News|Law Late Friday afternoon, Judge Roger T. Benitez of the Southern District of California issued a ruling in Miller vs. Bonta, holding that California’s assault weapons ban is unconstitutional. In […]
Late Friday afternoon, Judge Roger T. Benitez of the Southern District of California issued a ruling in Miller vs. Bonta, holding that California’s assault weapons ban is unconstitutional.
In the decision Judge Benitez ruled that many of the categories of firearms California classifies as “assault weapons” are protected by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, the Second Amendment stands as a shield from the government imposing this policy.
The court 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).
Here’s a little bit of context on what lead to this pivotal decision by Judge Roger T. Benitez. This court decision stems from a 2019 filing by Firearms Policy Coalition known as Miller vs. Becerra. In that original court filing FPC challenged California’s Assault Weapons Control Act (ACWA) ban rifles that have certain characteristics, including firearms whose magazines can hold 10 or more rounds. In the lawsuit FPC also argued that the firearms that are being banned are constitutional protected and are no more lethal than other firearms that are not banned by California’s policy. Also, noting that the weapons can be possessed lawfully in vast majority of the United States.
This only the beginning in this case. Judge Benitez issued a one month stay in the ruling. Potentially, giving time for ruling to be challenged in the 9th Circuit Court.
What do you think of California Southern District Court decision? Let us know in the comments below.
Thanks For Reading
If you enjoyed this post, hit that like button, share it a friend, and subscribe. If you have any suggestions, ideas, or comments. Please feel free to drop a comment. Be Humble. Train until only savagery remains and stay deadly ladies and gents.
Hello, everyone and welcome to The Loadout Blog. The purpose of this website is to share educate, inform, and build a lasting culture around firearms. I want to create a hub of reliable, cohesive, and relevant material for today's shooter. I am seeking to appeal to all demographics so from the novice, to experienced, along with LE and military communities. I am here to be transparent and honest on all matters discussed or chronicled on this site. I will post content once a week at minimum or more often if time allows.
Now, a little bit about me. I served six years in the Marines Corps as an 0311. I was in 2nd BN 4th Marines, 5th Marine Reg, 1st Mar Div. I was in Golf Company while in 2/4. I was deployed twice during my time in. I did one deployment to Afghanistan and my second was on apart of 31st MEU. I departed the military in September of 2015. I currently work as an RSO at a local range in Vegas.
Thank you for stopping by my website and join the journey with me. To stay up to date with the website, hit that subscribe button. Be humble. Be savage. Have a great day.
Leave a Reply