U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez of San Diego ruled Friday that the state´s definition of illegal military-style rifles unlawfully deprives law-abiding Californians of weapons commonly allowed in most other states.
He handed down the two page ruling in response to a lawsuit filed against the State of California by James Miller, Patrick Russ, Ryan Peterson and the the San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee.
-Robert
*****
Ho hum. This is the same judge that overturned the magazine ban, then within a couple days put a stay on his own decision.
The same thing will happen with this. There will be a very short window to buy ARs and parts needed to convert those butt ugly work-arounds they own now, then the decision will either have a stay put on it or there will be an appeal. That window will be closed probably by the end of the day today.
In the meantime, complete rifles and parts prices will go higher than they already are - if you can even find them - as Californians take advantage of that window of opportunity.
Then, a year or three down the road, when and if the case is heard and upheld, California politicians will put some very unreasonable conditions on ownership such as how they must be stored, how they can be transported, where they can be used, what types of ammo can be used, etc etc etc.
And then of course, there's the mandatory registration at the time of purchase that is part of any and all gun sales in the State of California.
*
And after I wrote all that, I was browsing my regular news sites and saw this:
"Under no level of heightened scrutiny can the law survive," Benitez said. He issued a permanent injunction against enforcement of the law but stayed it for 30 days to give state Attorney General Rob Bonta time to appeal.
He issued a stay against his own decision. The window of opportunity that I mentioned isn't going to happen.
Nothing's changed now and nothing will change in the future.
*
And then there's this from another California news station:
The governor said he won’t be backing down on this matter and that there will be continued efforts to put stricter gun laws in place.
“As the son of a judge, I grew up with deep respect for the judicial process and the importance of a judge’s ability to make impartial fact-based rulings, but the fact that this judge compared the AR-15 – a weapon of war that’s used on the battlefield – to a Swiss Army Knife completely undermines the credibility of this decision and is a slap in the face to the families who’ve lost loved ones to this weapon,” Newsom said.
"As the son of a judge..."
ReplyDeleteYeah, right. He's the son of a politically connected San Francisco insider who was appointed to both of his judgeships (Superior and Appellate courts) by Moonbeam Brown.
Gavin learned everything he knows about 'respect for the judicial process' from his politically corrupt father.
If you ever want to learn why Gavin is the way he is just read William Newsom's Wiki page.
The nut doesn't fall far from the tree, and they are/were both everything that's wrong with California.
I'm not a lawyer, but IIUC the stay means that nothing at all has changed, at least for now. However, the stay may have been a tactical move on Judge Benitez' part, and which made some sense. Had Benitez not done this, the Attorney General was going to ask for an emergency stay anyway, which would almost certainly have been granted. As it is, it goes through the normal motions panel (purportedly randomly selected and (I think) already named for the month when Judge Benitez handed down his ruling) for the 9th Circuit, which has limited and scheduled sessions every month. The whole thing is almost certain to end up before the Supreme Court, but if (good joke) the motions panel denies the DOJ's motion, the ruling will stand; there will probably be a freedom day/week/month/whatever until the 9th Circuit can hear the AG's inevitable motion to stay the ruling pending the inevitable appeal, which is probably being drafted right now.
ReplyDeleteThe above mainly comes from the following video, the guy is a lawyer and may well know what he's talking about:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmsqkdzOjk4
What I DO like is that the 'stay' ends in 30 days, which is... the 4th of July! :-)
ReplyDeleteThe gov is a moron. The judge did not actually compare the AR to a Swiss knife. As usual the gov took it out of context to push his own brand of fear mongering.
ReplyDeleteI am tired of this "weapons of war" bs, the armalite was made as a civilian/sport rifle that was the adopted by the military. The Brown Bess was a weapon of war, the Springfield trapdoor, the '03 Springfield, M1 garand and carbines.
ReplyDeleteYou have the advantage of knowing about firearms. Gavin and his friends who sign and write the laws know nothing about them.
DeleteIt's like Juan Williams once said on Fox News Sunday when asked his opinion on guns. His reply was "I don't like guns. Guns scare me".
That was probably 10 years ago and was the last time I wasted my time watching Fox News Sunday.
Whenever someone tells me the AR-15 is a "weapon of warrrr" I ask them to name one country that issues it as an infantry weapon.
DeleteI think the best response to "It's a weapon of war" is "Even if it were, which it isn't, SO WHAT?"
Delete--
In the vein of Juan Williams: A former officemate, who was always trying to provoke a political argument, after two hours of my life I'll never get back, once burst out "I don't like guns, they scare me. That's why no one should have one!" He then slapped his own hand over his mouth as if shocked and ashamed he let that slip. (And yeah, he should have been ashamed.) God, I really don't miss that guy.
Gabbin' Nuisance said "we..." - as if he actually believes he speaks for "California". I would ask him "who is this 'we' you speak of, Kemo Sabe?
ReplyDeleteIt sure as hell isn't any of the lots of family and friends I have, sadly still stuck in the state Gabbin' and the fuckers like him have ruined with their idiocy. Take Peelousy or Boxcar as another example...
Grandpa
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but, sorry, Wirecutter you are out of your depth and are misleading your readers. You are impugning Judge Benitez's motives and actions because you have no idea how these matters are handled.
ReplyDeleteJudge Benitez is a 2nd Amendment hero. His decision in the magazine ban case gave those who acted quickly a chance to buy "high-cap" magazines for the next week. (I have absolutely no sympathy for whiners who ignored the opportunity. Ya snooze, ya lose.) By issuing his stay after one week, and, with its wording, exempting the seizure any magazines acquired or even purchased during "Freedom Week, Judge Benitez prevented the 9th Circuit from routinely issuing a blanket stay of his judgment until it heard the case.
When state laws are ruled unconstitutional at the trial judge level, that is what often happens. Judge Benitez took the issue away from the appellate judges, so 5 million magazines purchased during that week are now legally owned until the magazine case is finally resolved on appeal.
The 9th Circuit panel upheld Judge Benitez's decision in another great victory. The state then requested an "en banc hearing" before the 9th Circuit with, I think, 9 judges. That matter has already been heard by the en banc panel, and its decision is pending any day now. When that ruling is issued, no matter who wins, the loser will appeal to the Supreme Court.
California politicians will certainly understand that they are going into a lion's den with the current Supreme Court. They will not stop until they have exhausted every avenue in order to please their liberal base, and making that effort will likely buy them a great deal of time, as well, before the matter is decided.
So you can tell I have absolutely no faith in the judicial system in general and California politics in particular, huh?
DeleteWe'll see how it rolls.
Easy peasy. See "Peruta v. Gore" where the issue was "may issue".
DeleteJudge ruled that "may issue" was unconstitutional.
Sheriff Gore was good with that. However Kamala Harris, the AG who'd insisted "It's not a state matter, it's a county-level matter" pushed for a three-judge panel.
Three-judge panel says 2-1, "it's unconstitutional". However the dissenting vote became the 9th Chief Judge the following year and performed CPR on the case, calling for and getting an 11-member panel of "randomly-selected" judges.
"11-member panel of 'randomly-selected' judges" says (surprise!) says "It's constitutional."
Various gun-rights groups appeal to SCOTUS who denies cert.
So, no matter what this judge says or does, a decision will be made five years down the road. In the meantime, the status of these rifles will remain as it is.
Same for magazines.
Lather, rinse, repeat.