A decision Friday undercut the legal basis of California’s “assault weapon” ban:

California’s 32-year-old ban on a certain class of semi-automatic rifles colloquially known as “assault weapons” was declared unconstitutional yesterday in the case of Miller v. BontaAt the same time, the Biden administration wants to impose similar restrictions federally.

The decision does not instantly nullify the enforcement of the law. “Because this case involves serious questions going to the merits, a temporary stay is in the public interest,” concludes the decision, which was penned by U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez for the Southern District of California. The injunction that would force California to stop enforcing its ban is therefore “stayed for 30 days during which time the Attorney General may appeal and seek a stay from the Court of Appeals.”

The state’s attorney general, Rob Bonta, has already announced his intention to appeal—and the 9th Circuit, which will consider that appeal, is not reliably supportive of the Second Amendment. But Benitez’s reasoning remains for other jurists to draw on in other cases, especially if Biden continues his interest in banning certain kinds of rifles.

The 9th Circuit will overturn the decision. Which will likely go to the SCOTUS.

At which point the New York Rifle and Pistol case will have ended in a preceded applying strict scrutiny to state gun laws.

Gun rights are a marathon, not a sprint.

If only ever conservative cause could learn the lessons the 2nd Amendment movement teaches.

2 thoughts on “Flush

  1. The 14th Amendment and the 2nd Amendment both work in the judge’s favor here. When a firearm is widely legal and widely possessed, it is up to the state to show good cause why it should be banned and they failed to do so.

  2. A quibble: under the Strict Scrutiny test for fundamental Constitutional rights set forth in existing Supreme Court precedent, the state does not need to show Good Cause for its ban. That’s what the state wishes it needed to show.

    The state needs to show that the ban is necessary to serve a compelling government interest, that it is narrowly tailored to achieve the compelling purpose, and uses the least restrictive means to achieve the purpose.

    That’s a much harder standard to meet. The judge properly applied the law.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.