Gun Owners Seek Injunction Against California “Assault Weapons” Ban

California DOJ’s Assault Weapon Registration Scheme Heads to Federal Court
California DOJ’s Assault Weapon Registration Scheme Heads to Federal Court

SAN DIEGO, CA-(Ammoland.com)- Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of a motion for a preliminary injunction in the case of Miller, et al. v. Attorney General Xavier Becerra, et al., a federal Second Amendment challenge to California’s Assault Weapons Control Act (AWCA) ban on common semiautomatic arms with common characteristics, including those with ammunition magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds. The court filings are available online at www.assaultweaponlawsuit.com.

The motion, before Federal District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez, argues that “[i]n Duncan v. Becerra” – a lawsuit challenging California’s ban on so-called “large-capacity” magazines – “this Court recognized that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear common arms and firearm magazines that are useful for self-defense or use in a militia. . . This case is a logical result of Duncan’s analysis and seeks nothing more or less for the common arms that can use those magazines.” Further, the motion requests “that the Court . . . preliminarily enjoin the [Assault Weapons Control Act] and Defendants’ policies, practices, customs, and regulations that enforce it.”

“The State of California may not ban common semiautomatic firearms with common characteristics, full stop,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “The United States Constitution and Supreme Court precedent make clear that the State’s ‘assault weapon’ ban scheme is categorically unconstitutional. Second Amendment rights ‘shall not be infringed,’ period.”

“In this case, we seek to restore the Supreme Court’s plain command in Heller, that governments may not ban categories of arms that are overwhelmingly in common use and chosen by the American people for lawful purposes including self-defense and sport,” said George M. Lee, an attorney for the plaintiffs. “These types of categorical bans cannot be justified under any level of scrutiny. As our motion and our experts resoundingly show, California’s ban on common firearms with common characteristics is irrational and has no basis in our Nation’s history or tradition.”

“California’s ‘assault weapon’ laws ban common firearms with common characteristics,” noted John Dillon, an attorney for the plaintiffs. “The State’s categorical ban, if upheld, would nullify the Second Amendment. Thankfully, the California is flat wrong on every count and we are cautiously optimistic that the ban will ultimately be struck down, as it should be.”

“California’s ban on so called ‘assault weapons’ finds no quarter under any proper reading of the Constitution,” said FPC’s Director of Legal Strategy, Adam Kraut. “Currently, Californians are constrained from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in a manner that would allow them access to firearms that are in common use, for lawful purposes. This lawsuit seeks to vindicate their rights.”

The motion’s testimony and exhibits include the scholarship and research of law professor and Second Amendment expert, George Mocsary; arms, tactics, militia, and history expert Major General D. Allen Youngman (ret.); historian and firearm technology expert Ashley Hlebinsky; firearms, tactics, use of force, ballistics, and training expert Emanuel Kapelsohn; James Curcuruto, National Shooting Sports Foundation’s Director of Research and Market Development; and economist and crime researcher Dr. John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center; and attorney, modern firearms expert, and FPC Director of Legal Strategy, Adam Kraut.

In a brief to the United States Supreme Court filed earlier this year, at the merits phase of the now-argued New York State Rifle & Pistol v. New York City litigation, Firearms Policy Foundation, along with plaintiffs Firearms Policy Coalition and California Gun Rights Foundation argued that “[r]ights covered by the text of the Second Amendment – as interpreted and understood according to history, practice, and public meaning when it and the Fourteenth Amendment were adopted – are not divided into lesser and greater categories. The Constitution itself has done the categorizing and those rights covered ‘shall not be infringed.’ Period. There is no further clause beginning with ‘except * * *.’ No qualification of the prohibition saying some of those rights can be infringed a little, or if the government really feels strongly about it, or has reconsidered the costs and benefits of protecting such rights.”

