FPC Wins “Assault Weapon” Lawsuit in Historic Victory for Second Amendment Rights

[Doc7505]

FPC Wins “Assault Weapon” Lawsuit in Historic Victory for Second Amendment Rights​

BREAKING: FPC Wins “Assault Weapon” Lawsuit in Historic Victory for Second Amendment Rights

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...

www.firearmspolicy.org

4 Jun 2021
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.”
~Snip~
“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.”

Comment:
These arguments of the Progressive Marxist/DSA Democrat Commie left ignore the fact that the very rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution for armed citizens, are the very same sections that allow armed cops and soldiers.

 

[asaratis]

Gruesome Newsom is pissed!!

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Gruesome Newsom is pissed!!

I hope he kills himself.

 

[Esdraelon]

Gruesome Newsom is pissed!!

Everyone on the Left who does not respect the role of 2A will hate this as well. Newsome will spare no expense to appeal. SCOTUS has already added another 2A case to this term's docket. That question is an appeal against NY state's imposition of frivolous requirements to impede citizens who want to conceal carry.

 

[Pete7469]

There is not a single policy issue bed wetting liberals are correct about, especially when it comes to guns.

 

[danielpalos]

Gruesome Newsom is pissed!!

Everyone on the Left who does not respect the role of 2A will hate this as well. Newsome will spare no expense to appeal. SCOTUS has already added another 2A case to this term's docket. That question is an appeal against NY state's imposition of frivolous requirements to impede citizens who want to conceal carry.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

[2aguy]

FPC Wins “Assault Weapon” Lawsuit in Historic Victory for Second Amendment Rights​

BREAKING: FPC Wins “Assault Weapon” Lawsuit in Historic Victory for Second Amendment Rights

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...

www.firearmspolicy.org

4 Jun 2021
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.”
~Snip~
“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.”

Comment:
These arguments of the Progressive Marxist/DSA Democrat Commie left ignore the fact that the very rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution for armed citizens, are the very same sections that allow armed cops and soldiers.

Did you ever read this judges ruling on the California Magazine Ban....it is classic.....

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...JieJ6BMiBtRS0jdYT2id4OKm6suWAzGqo1V9eoe_wL9aA

Few would say that a 100 or 50-round rifle magazine in the hands of a murderer is a good idea. Yet, the “solution” for preventing a mass shooting exacts a high toll on the everyday freedom of ordinary law-abiding citizens. Many individual robberies, rapes, and shootings are not prevented by the State. Unless a law-abiding individual has a firearm for his or her own defense, the police typically arrive after it is too late. With rigor mortis setting in, they mark and bag the evidence, interview bystanders, and draw a chalk outline on the ground. But the victim, nevertheless, is dead, or raped, or robbed, or traumatized.
--------

In other words, a Californian may have a pistol with a 10-round magazine in hopes of fighting off a home invasion robbery. But if that Californian grabs a pistol containing a 17-round magazine, it is now the home-defending victim who commits a new crime.
----------

All Californians, like all citizens of the United States, have a fundamental Constitutional right to keep and bear common and dangerous arms. The nation’s Founders used arms for self-protection, for the common defense, for hunting food, and as a check against tyranny. Teixeira v. Cty. of Alameda, 873 F.3d 670, 686 (9th Cir. 2017)
-----

1. The Supreme Court’s Simple Heller Test

In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court provided a simple Second Amendment test in crystal clear language. It is a test that anyone can understand. The right to keep and bear arms is a right enjoyed by law-abiding citizens to have arms that are not unusual “in common use” “for lawful purposes like self-defense.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 624 (2008); Heller v. District of Columbia (“Heller II”), 670 F.3d 1244, 1271 (2011) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting) (“In my view, Heller and McDonald leave little doubt that courts are to assess gun bans and regulations based on text, history, and tradition, not by a balancing test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny.”).

It is a hardware test. Is the firearm hardware commonly owned? Is the hardware commonly owned by law-abiding citizens? Is the hardware owned by those citizens for lawful purposes? If the answers are “yes,” the test is over.

The hardware is protected. Millions of ammunition magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds are in common use by law-abiding responsible citizens for lawful uses like self-defense.

