Judge Strikes Down California’s Ban on Semiautomatic Weapons

Last week, Roger Benitez, a United States District Court Judge out of San Diego, ruled again that California’s ban on semi-automatic weapons—arms that California has labeled “assault weapons” is unconstitutional and is overturned. That the 34-year-old ban was overturned came as no surprise for those following the case. 

The ruling came in rather short order after the United States Supreme Court ruled in the landmark case New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen last year which held that most laws regulating firearm ownership are legitimate only if they are firmly rooted in American history or analogous to some historical rule. Accordingly, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which had issued a stay on Benitiez’s 2021 decision overturning the California ban, had returned the case known as Miller v Bonta back to Benitez’s District Court to be decided in light of the aforementioned U.S. Supreme Court case.

Further, Benitez has long been known as a jurist in support of 2^nd Amendment rights not only for his original 2021 decision overturning the California ban on semiautomatic weapons, but also for other cases involving the 2^nd Amendment and gun ownership, including last month’s decision overturning California’s ban on large capacity ammunition magazines.

Near the beginning of his decision in his Miller v. Bonta decision, Judge Benitez admonished:

As an aside, the “assault weapon” epithet is a bit of a misnomer. These prohibited guns, like all guns, are dangerous weapons. However, these prohibited guns, like all guns, can be used for ill or for good. They could just as well be called “home defense rifles” or “anti-crime guns.”

This signaled what was to follow in his multi-page decision and set the tone for a blistering attack on the State of California’s arguments to uphold their long-standing weapons ban.

In line with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling from last year, Benitez wrote:

“Notwithstanding having significant time to do so, the State has identified no national tradition of firearm regulation so broad in its coverage or so far reaching in its effect as its extreme ‘assault weapon’ statutes,” 

He further wrote:

“Guns and ammunition in the hands of criminals, tyrants and terrorists are dangerous; guns in the hands of law-abiding responsible citizens are necessary,” Benitez wrote. “To give full life to the core right of self-defense, every law-abiding responsible individual citizen has a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear firearms commonly owned and kept for lawful purposes.”

And to that end Benitez spoke to the fact that while Americans have been inundated with accounts of shootings using a semiautomatic weapon by deranged gunmen such as those that occurred in Uvalde, Texas, Sandy Hook, Connecticut, and Parkland, Florida, the public does not routinely hear about situations where law-abiding members of the public used firearms to defend themselves and their families from armed assailants invading their homes or businesses.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta immediately went on record stating the state’s intent to appeal Benitiez’s decision back to the 9^th Circuit Court and then likely to the U.S Supreme Court. Many other state cases are lining up to be heard before SCOTUS in light of their Bruen decision.

Bonta said in a statement issued from his office:

“Weapons of war have no place on California’s streets. This has been state law in California for decades, and we will continue to fight for our authority to keep our citizens safe from firearms that cause mass casualties.”

California Governor Gavin Newsom, who is pushing for a national Constitutional Convention to specifically address limits on firearms was none too pleased with Judge Benitez. Newsom said the decision was nothing more than:

“a love letter to the gun lobby from a judge hellbent on making it more dangerous for our kids to go to school, for families to go to the mall, or to attend a place of worship.”

Predictable hyperbole from the Golden State governor.

Additionally found in Judge Benitez’s decision was a thorough accounting on the number of firearms purchased each year and ultimately owned in the United States, California in particular. The judge cited that from the period of January 2020 to March 2021 Californians purchased  1,345,367 new guns. He then inferred that with 48% of firearms purchased nationally being rifles—rifles that would be categorized as “assault weapons” under California law, 368,337 of these weapons would have been purchased by Californians if not prohibited by law. 

Californians do love to exercise their 2^nd Amendment rights, no?

In fact, Americans from sea to shining sea exercise those 2^nd Amendment rights in rather large numbers.

It is estimated that American civilians own nearly 400 million guns or 120 for every 100 people making it the only nation where more guns are owned than there are citizens. It is also estimated that 45% of American households own at least one firearm. Terms like “gun culture” are bandied about routinely when describing the U.S. during any debate over government regulation of firearms. There are those that question the validity of the term “gun culture,” yet if there ever was one, the USA would be at the top of the list.

As far as so-called “assault weapons” go, the most popular type among Americans is the AR-15. Contrary to standard belief, AR does not stand for Assault Rifle or Automatic Rifle. Rather, AR designates an Armalite rifle for the company that first developed it. These semi-automatic weapons are now routinely used in hunting, target competitions and home defense. It is estimated that 25 million of these semiautomatic rifles are owned by Americans.

There are many, such as those that back the 1989 ban in California, who espouse the view that regular citizens do not need semiautomatic “military style” rifles. And maybe we don’t—until we do.

The timing of Judge Benitez’s decision just days after the terrorist assault against Israel was to say the least intriguing and though-provoking. The surprise assault took the lives of an estimated 1500 innocent men, women and children, the brutality of which is impossible to fathom.

There are those that are rightfully indignant that  Israeli intelligence did not anticipate the large-scale terrorist operation, nor was the Israeli Defense forces (IDF) apparently prepared to defend its innocent civilians.

In a move that could easily be described as “closing the barn door after the cow has escaped, the Israeli Ministry of Security is purchasing 10,000 assault rifles to arm civilian security teams that guard towns, villages, and kibbutzim near the nation’s borders.

Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir announced the initiative On October 10 saying: 

“We will turn the world upside down so that towns are protected. I have given instructions for massively arming the civilian security teams to provide solutions for towns and cities, and so as not to leave towns unprotected.”

Evidently a move was instituted by the Israeli government three years ago to confiscate assault weapons from civilian security teams and this led to these brave souls in most instances vainly attempting to protect their family and neighbors with pistols from the onslaught of terrorists using military weapons.

Ben Gvir also announced that Israeli gun control laws will now be relaxed. Not too surprisingly, it is reported that over 8000 applications for gun permits have been made by Israeli citizens since the attacks and that number is expected to grow. Necessarily, staffing to process those applications has also dramatically increased.

Heretofore, Israel prided itself on strict gun control. In a nation where there is mandatory conscription in the military for most citizens, only 6% of citizens are purported to own firearms. Further, Israel can boast a 7.3 per 100 residents in annual gun crimes which ranks 78^th internationally. By contrast, the U.S. has a rate twelve times higher than Israel and ranks first internationally. It is unclear whether these statistics will be affected by the 1500 Israeli deaths that took place on October 7, 2023.

Once again, ordinary citizens should not need “military-style assault weapons”—until they do.

Here is the U.S., with the potential for intelligence failures, our military being ill-prepared to protect its citizens in the homeland, and legitimate concerns that our porous borders have already allowed terror cells to establish themselves among us, perhaps Judge Benitez’s decision to overturn California’s semiautomatic rifle ban (with anticipated and ultimate confirmation from the U.S. Supreme Court) has come just in the nick of time.