Miller v Beccera California AWB Found Unconstitutional

Anthony Miranda, aka "Armed Scholar", is a practicing California attorney who provides 2A news and updates to 2A related court cases. He is also a staff attorney for the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC). I can't find much right now to back his claim, but he's not going to lie and never has.

Some background from the Firearms Policy Coalition website: www.firearmspolicy.org...

SAN DIEGO, CA ((June 4, 2021)) — Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that Judge Roger T. Benitez of the Southern District of California has issued an opinion in Miller v. Bonta (previously Miller v. Becerra), holding that California’s tyrannical ban on so-called “assault weapons” is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The opinion, along with other filings in this case, can be viewed at AssaultWeaponLawsuit.com.

In 2019, FPC developed and filed Miller v. Becerra, a federal Second Amendment challenge to California’s Assault Weapons Control Act (AWCA) ban on common semiautomatic arms with certain characteristics, including those with ammunition magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds. Throughout the lawsuit, FPC argued that the State’s ban prohibits arms that are constitutionally protected, no more lethal than other certain arms that are not banned, and commonly possessed and used for lawful purposes in the vast majority of the United States.

In the opinion, the Court ruled that many categories of firearms California bans as so-called “assault weapons” are protected by the Second Amendment, and that “[t]he Second Amendment stands as a shield from government imposition of that policy.” It went on to order an injunction against “Defendant Attorney General Rob Bonta, and his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with him, and those duly sworn state peace officers and federal law enforcement officers who gain knowledge of this injunction order or know of the existence of this injunction order,” preventing them “from implementing or enforcing” the following:

California Penal Code §§ 30515(a)(1) through (8) (defining an “assault weapon” by prohibited features);

§ 30800 (deeming those “assault weapons” a public nuisance);

§ 30915 (regulating those “assault weapons” obtained by bequest or inheritance);

§ 30925 (restricting importation of those “assault weapons” by new residents);

§ 30945 (restricting use of those registered “assault weapons”) ;

§30950 (prohibiting possession of those “assault weapons” by minors); and,
the penalty provisions §§ 30600, 30605 and 30800 as applied to “assault weapons” defined in Code §§ 30515(a)(1) through (8).

“In his order today, Judge Benitez held what millions of Americans already know to be true: Bans on so-called ‘assault weapons’ are unconstitutional and cannot stand,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “This historic victory for individual liberty is just the beginning, and FPC will continue to aggressively challenge these laws throughout the United States.

We look forward to continuing this challenge at the Ninth Circuit and, should it be necessary, the Supreme Court.” “We are delighted with Judge Benitez’s careful consideration of the law and facts in this case,” commented Adam Kraut, FPC’s Senior Director of Legal Operations. “The State’s ban on these common semi-automatic firearms with common characteristics flies in the face of the Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, and the natural right to keep and bear arms.” “At trial, we presented dispositive evidence that the term ‘assault weapon’ has always been an arbitrary label used by anti-gun governments to ban constitutionally protected firearms,” explained FPC attorney George Lee. “In the end, the State’s rationale for banning these firearms simply could not hold up. This win is a watershed moment for civil rights, and will restore liberty to countless Californians that have been subjected to gross tyranny for years.” “While this victory is most certainly a valuable one, it’s also important to understand how impactful this decision will be in restoring Second Amendment rights not only in California, but across the entire country,” noted FPC Attorney John Dillon. “This landmark trial win points the way to victory everywhere these unconstitutional bans exist.”

Fast forward to today, and this case did make it to the SCOTUS and then was sent back down to the Ninth Circuit for reconsideration in light of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. Courts have been given guidance by the Supreme Court to decide cases on history and text rather than the previous two step method that the Ninth has been using for years to neuter Californians gun rights. This effectively ends the states "public interest" defense.

The ninth then sent it back down to Judge Roger T. Benitez who issued an order and within that order, The California "Assault weapons" ban was found to be Unconstitutional! California will appeal, of course, citing they need more time to come up with history that doesn't exist to support thier ban. They also claimed at one point that Judges don't possess the educational fortitude to decide these cases because they are not historical scholars!