This is enough to decide that a magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds passes the Heller test and is protected by the Second Amendment. The simple test applies because a magazine is an essential mechanical part of a firearm. The size limit directly impairs one’s ability to defend one’s self.

The Second Amendment does not exist to protect the right to bear down pillows and foam baseball bats. It protects guns and every gun is dangerous. “If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous.” Caetano v. Massachusetts, 136 S. Ct. 1027, 1031 (2016) (Alito, J. and Thomas, J., concurring); Maloney v. Singas, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211546 *19 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2018) (striking down 1974 ban on possession of dangerous nunchaku in violation of the Second Amendment and quoting Caetano).

“[T]he relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes.” Id. California law presently permits the lethality of a gun with a 10-round magazine. In other words, a gun with an 11-round magazine or a 15-round magazine is apparently too lethal to be possessed by a law-abiding citizen. A gun with a 10-round magazine is not. Missing is a constitutionally-permissible standard for testing acceptable lethality. The Attorney General offers no objective standard. Heller sets out a commonality standard that can be applied to magazine hardware: is the size of the magazine “common”? If so, the size is constitutionally-protected. If the “too lethal” standard is followed to its logical conclusion, the government may dictate in the future that a magazine of eight rounds is too lethal. And after that, it may dictate that a gun with a magazine holding three rounds is too lethal since a person usually fires only 2.2 rounds in self-defense. This stepped-down approach may continue32 until the time comes when government declares that only guns holding a single round are sufficiently lacking in lethality that they are both “safe” to possess and powerful enough to provide a means of self-defense.3

(12.) the critical “pause”

The State argues that smaller magazines create a “critical pause” in the shooting of a mass killer. “The prohibition of LCMs helps create a “critical pause” that has been proven to give victims an opportunity to hide, escape, or disable a shooter.” Def. Oppo., at 19.

This may be the case for attackers. On the other hand, from the perspective of a victim trying to defend her home and family, the time required to re-load a pistol after the tenth shot might be called a “lethal pause,” as it typically takes a victim much longer to re-load (if they can do it at all) than a perpetrator planning an attack.

In other words, the re-loading “pause” the State seeks in hopes of stopping a mass shooter, also tends to create an even more dangerous time for every victim who must try to defend herself with a small-capacity magazine. The need to re-load and the lengthy pause that comes with banning all but small-capacity magazines is especially unforgiving for victims who are disabled, or who have arthritis, or who are trying to hold a phone in their off-hand while attempting to call for police help.

The good that a re-loading pause might do in the extremely rare mass shooting incident is vastly outweighed by the harm visited on manifold law-abiding, citizen-victims who must also pause while under attack. This blanket ban without any tailoring to these types of needs goes to show § 32310’s lack of reasonable fit.

=======

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...JieJ6BMiBtRS0jdYT2id4OKm6suWAzGqo1V9eoe_wL9aA

When a group of armed burglars break into a citizen’s home at night, and the homeowner in pajamas must choose between using their left hand to grab either a telephone, a flashlight, or an extra 10-round magazine, the burden is severe. When one is far from help in a sparsely populated part of the state, and law enforcement may not be able to respond in a timely manner, the burden of a 10-round limit is severe.

When a major earthquake causes power outages, gas and water line ruptures, collapsed bridges and buildings, and chaos, the burden of a 10-round magazine limit is severe.

When food distribution channels are disrupted and sustenance becomes scarce while criminals run rampant, the burden of a 10-round magazine limit is severe.

Surely, the rights protected by the Second Amendment are not to be trimmed away as unnecessary because today’s litigation happens during the best of times. It may be the best of times in Sunnyvale; it may be the worst of times in Bombay Beach or Potrero. California’s ban covers the entire state at all times.

=========
3. Lethality is Not the Test

Some say that the use of “large capacity magazines” increases the lethality of gun violence. They point out that when large capacity magazines are used in mass shootings, more shots are fired, more people are wounded, and more wounds are fatal than in other mass shootings.31 That may or may not be true. Certainly, a gun when abused is lethal. A gun holding more than 10 rounds is lethal to more people than a gun holding less than 10 rounds, but it is not constitutionally decisive. Nothing in the Second Amendment makes lethality a factor to consider because a gun’s lethality, or dangerousness, is assumed.


