Federal Court Strikes Down California’s Assault Weapons Ban

For many years, I have been critical of politicians running on promises of sweeping gun control legislation that would violate controlling case law under the Second Amendment. After every mass shooting, politicians pledge that they will get guns out of society when they know that such promises mislead voters on the range of permissible action in the area. In reality, the range of permissible legislative action is quite limited. Moreover,  limits on things like clip capacity are unlikely to make a significant difference in gun violence. Now, a federal judge has struck down California’s three-decade-old ban on assault weapons as a violation of the Second Amendment. The decision could be raised in the ongoing consideration of the nomination of David Chipman, who President Joe Biden wants to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

In Miller v. Bonta, U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez of San Diego found that the ban on weapons like the AR-15 are based on both a misunderstanding of the weapons and a misinterpretation of the Constitution.  I previously discussed many of the same issues surrounding the AR-15 which remains one of the most popular weapons in the United States:

“While a ban on AR-15s sounds compelling, it breaks down under closer review. The AR-15 and other weapons in its class use an intermediate cartridge that actually is less powerful than that used in a rifle. These weapons are often twice as powerful as a handgun but not nearly as powerful as a rifle. Moreover, guns like the AR-15 are popular because they are modular and allow for different grips and barrels.”

Judge Benitez noted many of the same issues in his decision. He held that the ban cannot satisfy any level of heightened scrutiny. He notes that the popularity of the AR-15 is due to its versatility. In the one controversial line of the opinion, he observed “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 problem is that many politicians like California Gov. Gavin Newsom opposed the decision of the Supreme Court in 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller affirming the right to bear arms is an individual right under the Second Amendment. The court has repeatedly reaffirmed that landmark decision. In 2010, the court ruled that this constitutional right applies to the states as it does to the federal government since it is one of those “fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.”

These cases are controlling, as politicians and commentators are fully aware. Benitez addresses the test for such laws and holds that the state does not come close to satisfying its burden. Before laying out this test and its application, the court notes:

The Heller test is a test that any citizen can understand. Heller asks whether a law bans a firearm that is commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. It is a hardware test. Heller draws a distinction between firearms commonly owned for lawful purposes and unusual arms adapted to unlawful uses as well as arms solely useful for military purposes. As applied to AWCA, the Heller test asks: is a modern rifle commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for a lawful purpose? For the AR-15 type rifle the answer is “yes.” The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and keep the popular AR-15 rifle and its many variants do so for lawful purposes, including self defense at home. Under Heller, that is all that is needed. Using the easy to understand Heller test, it is obvious that the California assault weapon ban is unconstitutional. Under the Heller test, judicial review can end right here.

This is only the latest major ruling by Benitez in the area. In 2017, he struck down the state’s nearly two-decade-old ban on the sales and purchases of magazines holding more than 10 bullets. As recently discussed, the Ninth Circuit upheld his decision, which is now scheduled to be reheard by an 11-member panel. These cases have a very strong chance for review before the Supreme Court given the division across the country and the 6-3 conservative majority on the Court.

The decision could have some ramifications in the pending nomination of Chipman as Director of the ATF. Chipman is a former ATF special agent and senior policy adviser for the gun control organization Giffords. In his hearing, Chipman declared that “With respect to the AR-15, I support a ban as it has been presented in a Senate bill and supported by the president. The AR-15 is a gun I was issued on ATF’s SWAT team. It’s a particularly lethal weapon and regulating it as other particular lethal weapons I have advocated for.”

Chipman was confronted on the definition of what constitutes an assault weapon. He told the Senate that the ATF defines an assault rifle as “any semi-automatic rifle capable of accepting a detachable magazine above the caliber of .22, which would include a .223, which is, you know largely the AR-15 round.”

That would include a wide array of weapons. Indeed, a statement by Judge Benitez may resonate with some senators:

“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 machine guns. 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 purposes.

