This decision is a freedom calculus decided long ago by Colonists who cherished individual freedom more than the subservient security of a British ruler. The freedom they fought for was not free of cost then, and it is not free now.
Hon. Roger T. Benitez
United States District Judge
March 29, 2019
VIRGINIA DUNCAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. XAVIER BECERRA, in his official capacity as attorney General of the State of California, Defendant
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DECLARING CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE § 32310 UNCONSTITUTIONAL and ENJOINING ENFORCEMENT
[This is, by far, the most strongly worded ruling in favor of the 2nd Amendment I have ever read. It’s an awesome read.
He tears apart the state of California’s argument and uses their own evidence against them. He calls them out on their use of Mother Jones as a biased, as well as unusable source, for a court ruling. A magazine ban is such a burden on the rights of the people that it must pass strict scrutiny. It does not pass strict scrutiny. It doesn’t not pass intermediate scrutiny. It cannot even be considered rational in the face of all the evidence showing such bans do not increase public safety.
Many of the arguments and logic used can be easily translated to protecting modern sporting rifles.
Read the whole thing.—Joe]
I started reading it when you posted the link last night and at first I thought I was reading the plaintiffs argument. I haven’t ever seen an opinion written as though the judge were a patriot before either. It’s about time.
Yeah. I had to check at least twice to make sure this was all the opinion of the judge.
It speaks to something that I had the exact same reaction after getting to the second page.
OK, that was a hell of a read. Specially coming from an agent of The State (government in general, not “a” State in particular).
The only point I disagree with is when it is stated that “military” related arms aren’t protected by the Second Amendment.
As stated in Miller, there was no evidence presented that a sawed off shotgun had military value so the Court couldn’t say that it was protected by the 2A.
I.E. if it had military value it would be a 2A protected weapon.
(It’s hard to present evidence when you’re dead and your lawyer doesn’t show up)
Other than that caveat, wow, strongly worded pro 2A decision.
Disregarding the 2A issue though, the whole thing boils down into a very long letter to Attorney General Xavier Becerra basically stating “You’re an idiot.”
When I read that section, it appeared to me that the judge was RIDICULING the assertion that “military” related arms were not protected.
From the ruling, page 66, lines 19-21:
Beyond this, this Court is unpersuaded by Kolbe’s interpretation of Miller finding that weapons most useful for military service are not protected.
My Goodness! I wouldn’t mind seeing a picture of what the AG looked like leaving that courtroom, he must have looked like a whipped dog. Thank you for linking to this. It’s encouraging to think that there are still adults out there on the left coast.
Well.
That’s going to leave a bit of a mark…. The DA will sort of look like week-old roadkill.
The footnotes make for some pretty good reading, too.
I really, REALLY, hope they appeal and it is upheld at the SCOTUS level so it comes into force nation-wide.
I’ll bet there is a lot of debate about whether to appeal (after they stop crying) in anti-gun circles.
This was a summary judgement. It wasn’t even close to a hard fought decision.
It is my understanding that at the appeals court level facts determined at the district level are not subject to challenge. When the judge says (paraphrasing), things such as:
Are these considered facts? Or are they rulings subject to being overturned?
I like it. the problem is buying into the state having something to say in the first place.
The judge could have just as easily stated; 2A prohibits any form of law crafted toward the keeping and bearing of arms. subsequently, any attempt to do so is in, and of itself unlawful, and can be treated as treason. subjecting ANYONE in violation to the full penalty such act shall forebear.
In short, 2A is a prohibition to govt., not the grant of right to be scrutinized by it.
First thing we do, is hang all lawyers!