The Second Amendment does not exist to protect the right to bear down pillows and foam baseball bats. It protects guns and every gun is dangerous. “If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous.” Caetano v. Massachusetts, 136 S. Ct. 1027, 1031 (2016) (Alito, J. and Thomas, J., concurring); Maloney v. Singas, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211546 *19 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2018) (striking down 1974 ban on possession of dangerous nunchaku in violation of the Second Amendment and quoting Caetano). “[T]he relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes.” Id. California law presently permits the lethality of a gun with a 10-round magazine.

In other words, a gun with an 11-round magazine or a 15-round magazine is apparently too lethal to be possessed by a law-abiding citizen. A gun with a 10-round magazine is not. Missing is a constitutionally-permissible standard for testing acceptable lethality.

The Attorney General offers no objective standard.

Heller sets out a commonality standard that can be applied to magazine hardware: is the size of the magazine “common”? If so, the size is constitutionally-protected.


If the “too lethal” standard is followed to its logical conclusion, the government may dictate in the future that a magazine of eight rounds is too lethal. And after that, it may dictate that a gun with a magazine holding three rounds is too lethal since a person usually fires only 2.2 rounds in self-defense. This stepped-down approach may continue32 until the time comes when government declares that only guns holding a single round are sufficiently lacking in lethality that they are both “safe” to possess and powerful enough to provide a means of self-defense.33

32 Constitutional rights would become meaningless if states could obliterate them by enacting incrementally more burdensome restrictions while arguing that a reviewing court must evaluate each restriction by itself when determining its constitutionality. Peruta v. Cty. of San Diego, 824 F.3d 919, 953 (9th Cir. 2016) (Callahan, J., dissenting). 33 Artificial limits will eventually lead to disarmament.
=====

Slippery Slope...

It does not take the imagination of Jules Verne to predict that if all magazines over 10 rounds are somehow eliminated from California, the next mass shooting will be accomplished with guns holding only 10 rounds. To reduce gun violence, the state will close the newly christened 10-round “loophole” and use it as a justification to outlaw magazines holding more than 7 rounds. The legislature will determine that no more than 7 rounds are “necessary.”


Then the next mass shooting will be accomplished with guns holding 7 rounds. To reduce the new gun violence, the state will close the 7-round “loophole” and outlaw magazines holding more than 5 rounds determining that no more than 5 rounds is “necessary.” And so it goes, until the only lawful firearm law-abiding responsible citizens will be permitted to possess is a single-shot handgun.


Or perhaps, one gun, but no ammunition. Or ammunition issued only to persons deemed trustworthy.


This is not baseless speculation or scare-mongering. One need only look at New Jersey and New York. In the 1990’s, New Jersey instituted a prohibition on what it would label “large capacity ammunition magazines.” These were defined as magazines able to hold more than 15 rounds. Slipping down the slope, last year, New Jersey lowered the capacity of permissible magazines from 15 to 10 rounds. See Firearms, 2018 N.J. Sess. Law Serv. Ch. 39 (ASSEMBLY No. 2761) (WEST). At least one bill had been offered that would have reduced the allowed capacity to only five rounds. (See New Jersey Senate Bill No. 798, introduced in the 2018 Session, amending N.J.S. 2C:39-1(y)

 

[Donald H]

Next step for America, full automatic machine guns mounted in the back of pickup trucks!

The NRA Song



Guns are neat, Guns are sweet
Guns the tool, what makes you cool.
Guns are fine, Guns are mine
Guns are things, that Jesus brings!
Guns for loonies, Guns for cons
Guns for Moonies, Guns for moms!
Guns are fun for everyone,
buy them up by the ton.
Guns for me, Guns for you,
Guns for nuts and children too!
Guns at home, Guns at work,
Guns at play, Guns berserk!
Tons and tons of great big Guns,
Are tons and tons of great big fun!
I’ve got Guns up my nose
‘tween my ears and by my toes.
I’m no fool, I’m so cool,
I take Guns to my school.
I take Guns to my car,
to the store and to the bar.
I got Guns in a drawer,
in my pocket and on the floor.
I got Guns on the wall,
behind the toilet and in the hall.
I got guns in my bed,
one is growing from my head!
Get a Gun and get it fast,
Gun-Gun shoot-shoot is a blast!

