FEATURED ARMY WEAPONS ADVERTISING
WORLD NAVY FAMILY CONTACT
MIDDLE EAST MARINES JOBS PRIVACY
NATIONAL AIR FORCE CYBER POLICY
Copy right 2021 - A meric an Military
News SECURITY COAST GUARD SECURITY TERMS OF
A ll Rights Res erv ed Login NORTH KOREA SPACE FORCE POLICE SERVICE
OPINION SPYING
CONTROVERSY VET
RESOURCES

5 of 5