Judge Roger Benitez, presiding over the Southern District Court, again struck down California's so-called "Assault Weapons" ban as unconstitutional on Thursday. Benitez issued a stay to allow the state to appeal the case, which they will most assuredly do. 

LEGAL ALERT: A federal judge has just struck down California's "assault weapon" ban and stayed the decision for 10 days so the state has time to appeal. Stay tuned for more info and read the opinion here: https://t.co/UonezvsaeG pic.twitter.com/UDmMN7lYiD

— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) October 19, 2023

In his ruling, Judge Benitez stated that:

Americans have an individual right to keep and bear firearms.2  The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”3  Whether citizens ever fire or need to fire their weapons, is not important.  This guarantee is fully binding on the States and limits their ability to devise solutions to social problems.4  And the guarantee protects “the possession of weapons that are ‘in common use,’”5 or arms that are “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”6 These are the decisions this Court is bound to apply.  “It’s our duty as judges to interpret the Constitution based on the text and original understanding of the relevant provision—not on public policy considerations, or worse, fear of public opprobrium or criticism from the political branches.”7 

Benitez's ruling now sets the stage for the state to take it to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for what is known as an "en banc" hearing — French for on the bench, en banc involves the entire panel of judges on the 9th Circuit sitting and hearing the case to issue a ruling. This scenario played out just recently when the 9th Circuit overturned another case from Judge Benitez, in which he ruled the state's "high capacity" magazine ban was also unconstitutional. 

...the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has placed a stay on the lower court ruling on the constitutionality of California's outright ban on "high" capacity magazines. 

Last month, a lower federal court judge overturned that ban as unconstitutional. On Tuesday, the larger “en banc” panel stayed that decision — stopping it from taking effect — pending an appeal by the state.

The decision divided the judges along ideological lines. The court’s liberal majority found that the state of California had made “strong arguments” for why the ban on ammunition magazines with more than 10 rounds in them is constitutional. Even under a new, stricter test for gun laws set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court last year, the jurists found, the state is likely to win its appeal.

This "assault weapon" case, along with the magazine ban case, was ordered by the Supreme Court to be reheard in light of their decision regarding the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen case. 

...required the courts to use the standards issued by the majority in the Bruen decision. This forced the courts to apply a historical standard to gun laws, essentially requiring the states and courts to prove that there was a historical precedent to see if the laws met that criteria. 

We all know where this is going. The 9th Circuit will more than likely stay Judge Benitez's ruling and wait for the state to appeal the ruling, which they are doing as you are reading this. Then, the full 11-judge panel will strike down the ruling from Benitez, which will set the stage again for the case to be appealed to the Supreme Court. It is also clear to you, the loyal reader, and myself that these liberal justices have absolutely no love for our founding documents and the rights contained therein. Their disdain for anything related to the protection of liberty is clearly evident. 

As I mentioned in a previous submission regarding weapons of war, these weapons are not only constitutionally protected, they are weapons that we absolutely need to protect our homes and families from a tyrannical government. Not only that, but after the horrible and savage terrorist attacks by Hamas against Israel, it is even more clear that we need these weapons to protect ourselves from a new and shockingly effective terrorist attack. 

In his 1787 letter to William Stephens Smith, Thomas Jefferson stated:

 What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.

Furthermore, Jefferson included a passage from Cesare Beccaria in his essay on crimes and punishments in his "Legal Commonplace Book." It reads:

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one.

Once again, we have to wait and see where this legal battle takes us. It will be a long journey, filled with ups and downs, of course, but when the end comes, hopefully, the Constitution and the Second Amendment come out victorious, and "We the People" can take comfort in knowing that we can not only keep but bear these arms.