Guns are wot's gud for killing librul's little children!​

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Next step for America, full automatic machine guns mounted in the back of pickup trucks!

Yep.

You assholes can't leave well enough alone, so that's EXACTLY where we are headed.

 

[freyasman]

Next step for America, full automatic machine guns mounted in the back of pickup trucks!

The NRA Song



Guns are neat, Guns are sweet
Guns the tool, what makes you cool.
Guns are fine, Guns are mine
Guns are things, that Jesus brings!
Guns for loonies, Guns for cons
Guns for Moonies, Guns for moms!
Guns are fun for everyone,
buy them up by the ton.
Guns for me, Guns for you,
Guns for nuts and children too!
Guns at home, Guns at work,
Guns at play, Guns berserk!
Tons and tons of great big Guns,
Are tons and tons of great big fun!
I’ve got Guns up my nose
‘tween my ears and by my toes.
I’m no fool, I’m so cool,
I take Guns to my school.
I take Guns to my car,
to the store and to the bar.
I got Guns in a drawer,
in my pocket and on the floor.
I got Guns on the wall,
behind the toilet and in the hall.
I got guns in my bed,
one is growing from my head!
Get a Gun and get it fast,
Gun-Gun shoot-shoot is a blast!

Guns are wot's gud for killing librul's little children!​

Get the fuck over yourself, already.

 

[Colin norris]

FPC Wins “Assault Weapon” Lawsuit in Historic Victory for Second Amendment Rights​

BREAKING: FPC Wins “Assault Weapon” Lawsuit in Historic Victory for Second Amendment Rights

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...

www.firearmspolicy.org

4 Jun 2021
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.”
~Snip~
“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.”

Comment:
These arguments of the Progressive Marxist/DSA Democrat Commie left ignore the fact that the very rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution for armed citizens, are the very same sections that allow armed cops and soldiers.

How is communism associated with the decision? There's no mention of a communist takeover to justify the weapons.

For what would your average citizen use that weapon for "lawful purposes".?

 

[2aguy]

FPC Wins “Assault Weapon” Lawsuit in Historic Victory for Second Amendment Rights​

BREAKING: FPC Wins “Assault Weapon” Lawsuit in Historic Victory for Second Amendment Rights

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...

www.firearmspolicy.org

4 Jun 2021
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.”
~Snip~
“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.”

Comment:
These arguments of the Progressive Marxist/DSA Democrat Commie left ignore the fact that the very rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution for armed citizens, are the very same sections that allow armed cops and soldiers.

How is communism associated with the decision? There's no mention of a communist takeover to justify the weapons.

For what would your average citizen use that weapon for "lawful purposes".?

An AR-15, or just rifles in general?

The AR-15 is a great gun for home defense versus the shotgun.....and it is also used for hunting...it is good for hunting wild hogs....I am told......and it is used in competition by shooters of all ages and both sexes......

It also helps keep the democrat party terrorist groups, blm and antifa, from burning down your store when they are burning and looting black neighborhoods for the democrat party just before elections.......

 

[Colin norris]

FPC Wins “Assault Weapon” Lawsuit in Historic Victory for Second Amendment Rights​

BREAKING: FPC Wins “Assault Weapon” Lawsuit in Historic Victory for Second Amendment Rights

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...

www.firearmspolicy.org

4 Jun 2021
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.”
~Snip~
“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.”

Comment:
These arguments of the Progressive Marxist/DSA Democrat Commie left ignore the fact that the very rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution for armed citizens, are the very same sections that allow armed cops and soldiers.

How is communism associated with the decision? There's no mention of a communist takeover to justify the weapons.

For what would your average citizen use that weapon for "lawful purposes".?

An AR-15, or just rifles in general?

The AR-15 is a great gun for home defense versus the shotgun.....and it is also used for hunting...it is good for hunting wild hogs....I am told......and it is used in competition by shooters of all ages and both sexes......

It also helps keep the democrat party terrorist groups, blm and antifa, from burning down your store when they are burning and looting black neighborhoods for the democrat party just before elections.......

You have never used it for defense of your home and never will. That's propaganda. How often do you go hinting hogs? Honestly. Very rarely.
Used in a gun club? Possibly.

As for shooting rioters, that stupid kid found himself in jail when he opened fire on people.