One is to be forgiven if one is persuaded by news media and others that the nation is awash with murderous AR-15 assault rifles. The facts, however, do not support this  The characterization of a finding as one of ‘fact’ or ‘law’ is not controlling. To the extent that a finding is characterized as one of ‘law’ but is more properly characterized as one of ‘fact; (or vice versa), substance prevails over form. hyperbole, and facts matter. Federal Bureau of Investigation murder statistics do not track assault rifles, but they do show that killing by knife attack is far more common than murder by any kind of rifle.”

In fairness to Chipman, he made clear that he would enforce whatever the federal law prescribes in terms of any ban or the underlying definitions.  However, he is viewed as an outspoken advocate for banning ownership of weapons like the AR-15, which was just declared as protected by this court.

These are difficult policies and difficult cases.  Reasonable people can disagree, including on the meaning of the Second Amendment. What is troubling is the level of misleading and frankly disingenuous discussion of the issue. The public is constantly being told that electing certain politicians will result in sweeping gun control when the current case law directly contradict such assertions.

That was the case in the 2020 Democratic debates where candidates make unsupportable claims and promise. For example, now President Joe Biden attacked Senator Bernie Sanders over a vote that had favored the gun industry. Biden declared that, since the vote, 150 million Americans have been killed by guns.  When people asked the campaign about roughly half of our population dying in gun violence, it said that number was probably more like 150,000.

Nevertheless, many of the candidates promised massive changes. Biden declared “I want to tell you, if I’m elected NRA, I’m coming for you, and, gun manufacturers, I’m going to take you on and I’m going to beat you.”  Beto O’Rourke ran on the issue and most famously declared “Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.” Biden later declared that he would make O’Rourke a type of “gun czar” for his Administration.

Such “hell yes” moments are likely to continue with the approaching 2022 election, but they may meet more judges who say “hell no” in constitutional challenges.

Here is the opinion: Miller v. Bonta

A shorter version of this column ran on Fox.com

63 thoughts on “Federal Court Strikes Down California’s Assault Weapons Ban”

  1. The communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) incoherently and erroneously argue:

    The right to keep and bear arms is not absolute because the freedom of speech is not absolute, which is demonstrated by the fact that it is illegal to say “fire” in a crowded theater or to speak against a separate individual and inflict damage to that individual.

    The communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) are wrong.

    The communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) are specious, inane and immutably wrong.

    The inmates have taken over the asylum.
    _________________________________

    Americans have the freedom of speech, which is absolute, while there are legitimate laws against abusing and misusing the aforementioned freedom of speech by causing harm to others.

    Americans have the right to keep and bear arms, which is absolute, while there are legitimate laws against abusing and misusing the aforementioned right to keep and bear arms by causing harm to others.

    Americans have the right to travel in vehicles, which is absolute, while there are legitimate laws against abusing and misusing the aforementioned right to travel in vehicles by causing harm to others.

  2. I heard part of the “testimony” of the nominee to head the ATF. What a sorry excuse he is to manage this important agency. But … he knows the “right” people and has the “right” politics. I almost felt sorry for his inability to answer some of the senators’ straightforward questions.

  3. In 2021 Google pay 390$ reliably my last paycheck was $55000 working 10 hours out of consistently on the web. My increasingly youthful kinfolk mate has been averaging 20k all through continuous months and he works around 24 hours reliably. I can’t trust how direct it was once I attempted it out. This is my essential concern…:) For more info visit any tab on this site Thanks a lot GOOD LUCK………._ https://kutt.it/Iau039

  4. Google pay 390$ reliably my last paycheck was $55000 working 10 hours out of consistently on the web. My increasingly youthful kinfolk mate has been averaging 20k all through continuous months and he works around 24 hours reliably. I can’t trust how direct it was once I attempted it out. This is my essential concern…:) For more info visit any tab on this site Thanks a lot GOOD LUCK………._ https://kutt.it/Iau039

