Marlin Forums banner

1 - 2 of 2 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
30 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Copied from Calguns'''




Miller v. Bonta
Southern District of California
Judge: Roger Benitez
3:19-cv-01537​



SAN DIEGO (AUGUST 15, 2019) — Attorneys for three San Diego residents and one San Diego-based advocacy organization filed a federal lawsuit challenging California’s ban on so-called “assault weapons”. A copy of the complaint can be viewed or downloaded at www.firearmspolicy.org/legal.

“This District Court already ruled the state’s prohibition on the possession of large-capacity magazines is unconstitutional, and enjoined and prohibited enforcement of those provisions of the Code that would have prohibited their possession,” the plaintiffs say in their complaint. “Both implicit and explicit in this District Court’s ruling was the ability to use such magazines if otherwise lawfully possessed” in legally-possessed firearms. “Thus,” it goes on, “the prohibitions that attach to the possession and use of a certain legislatively-invented class of otherwise commonly used, constitutionally protected” firearms “are likewise invalid and should be stricken.”

“This is a straight-forward case to protect our clients' constitutional rights and property,” explained attorney John Dillon. “The State of California’s ban on these firearms will fail constitutional scrutiny for the same reasons that its ban on firearm magazines did.”

“The government cannot ban the constitutionally-protected firearms at issue in this case,” said attorney George M. Lee. “We look forward to proving that the State’s statutes, policies, and practices at issue in this case are both unconstitutional and irrational.”

The case is supported by Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and the California Gun Rights Foundation (CGF).

District Court:

8/15/19: Complaint

9/27/19: Amended Complaint

1/15/20: Order Denying Motion to Stay Proceedings

9/23/20: Order Denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

2/5/21: Bench Trial Completed

6/4/21: Decision


Quote:

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.
6/4/21: Judgment

 
1 - 2 of 2 Posts
Top