Ammoland Inc. by Dean Weingarten Posted on September 9, 2022
On August 15, 2019, the San Diego Gun Owners Political Action Committee, James Miller, and others filed a lawsuit against then California Attorney General Beccera, challenging the constitutionality of the California “assault weapon” ban. As the case evolved, it became known as Miller v Bona.
Here is a summation from the complaint filed on August 15, 2019:
1. This is a facial and as applied constitutional challenge to California Penal Code §§ 30515(a)(2) and 30515(a)(5), California Code of Regulations § 5471, subdivs. (b), (n), and (p), and Defendants policies, practices, customs, and enforcement of said law, which define and prohibit certain firearms as “assault weapons” solely because they feature “large-capacity” magazines (capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition) as defined by Pen. Code § 16740 and regulated under the now-enjoined Penal Code § 32310. Duncan v. Becerra,Case No. 3:17-cv-1017-BEN-JLB (ECF No. 87). Subdivisions (a)(2) and (a)(5) of Penal Code § 30515 violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution by prohibiting law-abiding citizens, including these individual plaintiffs, from obtaining, acquiring, possessing, manufacturing or transferring firearms in common use for lawful purposes such as self-defense inside and outside the home,competition, sport, and hunting.
The state of California fought the lawsuit with all the tools at its disposal. Numerous motions were filed. The historical evidence and arguments presented by both sides were extensive. There were delays because of Covid 19. In the end, Judge Benitez, citing the 1939 Miller case, Heller and McDonald, as well as Caetano, decided in favor the plaintiffs.
Judge Benitez ruled AR15-type rifles and others defined as “assault weapons” were both common and well suited for militia use and use by individuals for defense of self and others, as well as for other legal purposes. Therefore, the California ban was unconstitutional.
Judgment was granted in favor of the Plaintiffs on June 4, 2021:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. 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, are enjoined from implementing or enforcing the 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”), and 30950 (prohibiting possession of those “assault weapons” by minors) and the penalty provisions §§ 30600, 30605 and 30800as applied to “assault weapons” defined in Code §§ 30515(a)(1) through (8).
2.Defendant Attorney General Rob Bonta shall provide forthwith, by personal service or otherwise, actual notice of this order to all law enforcement personnel who are responsible for implementing or enforcing the enjoined statute. Within 10 days, the government shall file a declaration establishing proof of such notice. Alternatively, the parties may file a stipulation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.Dated: June 4, 2021
More:
https://www.ammoland.com/2022/09/judge-benitez-sets-time-limits-for-briefs-on-california-assault-weapon-ban/#axzz7f3VeQxDM