  5. It is pointless to argue the details of this issue. The details are just window dressing for the government’s ultimate objective. It doesn’t matter the caliber, the barrel length, the pistol grip, the magazine capacity, or any other technical specifications. There are those who want the government to have a monopoly on violence. They will cling to whatever reed, regardless of how thin, if it will frustrate the individual’s right to bear arms. They will ban the most common firearms. They will require expensive and dangerous safety devices to increase the cost and lessen the availability of firearms. They will require a background check (that you have to pay for) each time you want to buy ammo. They will design impossible to interpret regulations with criminal sanctions to discourage lawful ownership by ordinary law abiding citizen without a law degree and a specialization in local, state and federal gun control laws. They will do whatever it takes to disarm you. NOTE: the police and other government officers are exempt from these regulations. Again, gun control advocates (regardless of their stated limited objectives) want government to have a monopoly on violence. Reading the judges opinion was both sobering and refreshing. He totally dismantled all of the government’s arguments and ridiculed the opinions of its experts and the statistics they relied upon. He really demonstrated that the governments arguments are not really asserted in good faith. They are close to nonsensical. But that is because the people making those arguments don’t really believe them either. They are not concerned with “assault rifles,” what ever that term might mean. They are not trying to lessen gun violence, which is predominately handgun violence. They are concerned with disarming the population in general, and the laws are designed to achieve that end. They object to the premise of the Second Amendment and the individual right, and they will do whatever they can to hinder, delay or frustrate the exercise of that right until they can amend the Constitution to abolish the Second Amendment, or more likely to get a liberal SCOTUS to turn the clear language of the amendment on its head.

  6. Another good day for the Constitution and a really bad one for Soros, Biden, BLM and antifa. Tally ho!

  7. read: More Guns, Less Crime. It talks about a Georgia town that all adults needed to be trained and own a weapon. Guess what the violent crime rate in that town is? NO GUN FREE ZONES. If I think you’re packing, I will think twice about assaulting you. Take NYC. Why all the crime? Take Chicago. Why all the shootings? Many of the gun stats are for suicides. The same is true for police shooting blacks for not complying. It’s called suicide by cop.

    1. There’s also the problem of too many guns floating around. If towns and cities begin to have more and more people carrying guns either concealed or open carry. It doesn’t mean one intent on assault or robbery will just hold you up at gun point. It may just be they could just walk up and shoot you before you have any time to react. Assuming someone is armed just gives a criminal reason to shoot you first and take ur wallet AND your gun. Suicide could become more convenient with easier access to guns. Police officers could be pulling guns on you more often on the assumption that you’re armed. They could get more aggressive, or literally disarm you first in order to make sure they are safe.

  8. All this dibber dabber about caliber of the bullet, pistol grips, detachable magazine….is irrelevant to the issue of the Second Amendment and the Left’s attack on that Amendment and our individual freedoms.

    The root cause of gun violence is not guns…never has been and never shall be…..there are huge armories of literally hundreds of thousands of AR-15 like rifles and carbines that have harmed no one.

    There are Millions of them owned one or two per household that have not and shall never harm a single person.

    What does harm people is any weapon in the hands of a violent person who uses that weapon to attack others be it a Claw Hammer or Semi-Truck or anything in between.

    It is the person….that we must target not the implement.

    The Israeli’s proved that to be true when they used that approach to Terrorists rather than chasing down bombs, guns, and knives.

    When was the last time you read about an El Al Airliner being hijacked?

    We have to find a way to protect the rights of the innocent, the victims, and focus upon dealing with those who must not be allowed to have access to any weapon of any kind.

    We put interlocks on the ignitions of convicted drunk drivers….we put anklet bracelets on criminals….we put metal detectors at entrances to schools, airports, and Federal Buildings…..we. have a background check system that is poorly designed and very poorly operated in that far too many people are not being reported to the system for issues that legally bar them from buying guns. Very few get prosecuted for falsifying Gun Purchase documents knowing they are banned from buying a firearm.

    Turn those shortcomings around and see what happens…..and when what is left of our Police Agencies deal with the report of a mentally disturbed person….they must make a referral to the National Background Check system AFTER they undertake every legal action they can in separating the potentially violent person from weapons.

    Disarming the victims is exactly the wrong thing to do.

Leave a Reply to Michael Gorback Cancel reply