Background

  • The plaintiffs in the case are James Miller; Wendy Hauffen; Neil Rutherford; Adrian Sevilla; Ryan Peterson; Gunfighter Tactical, a firearms dealer; John Phillips; Poway Weapons and Gear, a training facility, firearms dealer, and NSSF 5-Star shooting range; and advocacy organizations San Diego County Gun Owners (SDCGO) PAC; California Gun Rights Foundation (CGF); Second Amendment Foundation (SAF); and Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC).
  • The Defendants in the case are California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who heads the California Department of Justice (DOJ), and DOJ Bureau of Firearms Director Brent Orick.
  • California law generally prohibits law-abiding people from, among other things, acquiring, possessing, using, transporting, transferring, or bequeathing common semiautomatic firearms with common characteristics the State calls “assault weapons”.
  • The plaintiffs brought this action challenging the State’s “Assault Weapon Control Act” and the Defendants policies, practices, customs, and regulations that enforce it, as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.
  • The plaintiffs in Miller v. Becerra seek a temporary and permanent injunction to enjoin the Defendants from enforcing the Assault Weapons Control Act ban so individuals can acquire, possess, and lawfully use constitutionally protected semiautomatic firearms and exercise their Second Amendment rights.
  • The case is backed by Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, California Gun Rights Foundation, and Second Amendment Foundation.

About Firearms Policy CoalitionFirearms Policy Coalition

Firearms Policy Coalition (www.firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)4 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, especially the fundamental, individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, advance individual liberty, and restore freedom.

About Firearms Policy Foundation

Firearms Policy Foundation (www.firearmsfoundation.org) is a 501(c)3 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPF’s mission is to defend the Constitution of the United States and the People’s rights, privileges and immunities deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition, especially the inalienable, fundamental, and individual right to keep and bear arms.

About California Gun Rights Foundation 

California Gun Rights Foundation (www.cagunrights.org) is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization that serves its members, supporters, and the public through educational, cultural, and judicial efforts to advance Second Amendment and related civil rights.

About Second Amendment Foundation

Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing, and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

About San Diego County Gun Owners

San Diego County Gun Owners (sandiegocountygunowners.com) is a non-profit membership organization whose purpose is to protect and advance the Second Amendment rights of residents of San Diego County, California. SDCGO’s membership consists of Second Amendment supporters, people who own guns for self-defense or sport, firearms dealers, shooting ranges, and elected officials who want to restore and protect the right to keep and bear arms in California.

22
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
6 Comment threads
16 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
11 Comment authors
Morriganjack macOldvetTerryUSA Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Morrigan
Member
Morrigan

Accuracy in describing weaponry is a non-issue with the Left. They want us disarmed and by any means necessary. No matter what flowery rhetoric in which they frame it, they want us DISARMED. So…WHY? I refer to deal in reality. California is lost. I say that from the standpoint of being California born and mostly raised, and serving 21 years in law enforcement in that formerly great state. It is GONE. It is not coming back, so get used to it. My deepest sympathy for those who are still there (I moved out in 1990) but the Proggies have taken… Read more »

Oldvet
Member
Oldvet

After All…High Speed Wireless Devices are the method of choice of modern communication , is it not ?

Laddyboy
Member
Laddyboy

Looking at the picture above, I see absolutely no “assault” rifle. I do see many Modern Sport Rifles.

Deplorable Bill
Member
Deplorable Bill

It should surprise no one, if firearm confiscation is threatened or enacted, someone is going to vote with a rifle. The British tried firearm confiscation here in the colonies. We are a nation unto ourselves as a result of it. The British had tried “gun control” (actually people control) for decades. Each time the colonials humbly complained, king George and parliament would threaten, tax, unlawfully jail, disappear, beat and murder those who would dissent their being stripped of their GOD given rights. Anybody remember the last president firing whistle blowers, disappearing good people, weaponizing the I.R.S. the F.B.I., the C.I.A.… Read more »

USA
Member
USA

DB, Barry requested when he was President that if anybody heard someone talking derogatorily about him to call him so he would know who they are so he could get em. Red Flag will touch it off as has always been the plan and why all sides pushed it in the first place.

