Post Tribune (Sunday)

California assault weapons ban tossed

Federal judge calls longtime restrictio­n a ‘failed experiment’

- By Don Thompson

A federal judge has overturned California’s three-decade-old ban on assault weapons, calling it a “failed experiment” that violates people’s constituti­onal right to bear arms.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A federal judge has overturned California’s threedecad­e-old ban on assault weapons, calling it a “failed experiment” that violates people’s constituti­onal right to bear arms.

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 and by the U.S. 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, who called the ruling flawed, 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. “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.

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 general’s office argued, and barring them “furthers the state’s important public safety interests.”

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. “Instead, the firearms deemed ‘assault weapons’ are fairly ordinary, popular, modern.”

The judge said despite California’s ban, there currently are an estimated 185,569 assault weapons registered with the state. They were grandfathe­red in before the state’s evolving definition of an assault weapon.

“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.

He also called the ban “a continuing failed experiment which does not achieve its objectives of preventing mass shootings or attacks on law enforcemen­t officers.”

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.

It was filed on behalf of gun owners who want to use high-capacity magazines in their legal rifles or pistols, but said they can’t because doing so would turn them into illegal assault weapons under California law. Unlike military weapons, the semi-automatic rifles fire one bullet each time the trigger is pulled, and the plaintiffs say they are legal in 41 states.

The lawsuit said California is “one of only a small handful states to ban many of the most popular semiautoma­tic firearms in the nation because they possess one or more common characteri­stics, such as pistol grips and threaded barrels,” frequently but not exclusivel­y along with detachable ammunition magazines.

Brandon Combs, the president of the Firearms Policy Coalition, said in a statement that the ruling “held what millions of Americans already know to be true: Bans on so-called ‘assault

weapons’ are unconstitu­tional and cannot stand.”

A gun control advocacy group called the judge’s ruling alarming and “especially insulting” because it was handed down on National Gun Violence Awareness Day.

“Too many families across the nation have lost loved ones in shootings carried out with assault weapons. They can attest to the reality that these weapons are not like ‘Swiss Army knives’ nor are mass shootings only a ‘very small’ problem,” said Robyn Thomas, executive director of the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a group led by Gabrielle Giffords, the former congresswo­man from Arizona who was shot and wounded in a mass shooting 10 years ago.

 ?? DAMIAN DOVARGANES/AP 2012 ?? A federal judge ruled that California’s definition of illegal military-style rifles unlawfully deprives law-abiding residents of weapons already commonly allowed. Above, firearms at a gun buyback event in Los Angeles.
DAMIAN DOVARGANES/AP 2012 A federal judge ruled that California’s definition of illegal military-style rifles unlawfully deprives law-abiding residents of weapons already commonly allowed. Above, firearms at a gun buyback event in Los Angeles.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States