I can't stand California, most of my friends are long gone to greener pastures and yet I'm still here. Its entirely safe to say that California will NEVER be red again, so these wins are HUGE not only for California but the nation as a whole.

I'll post what I can as the updates become available!

WINNING.......... maybe.

ETA: California will immediately file for an emergency stay and if its granted, we're looking at nothing changing for another 3 to 5 years! Essentially the process will start all over again. Just wanted to put that out there so if it bites, it won't sting as much.

a reply to: EternalShadow

It doesn't take a historical scholar to know where all the arms came from that started our great military. They came from private citizens...in fact I am pretty sure thats where our navy started too.

Hell the settlers which founded California and first settled it were all armed and I would bet those with the funds had the latest and greatest of tech when it came to their arms.

a reply to: RickyD

In my opinion, guns do for civilians what nuclear arms does for countries.

It's a deterrent, first and foremost.

Do you think that Walmart shooter would have showed up with a gun to kill those people if he KNEW a good number of those shot were armed as well? I guarantee he would have thought twice.

There's so many guns out there, to be unarmed is frankly idiotic.

IMO.

a reply to: EternalShadow

Pretty sure it was Franklin who said "an armed society is a polite society". Meaning you are a lot less likely to cause trouble when the chances are good that trouble will bite back.

a reply to: RickyD

Yup, American civilians owned semi-automatic rifles for 40+ years before the military adopted them.

a reply to: EternalShadow




Miranda Was Right .

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Did you find an update or link?

originally posted by: EternalShadow
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Did you find an update or link?

What ? You Want Me To Read You the Riot Act ?

Currently, I'm only seeing an entry for Nov 15 2022 as far as movement, and it states:

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Honorable Roger T. Benitez: The Court makes the following tentative ruling in advance of the November 28, 2022 hearing: There exists a live case or controversy between these plaintiffs and the defendant(s). Notwithstanding the defendants statement that he does not intend presently to enforce the state attorneys fee statute at issue, the case is not moot. First, defendant has stated that he will enforce the statute if certain events occur in the future. Second, the defendant cannot bind a successor if he leaves office for any reason. Third, defendants position on non-enforcement does not bind county counsel, city attorneys, or private parties in the state that may seek to employ the benefit of the statute at issue. On December 16, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. a trial on the merits will be consolidated with a hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction, pursuant to F.R.C.P. 65(a)(2). Bench Trial set for 12/16/2022 10:00 AM in Courtroom 5A before Judge Roger T. Benitez.(no document attached) (gxr) (Entered: 11/15/2022)

www.courtlistener.com...

It would seem Anthony may have made a mistake, but I'll still update this thread as more information becomes available.

That clip was from a year ago. It was a YouTube short and I thought that meant it was recent upload. That's the thing I can't stand about YouTube; there's no option to block videos you've already watched or are irrelevant. It's reruns after reruns.

Sorry about that everyone.

However, this remains true:

On December 16, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. a trial on the merits will be consolidated with a hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction, pursuant to F.R.C.P. 65(a)(2). Bench Trial set for 12/16/2022 10:00 AM in Courtroom 5A before Judge Roger T. Benitez.

^^^^ That's the real deal. We'll see after that.

Again, I apologize.

a reply to: EternalShadow

Yea you always got to check publish dates with youtube. Even that isn't fool proof but it will fill her a lot of the rehashes.

newrepublic.com... this i think expalins why ca brought up "history" it had to do with specific wording used by ClarenceThomas in the recent scotus ruling against NY

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the six-justice majority in Bruen, eliminated the second step altogether. “When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct,” he wrote for the court. “The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s ‘unqualified command.’” In short, it made originalism mandatory in Second Amendment cases.

so that is why we keep getting interesting gun rulings and why all the lower courts are now mostly required to be more progun then anti gun like in the past

but its also having some interesting side effects as the article goes on to state such as this one

