Posts Tagged judge benitez

Are Gun Rights Are Winning Because Of California?

From MSN:

Fast-forward to 19 October 2023 and a case titled Miller v. Bonta, and, better late than never, that aforementioned common sense finally prevailed, as San Diego-based U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez ruled, based upon the U.S. Supreme Court’s (SCOTUS) June 2022 Bruen decision, that – hey, whaddya know – the AWCA was indeed a violation of the Second Amendment and therefore unconstitutional. As Reuters correspondent Nate Raymond reports, “Benitez issued an injunction blocking the law, but put that on hold for 10 days so the state could appeal…Benitez in his decision wrote that there were “no founding era dead ringers or historical twins” for California’s assault weapons ban, and that the state could point to no historical laws before it adopted its ban that restricted rifles as they advanced technologically.” 

, , , , ,

No Comments

Judge Benitez: California Law Unconstitutional

From Bearing Arms:

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez delivered another scathing rebuke to the state of California on Thursday, just weeks after declaring the state’s ban on “large capacity” magazines unconstitutional. This time around it was the state’s ban on “assault weapons” that was before the judge, in a case known as Miller v. Bonta. Benitez was unsparing in his criticism of the law, which he says bars ordinary Californians from possessing commonly-owned arms that are protected by the language of the Second Amendment.

, , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Judge Benitez Strikes Down Another CA Gun Law

From Guns.com:

After years of pinballing around the federal courts, California’s two-decade-old ban on magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds was once again torpedoed last week. 

Judge Benitez observed: 

One government solution to a few mad men with guns is a law that makes into criminals responsible, law-abiding people wanting larger magazines simply to protect themselves. The history and tradition of the Second Amendment clearly supports state laws against the use or misuse of firearms with unlawful intent, but not the disarmament of the law-abiding citizen. That kind of a solution is an infringement on the Constitutional right of citizens to keep and bear arms. The adoption of the Second Amendment was a freedom calculus decided long ago by our first citizens who cherished individual freedom with its risks more than the subservient security of a British ruler or the smothering safety of domestic lawmakers. The freedom they fought for was worth fighting for then, and that freedom is entitled to be preserved still. 

, , , , , , ,

No Comments

Breakdown Of Judge Benitez’s 2A Ruling

From Ammoland:

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.

, , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

The Guardian Discusses California Ruling

From The Guardian:

Nationally, though, handguns are used in the majority of gun murders, with rifles listed as the murder weapon in fewer than 4% of murders from 2010 to 2014, according to FBI data.

“While bans on military-style weapons are very popular in the gun safety movement, these guns are popular firearms, they’re not used relatively often to commit crimes, and most of the crimes committed with these weapons could and would be easily committed with handguns or other substitutes,” Winkler says.

, , , , ,

No Comments

Analysis Of The California Gun Ruling

From The Federalist:

Under the Heller test, this record establishes the unconstitutionality of the ban on assault weapons, Benitez concluded. However, being bound by Ninth Circuit precedent, Benitez continued to consider the constitutionality of California’s law under that appellate court’s two-prong test. In his analysis, Benitez bypassed the strict scrutiny standard, noting in passing the law would fail that test as well, to apply the “intermediate scrutiny standard” created by the Ninth Circuit.

, , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments