Judge Benitez strikes down California magazine ban, again on 10/19/23 BUT expect it to have the same fate as the magazine ban and get buried again by the corrupt 9Th Circuit Court. Only time will tell what, if anything, SCOTUS will due about another big middle finger to them totally ignoring the Bruen decision mandate that Second Amendment cases use scrutiny of text, history, and tradition rather that a judges "feelings" resulting in legislating from the bench again.

While Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh are solid on the Second Amendment all eyes are on Amy Coney Barret at this point. The Rahimi case is currently being heard at SCOTUS which is about can a person who has not been convicted of a crime be denied their Second Amendment Rights via a restraining order. This case has huge implications including for "red flag" laws. Biden, Garland, and the democrats are counting on winning this one and with language that would nullify the Bruen decision requirement of using text, history, and tradition for deciding Second Amendment cases.



https://assets.nationbuilder.c...INION.pdf?1697737480

https://www.thetruthaboutguns....t-weapons-ban-again/



People do not remember the disabled 61 year-old man living alone on a 20-acre property in Florida with dense woods and a long dirt driveway. After the homeowner had gone to bed, three men armed with a shotgun, pistol, and BB gun invaded. One wore a “Jason” hockey mask. The disabled victim said he was awakened by a loud noise and grabbed the AR-15 laying near his bed. He saw the masked man and a second man coming toward him inside his home. Gunfire was exchanged. By the time police arrived, one attacker had run away, one lay wounded outside, and one was dead on the dining room floor. Police found the disabled man in his bedroom alive, but bleeding from a gunshot wound to the stomach. The AR-15 lay across his legs. Without his modern rifle, the victim would have become an evidence tag and a forgotten statistic.

People do not hear about the AR-15 used by a young man in Oklahoma to defend himself from three masked and armed home invaders clothed in black. The three intruders broke through a rear glass door. Though outnumbered, the homeowner put up a successful defense with his AR-15. People do not hear about the AR-15 that was needed when seven armed and masked men burst through a front door at 4:00 a.m. firing a gun. Outnumbered seven to one, it took the resident 30 rounds from his AR-15 to stop the attackers.

California’s “assault weapon” ban takes away from its residents the choice of using an AR-15 type rifle for self-defense. Is it because modern rifles are used so frequently for crime? No. The United States Department of Justice reports that in the year 2021, in the entire country 447 people were killed with rifles (of all types). From this one can say that, based on a national population of 320 million people in the United States, rifles of any kind (including AR-15s) were used in homicides only 0.0000014% of the time. Put differently, if 447 rifles were used to commit 447 homicides and every rifle-related homicide involved an AR-15, it would mean that of the approximately 24,400,000 AR15s in the national stock, less than .00001832% were used in homicides. It begs the question: what were the other AR-15 type rifles used for? The only logical answer is that 24,399,553 (or 99.999985%) of AR-15s were used for lawful purposes.

Can we get a round of applause for Judge Benintez please?

The State’s attempt to ban these popular firearms creates the extreme policy that a handful of criminals can dictate the conduct and infringe on the freedom of law-abiding citizens. As Heller explains, the Second Amendment takes certain policy choices and removes them beyond the realm of permissible state action. California’s answer to the criminal misuse of a few is to disarm its many good residents. That knee-jerk reaction is constitutionally untenable, just as it was 250 years ago. The Second Amendment stands as a shield from government imposition of that policy.

There is only one policy enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Guns and ammunition in the hands of criminals, tyrants and terrorists are dangerous; guns in the hands of law abiding responsible citizens are necessary. To give full life to the core right of selfdefense, every law-abiding responsible individual citizen has a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear firearms commonly owned and kept for lawful purposes. In early America and today, the Second Amendment right of self-preservation permits a citizen to “‘repel force by force’ when ‘the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent that injury.’” Unfortunately, governments tend to restrict the right of armed self-defense. Punishing every good citizen because bad ones misuse a gun offends the Constitution. A state supreme court in 1878 said it succinctly: “If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege.” “Today . . . many Americans have good reason to fear that they will be victimized if they are unable to protect themselves. And today, no less than in 1791, the Second Amendment guarantees their right to do so.

Just as he did in Duncan, Judge Benitez enjoined the state from enforcing its ban on scary-looking long guns…and stayed the order for 10 days to allow the state to appeal.

If you’ve been following what’s happened with Duncan, the path for Miller will be very much the same. Attorney General Rob Bonta will once again ask the Ninth District Court of Appeals to stay Judge Benitez’s order until the case can be heard and decided at that level. Just as they did with Duncan, the Ninth Circuit will, of course, grant the AG’s motion and Californians’ Second Amendment rights will continue to be infringed for years while the Ninth Circuit slow-walks the process. Same as it ever was.

In time — probably a great deal of time — both Duncan and Miller will result in the fall of the “high capacity” magazine “assault weapons” bans in the Golden State. Until then, the Second Amendment will remain a second class right in America’s most populous state.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: grumpy1,

quote:

Originally posted by grumpy1:
Until then, the Second Amendment will remain a second class right in America’s most populous state.

More like the entire West Coast and Hawaii.

Link
U.S. appeals court keeps California assault weapons ban in force Story by By Steve Gorman • 7h

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court ruled on Saturday that California's assault weapons ban will remain in force while the state attorney general appeals a lower court decision declaring the 30-year-old measure unconstitutional.

A divided three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the injunction issued last week by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez in San Diego from taking effect while the case remains under review.

The panel also unanimously agreed that state Attorney General Rob Bonta's appeal in support of the gun law would be heard on its merits on an expedited basis.

Siding with gun rights advocates, Benitez ruled on Oct. 19 that assault weapons prohibition deprived law-abiding citizens of semiautomatic firearms like the AR-15 in violation of the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms."
But by a 2-1 majority the 9th Circuit panel stayed the judge's order, citing the full appeals court's finding in a similar case that the attorney general was likely to succeed on the merits and had shown that "California would be irreparably harmed absent a stay."

Bonta, a Democrat who called Benitez' decision "dangerous and misguided," welcomed Saturday's 9th Circuit order.

"Weapons of war do not belong on our streets," Bonta said, pointing to a mass shooting earlier this week in Lewiston, Maine, that claimed 18 lives and left 13 others wounded.

California in 1989 became the first U.S. state to ban assault weapons, acting in the wake of a school shooting that killed five children and toughening the law the following year.

Since then, California has restricted the manufacture, distribution, transportation, importation, sale or possession of firearms that qualify under the law as "assault weapons." Such guns are defined as those with certain tactical enhancements or configurations designed to make them more dangerous to the public and thus susceptible to criminal use.

Benitez declared the same law unconstitutional in 2021. But the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit last year vacated his order and directed Benitez to review the matter further.

Benitez last month also ruled California's ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines unconstitutional. But the 9th Circuit subsequently allowed that statute to remain in effect while the state appeals.

Same corrupt bullshit by the 9th for the AWB as they did for the magazine ban. Washington Gun law explains it well.