USA
Member
USA

Now that the Nazis of Virginia are threatening Sanctuary Counties with bringing in the National Guard on them there really is no doubt about what the Nazis agenda is and why the 2A Shall not be infringed upon. Those who would threaten military action against the citizens are in fact the enemy of America, traitors.

tetejaun
Member
tetejaun

Hopefully, should they force the NG into going after the American Citizens, who are the Masters of this country, the politicians will be the recipients of some very high speed lead ‘presents’.
When these politicians start dropping as they enact more and more unconstitutional ‘gun control laws’, they will reconsider their actions as their well-being will be on the line, as well it should be.
Time for talk is done. THEY are the enemies of our Nation, People and Constitution. Treat them like it.
EVERYONE wants to be a Patriot…until it is time to do patriot things….

Laddyboy
Member
Laddyboy

@T; I hope and pray what your prognostication never comes to be. I dread the thought that my children and grandchildren might have to experience the ACT OF WAR on American Soil. The War Between the States was bad enough. I dread the thought of the number of deaths which could occur is the DemoNAZI continue their push to disarm LEGAL LAW ABIDING American CITIZENS by BREAKING their SWORN OATH OF OFFICE to DEFEND America from ALL ENEMIES – – BOTH – – Foreign AND Domestic. IF these Virginia DESPOTS PUSH against the Constitution there may be no other alternative.… Read more »

USA
Member
USA

Laddy, So you think Nazis demanding surrender could end peacefully?

jack mac
Member
jack mac

Laddyboy: We have armed our public servants who are now disarming us.

jack mac
Member
jack mac

tetejaun: If everyone wanted to be a patriot these demigods would not have been elected. The politicians you refer are aware of the dangers, but feel safe behind their armed enforcers. They and their wealthy benefactors have well supplied bunkers in this and other countries. The supporters of these despots should realize they are also endangered by the oppressive acts of our public servants. The only reason that our public servants are disarming citizens is to become the masters. All citizen will come to realize during violent conflict between us that there will be no non-combatants. We must all now… Read more »

USA
Member
USA

It’s odd that FPC can read the Constitution to mean exactly what I understand it to mean and yet the criminals on the courts bench interpret something entirely different to conclude they can infringe upon rights entirely restricted from their authority. It’s a good thing they aren’t infringing upon ones rights to posses rope because the Declaration of Independence is written as clearly as the Constitution.

Arizona
Member
Arizona

They would not allow any of their Gun laws be similarly applied to the first amendment. If they won’t countenance a permit to speak your mind on Twitter, or a license to post on Facebook, or a background check to write a blog, or a ban on articles criticizing communism, then they can’t have any similar laws infringing on firearms! The second amendment is the ONLY one that specifically states “shall not be infringed” because the founders felt so strongly about it. The entire bill of rights is an order to the government -hands off! It does not GRANT rights,… Read more »

USA
Member
USA

Arizona, Correctamundo and FPC is pointing out your exact comments to the federal courts of criminals in their current cases.

jack mac
Member
jack mac

Laws violating the 1st Amendment are not required, as the owners of our medias have already oppressed mass communications. Our public servants are red flagging people who post on Twitter, Facebook, and similar media. These medias have become an enforcement tool.

StreetSweeper
Member
StreetSweeper

Fully semi-automatic assault rope.

Will
Member
Will

@Street,let’s paint the rope black and make it really scary.

Terry
Member
Terry

And add a 30 knot clippy mag capable of 30,000 feet per second!

jack mac
Member
jack mac

Terry: 13 loop knot is already banned. Who cares, we just need one for the desired purpose.

Laddyboy
Member
Laddyboy

@USA; I up voted your comment but had to write that I DO AGREE WITH YOU!!!! Make sure the rope is greased with boar’s fat. It works better.

jack mac
Member
jack mac

Laddy, there are a lot of fat politicians that can be considered pigs. For some reason that came to mind.

jack mac
Member
jack mac

USA: The despots will get around to restricting rope, as well as sickles, hammers, pitchforks and etc. en infinitum when allowed.