Applying the history-and-tradition test to existing gun laws has already led to some extraordinary conclusions. Earlier this month, for example, a federal district court judge in Texas struck down part of a law that sought to keep guns away from people accused of or at risk of committing domestic violence. The defendant, Litsson Antonio Perez-Gallan, was a truck driver who was traveling along the U.S. border with Mexico when he was stopped and searched by border patrol agents. Those agents found a handgun in his possession and later learned that a Kentucky family court had issued a restraining order against him. Federal prosecutors charged him with violating a federal law that forbade possession of a firearm while under certain court orders. Perez-Gallan moved to dismiss the charges after the Bruen ruling, claiming that the statute infringed on his Second Amendment rights. Judge David Counts, who serves as a federal district court judge in Texas, ultimately sided with him. In a ruling earlier this month, he grounded his conclusions in the history-and-tradition test laid out in Bruen. “This straightforward historical analysis, however, reveals a historical tradition likely unthinkable today,” Counts noted. “Domestic abusers are not new. But until the mid-1970s, government intervention—much less removing an individual’s firearms—because of domestic violence practically did not exist.”

which basically comes down to well historically the usa did not ban accused/convicted domestic abusers from firearms ownership and now per the new ruling it was a violation of their 2nd amendment rights to attempt to infringe on them least in this texas case.

which could lead to some pretty interesting rulings coming down the line as the article states basically for bulk of USA history a gun was the difference between starvation/possible death out in the wilds so from a purely historical context passing more restrictive laws that dont have past precedent is going to be much harder ,especially for "younger states" that dont have say the long history of regulating fire arms like the city of ny for example

ill add another link that breifely goes over usa gun laws from the way back days to now

gun-control.procon.org... this one could get REAL interesting if they go for historical context aspect

Some laws, including in Connecticut (1643) and at least five other colonies, required “at least one adult man in every house to carry a gun to church or other public meetings” in order to protect against attacks by Native Americans; prevent theft of firearms from unattended homes; and, as a 1743 South Carolina law stated, safeguard against “insurrections and other wicked attempts of Negroes and other Slaves.” [105] Other laws required immigrants to own guns in order to immigrate or own land. [105]

note these predate the formation of the USA proper so not sure if they would apply but laws mandating ownership did exist in the continental usa even under the British. and even in this one passage pro2nd and anti second amendment individuals get a little bit thrown their way.

the pro crowd get the historical context of hey guns in churches were actualy required at one point ,and the anti crowd can bring up safe storage laws in context of even back in 1643 theft of firearms had laws regulating it(ironically requiring owning guns to protect said guns)

and the back and forth seems to go on through history giving exceptions for school teachers from owning guns for example but this next snippit is probally the most important over all

A 1792 federal law required that every man eligible for militia service own a gun and ammunition suitable for military service, report for frequent inspection of their guns, and register his gun ownership on public records. [101] Many Americans owned hunting rifles or pistols instead of proper military guns, and even though the penalty fines were high (over $9,000 in 2014 dollars), they were levied inconsistently and the public largely ignored the law. [105][106]

historical precedent not only allowing but REQUIRING firearms ownership of Military style and ammunition BUT also coming with a registration requirement and fines for those that did not comply. on paper this would seem to imply if the right challenge is made that class 3 permitting may be challenged and also for the anti gun crowd that registration is not an infringement but was historically an oft ignored requirement under federal law at the dawn of this nations inception.

If those running things are making unconstitutional laws, how come they are allowed to be in office anymore? Something is wrong with the political system in this country.

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Thank you for taking the time to add historical precedent and insight to an otherwise doomed thread, lol.

a reply to: rickymouse

A LOT is wrong, too much really.

Here's an interesting case:

Walker v. United States
foavc.org...

a reply to: EternalShadow
I was not familiar with firearms policy coalition until i just read this. This is certainly a very positive and beneficial group. I will now make the occasional donation to this group and add it to my basket of causes i donate to, which also include two wounded vets organizations, the Liberty Counsel and fallen heroes among others. Im not rich, so i just send 20 bucks a month from a hat draw.


a reply to: RalagaNarHallas
I really really enjoyed that rabbit hole. Definetly some valid legal precedents that would actually be fun to explore in todays modern context.