Post by Panama pfRedd on Jun 5, 2021 12:48:24 GMT -5
It's 94 pages long. Follow the link and click on "decision." There is a stay and an appeal will follow.
www.firearmspolicy.org/miller
Here is the first page or so of the decision for those not wanting to look it up.
Unbelievable!
I. INTRODUCTION
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 AR-15 is the kind of versatile gun that lies at the intersection of the kinds of firearms protected under District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and United States v Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). Yet, the State of California makes it a crime to have an AR- 15 type rifle. Therefore, this Court declares the California statutes to be unconstitutional.
Plaintiffs challenge a net of interlocking statutes which impose strict criminal restrictions on firearms that fall under California’s complex definition of the ignominious “assault weapon.” Hearings on a preliminary injunction were consolidated with a trial on the merits pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 65(a)(2). Having considered the evidence, the Court issues these findings of fact and conclusions of law,1 finds for the Plaintiffs, and enters Judgment accordingly.
The Second Amendment “elevates above all other interests the right of law- abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” Heller, 554 U.S., at 635. The Supreme Court clearly holds that the Second Amendment protects guns commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. At the same time, “the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms . . . that ‘have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.’” Id. at 622. And although the Supreme Court cautioned that the Second Amendment does not guarantee a right to keep and carry “any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose,” Heller, 554 U.S., at 626, lower courts have often cited this proviso about extreme cases to justify gun laws in average contexts. There is no evidence that the Supreme Court intended that language to be a license to avoid its common sense holding in average contexts. Unfortunately, Heller’s acknowledgement of exceptions for gun laws at the extreme is in danger of swallowing Heller’s rule for the average case.
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 machineguns. Those arms are dangerous and solely useful for military purposes. Instead, the firearms deemed “assault weapons” are fairly ordinary, popular, modern rifles. This is an average case about average guns used in average ways for average purposes.
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
1 The characterization of a finding as one of “fact” or “law” is not controlling. To the extent that a finding is characterized as one of “law” but is more properly characterized as one of “fact” (or vice versa), substance prevails over form.
hyperbole, and facts matter. Federal Bureau of Investigation murder statistics do not track assault rifles, but they do show that killing by knife attack is far more common than murder by any kind of rifle. In California, murder by knife occurs seven times more often than murder by rifle. For example, according to F.B.I. statistics for 2019, California saw 252 people murdered with a knife, while 34 people were killed with some type of rifle – not necessarily an AR-15.2 A Californian is three times more likely to be murdered by an attacker’s bare hands, fists, or feet, than by his rifle.3 In 2018, the statistics were even more lopsided as California saw only 24 murders by some type of….
It's His Honor Saint Roger Benitez once again doing the Lord's work.
My guess is California will appeal to the 9th circus hoping for their friends there to help. But should they lose there my guess is the other AW ban states and Democrat central command will tell California to hold, not to go to SCOTUS for fear their AW bans will fall too.
Similarly to the NY case where they tried to fold but SCOTUS took it anyway and now they are all fearing the outcome.
Didn't SCOTUS just BLAST the 9th circuit court unanimously (9-0) for their "out there" interpretation of certain immigration cases that involve an asylum applicant testifying why it was unsafe for them to return to their country?
Basically, the 9th circuit PRESUMING that they are telling the truth, such that it outweighs actual court records and accounts that show otherwise. Like, a criminal trying to get back to America (after being kicked out multiple times) with a giant rap sheet saying, "hey, I can't return to Guatemala because I'd be in danger," (never mind I have a giant rap sheet there and elsewhere). 9th court: Welcome to America!
SCOTUS basically ripped them a new one. Same 9th Circuit Court going to weigh in en banc means this WILL go to SCOTUS, someday... A HUGE deal for freedom loving Americans.
www.firearmspolicy.org/miller
Here is the first page or so of the decision for those not wanting to look it up.
Unbelievable!
I. INTRODUCTION
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 AR-15 is the kind of versatile gun that lies at the intersection of the kinds of firearms protected under District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and United States v Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). Yet, the State of California makes it a crime to have an AR- 15 type rifle. Therefore, this Court declares the California statutes to be unconstitutional.
Plaintiffs challenge a net of interlocking statutes which impose strict criminal restrictions on firearms that fall under California’s complex definition of the ignominious “assault weapon.” Hearings on a preliminary injunction were consolidated with a trial on the merits pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 65(a)(2). Having considered the evidence, the Court issues these findings of fact and conclusions of law,1 finds for the Plaintiffs, and enters Judgment accordingly.
The Second Amendment “elevates above all other interests the right of law- abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” Heller, 554 U.S., at 635. The Supreme Court clearly holds that the Second Amendment protects guns commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. At the same time, “the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms . . . that ‘have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.’” Id. at 622. And although the Supreme Court cautioned that the Second Amendment does not guarantee a right to keep and carry “any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose,” Heller, 554 U.S., at 626, lower courts have often cited this proviso about extreme cases to justify gun laws in average contexts. There is no evidence that the Supreme Court intended that language to be a license to avoid its common sense holding in average contexts. Unfortunately, Heller’s acknowledgement of exceptions for gun laws at the extreme is in danger of swallowing Heller’s rule for the average case.
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 machineguns. Those arms are dangerous and solely useful for military purposes. Instead, the firearms deemed “assault weapons” are fairly ordinary, popular, modern rifles. This is an average case about average guns used in average ways for average purposes.
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
1 The characterization of a finding as one of “fact” or “law” is not controlling. To the extent that a finding is characterized as one of “law” but is more properly characterized as one of “fact” (or vice versa), substance prevails over form.
hyperbole, and facts matter. Federal Bureau of Investigation murder statistics do not track assault rifles, but they do show that killing by knife attack is far more common than murder by any kind of rifle. In California, murder by knife occurs seven times more often than murder by rifle. For example, according to F.B.I. statistics for 2019, California saw 252 people murdered with a knife, while 34 people were killed with some type of rifle – not necessarily an AR-15.2 A Californian is three times more likely to be murdered by an attacker’s bare hands, fists, or feet, than by his rifle.3 In 2018, the statistics were even more lopsided as California saw only 24 murders by some type of….
It's His Honor Saint Roger Benitez once again doing the Lord's work.
My guess is California will appeal to the 9th circus hoping for their friends there to help. But should they lose there my guess is the other AW ban states and Democrat central command will tell California to hold, not to go to SCOTUS for fear their AW bans will fall too.
Similarly to the NY case where they tried to fold but SCOTUS took it anyway and now they are all fearing the outcome.
Didn't SCOTUS just BLAST the 9th circuit court unanimously (9-0) for their "out there" interpretation of certain immigration cases that involve an asylum applicant testifying why it was unsafe for them to return to their country?
Basically, the 9th circuit PRESUMING that they are telling the truth, such that it outweighs actual court records and accounts that show otherwise. Like, a criminal trying to get back to America (after being kicked out multiple times) with a giant rap sheet saying, "hey, I can't return to Guatemala because I'd be in danger," (never mind I have a giant rap sheet there and elsewhere). 9th court: Welcome to America!
SCOTUS basically ripped them a new one. Same 9th Circuit Court going to weigh in en banc means this WILL go to SCOTUS, someday... A HUGE deal for freedom loving Americans.
................................
................................
