Who says common sense has fled California? On Friday, a federal judge tried to restore that and invoke some reason and reality into the gun contro
Who says common sense has fled California?
On Friday, a federal judge tried to restore that and invoke some reason and reality into the gun control debate by overturning California’s “assault weapons” ban. In his ruling Judge Roger Benitez specifically singled out the AR-15 as one weapon unlawfully targeted by the law.
“Like the Swiss Army Knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment. … Yet, the State of California makes it a crime to have an AR15 type rifle. Therefore, this Court declares the California statutes to be unconstitutional,” Benitez wrote.
California was the first state to ban so-called “assault weapons,” back in 1989, to stop mass killings. It didn’t work.
According to the website Statista, California leads the nation with the most mass shootings since 1982 with 22. The website defines that as a shooting in which at least four people are killed. Another list found on Wikipedia puts that number at 24.
In either case, the bulk of those have occurred since the “assault weapons” ban was enacted. In some cases, military-style weapons were used regardless of the ban, such as the San Bernardino terrorist attack in 2015. Yet the others show that mass murders simply utilized other weapons.
Two years ago, a California resident and pro-gun rights groups challenged the law on the basis that California was outlawing a weapon that is widely used elsewhere with no demonstrable effect on killings – a folly Judge Benitez noted in overturning the ban on what he referred to as “modern” rifles.
“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 machine guns,” the judge wrote. “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.”
Benitez added, “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 hyperbole, and facts matter.”
Benitez pointed out that FBI murder statistics do not track assault rifles. Yet, he added, “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. A Californian is three times more likely to be murdered by an attacker’s bare hands, fists, or feet, than by his rifle,” the judge noted.
The judge’s ruling runs for 94 pages. Although it is worth reading every page, suffice to say not all the highlights can be captured in one setting.
But here are some of his observations about why California’s ban in misguided, and unconstitutional.
Benitez called it a “misnomer” to refer to these weapons as “assault weapons.” But regardless of what they are called, the name does not make their function illegitimate.
“These prohibited guns, like all guns, are dangerous weapons. However, these prohibited guns, like all guns, can be used for ill or for good. They could just as well be called ‘home defense rifles’ or ‘anti-crime guns,'” the judge wrote.
“In the terrible mass shooting context, which fortunately is a rare event, reducing the number of innocent victims is the State’s goal, although it is not at all clear that a less accurate rifle would reduce the number of victims. A less accurate rifle in the hands of a mass shooter may very well result in different victims, but not necessarily less victims,” Bentiez added.
“On the other hand, in the self-defense context, which seems to be more common, taking accurate shots at attackers is vitally important for the innocent victim. While the state ought to protect its residents against victimization by a mass shooter, it ought also to protect its residents against victimization by home-invading criminals. … Instead, the State’s litigation stance is more like the view recently expressed by a police chief in Oakland, California: we do not want victims to arm themselves; we want them to be good witnesses.”
“Of course,” Benitez noted, “a dead victim is a lousy witness.”
He also noted, “California’s ban punishes persons who choose modern rifles for home defense. In other words, if modern rifles are misused in crime (even disproportionately), government must deal with those wrongful acts directly; it may not deal with the problem by suppressing the rights of law-abiding citizens to have modern rifles for lawful uses. Thus, disproportionality is not a valid constitutional concern. Common ownership by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes is the test.”
And it is a test California has failed.
“In the end, the Bill of Rights is not a list of suggestions or guidelines for social balancing. The Bill of Rights prevents the tyranny of the majority from taking away the rights of a minority,” Benitez pointed out.
“The Second Amendment protects any law-abiding citizen’s right to choose to be armed to defend himself, his family, and his home. At the same time, the Second Amendment protects a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms to use should the militia be needed to fight against invaders, terrorists, and tyrants.”
“The Second Amendment is about America’s freedom: the freedom to protect oneself, family, home, and homeland,” Benitez concluded. “California’s assault weapon ban disrespects that freedom.”
Support journalism by clicking here to our gofundme or sign up for our free newsletter by clicking here
Android Users, Click Here To Download The Free Press App And Never Miss A Story. It’s Free And Coming To Apple Users Soon.
COMMENTS