US judge overturns California’s ban on assault weapons

Published June 6, 2021
A clerk shows a customer a TPM Arms LLC California-legal featureless AR-10 style .308 rifle displayed for sale at the company's booth at the Crossroads of the West Gun Show at the Orange County Fairgrounds on June 5, 2021 in Costa Mesa, California. — AFP
A clerk shows a customer a TPM Arms LLC California-legal featureless AR-10 style .308 rifle displayed for sale at the company's booth at the Crossroads of the West Gun Show at the Orange County Fairgrounds on June 5, 2021 in Costa Mesa, California. — AFP

SACRAMENTO: A federal judge on Friday overturned California’s three-decade-old ban on assault weapons, ruling that it violates the constitutional right to bear arms.

US District Judge Roger Benitez of San Diego ruled that the state’s definition of illegal military-style rifles unlawfully deprives law-abiding Californians of weapons commonly allowed in most other states and by the US Supreme Court.

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.

Gov. Gavin Newsom condemned the decision, calling it a direct threat to public safety and the lives of innocent Californians, period.” In his 94-page ruling, the judge spoke favorably of modern weapons, said they were overwhelmingly used for legal reasons.

Like the Swiss Army knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment. Good for both home and battle,” the judge said in his ruling’s introduction.

That comparison 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 in a statement. Were not backing down from this fight, and well continue pushing for common sense gun laws that will save lives. Bonta called the ruling flawed and said it will be appealed.

California first restricted assault weapons in 1989, with multiple updates to the law since then.

Assault weapons as defined by the law are more dangerous than other firearms and are disproportionately used in crimes, mass shootings and against law enforcement, with more resulting casualties, the state attorney generals office argued, and barring them furthers the states important public safety interests.

Further, a surge in sales of more than 1.16 million other types of pistols, rifles and shotguns in the last year more than a third of them to likely first-time buyers show that the assault weapons ban has not prevented law-abiding citizens in the state from acquiring a range of firearms for lawful purposes, including self-defence, the state contended in a court filing in March.

Similar assault weapon restrictions have previously been upheld by six other federal district and appeals courts, the state argued. Overturning the ban would allow not only assault rifles, but things like assault shotguns and assault pistols, state officials said. But Benitez disagreed.

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,” his ruling said.

Despite California’s ban, there currently are an estimated 185,569 assault weapons registered with the state, the judge said.

This is an average case about average guns used in average ways for average purposes,” the ruling said. One is to be forgiven if one is persuaded by news media and others that the nation is awash with murderous AR-15 assault rifles. The facts, however, do not support this hyperbole, and facts matter.” In California, murder by knife occurs seven times more often than murder by rifle,” he added.

In a preliminary ruling in September, Benitez said California’s complicated legal definition of assault weapons can ensnare otherwise law-abiding gun owners with criminal penalties that among other things can strip them of their Second Amendment right to own firearms.

“The burden on the core Second Amendment right, if any, is minimal, the state argued, because the weapons can still be used just not with the modifications that turn them into assault weapons. Modifications like a shorter barrel or collapsible stock make them more concealable, state officials said, while things like a pistol grip or thumbhole grip make them more lethal by improving their accuracy as they are fired rapidly.

The lawsuit filed by the San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee, California Gun Rights Foundation, Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition is among several by gun advocacy groups challenging California’s firearms laws, which are among the strictest in the nation.

The lawsuit filed in August 2019 followed a series of deadly mass shootings nationwide involving military-style rifles.

Published in Dawn, June 6th, 2021

Opinion

Editorial

Tax amendments
Updated 20 Dec, 2024

Tax amendments

Bureaucracy gimmicks have not produced results, will not do so in the future.
Cricket breakthrough
20 Dec, 2024

Cricket breakthrough

IT had been made clear to Pakistan that a Champions Trophy without India was not even a distant possibility, even if...
Troubled waters
20 Dec, 2024

Troubled waters

LURCHING from one crisis to the next, the Pakistani state has been consistent in failing its vulnerable citizens....
Madressah oversight
Updated 19 Dec, 2024

Madressah oversight

Bill should be reconsidered and Directorate General of Religious Education, formed to oversee seminaries, should not be rolled back.
Kurram’s misery
Updated 19 Dec, 2024

Kurram’s misery

The state must recognise that allowing such hardship to continue undermines its basic duty to protect citizens’ well-being.
Hiking gas rates
19 Dec, 2024

Hiking gas rates

IMPLEMENTATION of a new Ogra recommendation to increase the gas prices by an average 8.7pc or Rs142.45 per mmBtu in...