Federalist- On Friday, a federal judge struck down California’s assault weapon ban in Miller v. Bonta. In the nearly 100-page opinion, District Court Judge Roger Benitez dissected post-Heller Second Amendment jurisdiction, while scrutinizing the state’s claimed justification for banning ownership of so-called “assault weapons,” before enjoining enforcement of several sections of California’s Assault Weapons Control Act (AWCA). Yet for 30 days Judge Benitez also stayed the execution of the declaratory judgment and permanent injunction to allow the named defendant, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, to appeal.
In striking down California’s “assault weapon” ban, which criminalizes the possession of various semi-automatic weapons based on their appearance, features, or ability to hold a magazine with more than 10 rounds of ammunition, Judge Benitez conducted a thorough review of controlling Second Amendment precedent and analyzed the hefty evidentiary record. He began with Heller, in which the Supreme Court noted the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to bear arms extends to firearms commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, as opposed to weapons predominately used only in military settings. more
“With the appeal destined for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, reversal seems certain, either by a three-judge panel or later in an en banc hearing before 11 judges of the leftist court. The Ninth Circuit, however, merely serves as the stepping-stone for the ultimate destination of the Miller case: the U.S. Supreme Court.”
…Where Roberts will be looking at the guy holding a photo envelope for some reason as he says that no one has any standing, so the reversal will stand instead.
…and the tyranny will march merrily on…
…Roberts whenever a non-Democrat approaches the Court for certiorari…
https://tenor.com/view/the-wizard-of-oz-go-away-wasting-my-time-annoyed-fed-up-gif-16881429
Are there any gun rights justices left on the SCOTUS now that they murdered Scalia?
“While the state ought to protect its residents against victimization by a mass shooter, it ought also to protect its residents against victimization by home-invading criminals,” the district court judge stressed.
NO! This statement implies that the state protects citizens from mass shooters by keeping the guns away from them. Citizens protect themselves by HAVING AND USING their guns!!
Also don’t believe leftists when they tell us higher interest rates are a good thing.
Gaslighting.
Good thing for whom?
“the Supreme Court noted the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to bear arms extends to firearms commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, as opposed to weapons predominately used only in military settings.”
Sorry, SCOTUS, the Second Amendment has no exemption for scary-looking military-type guns. ALL guns should be able to be owned, and used, by citizens. We shouldn’t have to ask permission to exercise our RIGHT.
“Judge Benitez conducted a thorough review of controlling Second Amendment …”
“Judge” Benitez is, obviously, illiterate.
The Second Amendment is, not only, quite explicit, but its intent was to give (through the legality of the Bill of Rights) the Americans the capability to oppose tyranny – not to kill Bambi.
Another Affirmative Action “judge.”
izlamo delenda est …
I don’t remember seeing anything in the second amendment that allows excluding military only use. I see “well regulated”, which is an old Masonic term for orderly & well behaved, followed by “shall not be infringed”.
There’s military, then there’s military, then there’s military.
And no military ever used AR-15s. They did however use Martini Henrys, M1917 Revolvers, and SMLEs. Their own wishy-washy definition is complete bullshit. An M1911 is by definition a military arm. And yet…