So don't give me your pathetic justifications for ownership. The truth is you have guns because you can. You will never use them for defense because you haven't the guts to go out. Where were you when BLM did their thing? Cowering in the shed?

 

[2aguy]

FPC Wins “Assault Weapon” Lawsuit in Historic Victory for Second Amendment Rights​

BREAKING: FPC Wins “Assault Weapon” Lawsuit in Historic Victory for Second Amendment Rights

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...

www.firearmspolicy.org

4 Jun 2021
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.”
~Snip~
“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.”

Comment:
These arguments of the Progressive Marxist/DSA Democrat Commie left ignore the fact that the very rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution for armed citizens, are the very same sections that allow armed cops and soldiers.

How is communism associated with the decision? There's no mention of a communist takeover to justify the weapons.

For what would your average citizen use that weapon for "lawful purposes".?

An AR-15, or just rifles in general?

The AR-15 is a great gun for home defense versus the shotgun.....and it is also used for hunting...it is good for hunting wild hogs....I am told......and it is used in competition by shooters of all ages and both sexes......

It also helps keep the democrat party terrorist groups, blm and antifa, from burning down your store when they are burning and looting black neighborhoods for the democrat party just before elections.......

You have never used it for defense of your home and never will. That's propaganda. How often do you go hinting hogs? Honestly. Very rarely.
Used in a gun club? Possibly.

As for shooting rioters, that stupid kid found himself in jail when he opened fire on people.

So don't give me your pathetic justifications for ownership. The truth is you have guns because you can. You will never use them for defense because you haven't the guts to go out. Where were you when BLM did their thing? Cowering in the shed?

If I don't use a rifle, that doesn't mean that millions of others don't use the rifle...are you really this dumb?

Someone I know uses an AR-15 to kill hogs......the ability to follow up is important because they are mean and dangerous.

The store owners who used the AR-15 rifles to keep the democrat party terrrorists in blm and antifa from burning their stores are really glad they had them...

 

[Doc7505]

Gruesome Newsom is pissed!!

Everyone on the Left who does not respect the role of 2A will hate this as well. Newsome will spare no expense to appeal. SCOTUS has already added another 2A case to this term's docket. That question is an appeal against NY state's imposition of frivolous requirements to impede citizens who want to conceal carry.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

~~~~~~
The ultimate prorection of one's family rests upon the leader of that family. In today's atmosphere it behooves fanilies to protect themselves from monsters like Arthur 'Prince' Kollie, Darius Sessoms, and Jovan Young....

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It also helps keep the democrat party terrorist groups, blm and antifa, from burning down your store when they are burning and looting black neighborhoods for the democrat party just before elections.......

I remember some specific coverage, back during the 1992 Rodney “Piñata” King riots, from some part of Los Angeles that had been particularly devastated; of a group of neighboring shops in that area owned by Korean immigrants, who were successful in protecting their shops using “assault weapons”, while everything else around them was burned to the ground.

 

[whitehall]

It seems redundant to view a decision that reaffirms the Bill of Rights to be "historic" but that's the world we live in today. Constitutionalists seem to be in the minority and have been forced to defend the document that created the Country.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Lawsuit in Historic Victory for Second Amendment Rights

Actually not.

The decision will be overturned by the 9th Circuit.

And as all the appellate courts are in agreement as to the Constitutionally of AWBs, the Supreme Court will refuse to hear the case.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

These arguments of the Progressive Marxist/DSA Democrat Commie left ignore the fact that the very rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution for armed citizens, are the very same sections that allow armed cops and soldiers.

This is a lie – both ignorant and wrong.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

FPC Wins “Assault Weapon” Lawsuit in Historic Victory for Second Amendment Rights​

BREAKING: FPC Wins “Assault Weapon” Lawsuit in Historic Victory for Second Amendment Rights

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...

www.firearmspolicy.org

4 Jun 2021
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.”
~Snip~
“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.”

Comment:
These arguments of the Progressive Marxist/DSA Democrat Commie left ignore the fact that the very rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution for armed citizens, are the very same sections that allow armed cops and soldiers.

What’s interesting is this illustrates the dishonesty and hypocrisy of the inconsistent right with regard to “states’ rights” dogma.

Clearly Benitez is a tyrant in black robes, legislating from the bench, ignoring the will of the people of the State of California.