Gun Prohibitionists Cry Foul over Judge Benitez Taking Another 2A Case

Why I Am Suing The Governor of Virginia, iStock-1055138108
Gun Prohibitionists Cry Foul over Fed. Judge Benitez Taking Another 2A Case iStock-1055138108

U.S.A.-(AmmoLand.com)- Federal Judge Roger Benitez in San Diego, who has issued pro-Second Amendment rulings at least twice against California state statutes, was scheduled to hold an evidentiary hearing in another gun rights case Monday morning, and that is eliciting wails from gun prohibition groups.

Anti-gun groups are already on the warpath against the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court. For example, the Seattle-based Alliance for Gun Responsibility is campaigning to prevent confirmation, calling Judge Barrett “a Second Amendment extremist.”

Federal Judge Roger Benitez in San Diego appears to be the newest target of anti-gun frustration as he has taken on a series of challenges to California gun laws. (Public domain)

According to the San Diego Union-Tribune, Judge Benitez, a 2004 George W. Bush appointee now on senior status, is presiding over a case challenging “several laws regulating and defining assault weapons in the state” of California. He can do this because of a rule that allows federal judges to take “related” cases. In this case, Benitez has handled other gun cases and anti-gunners haven’t like the outcome.

The case is known as Miller v. Becerra.

But there was no similar concern from the gun control lobby when federal Judge Jack B. Weinstein in New York was handling gun-related cases. In 2007, the Second Amendment Foundation called on Judge Weinstein to retire because of his consistently anti-gun rulings. He had cases assigned to him under the “related case” rule, but since his rulings were more favorable to the gun control side, nobody squawked.

If Judge Benitez again rules in favor of the right to keep and bear arms, expect the state to appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, and if his ruling is upheld by a three-judge panel, expect someone to demand an en banc hearing before a full panel.

It’s not just California laws at stake, either. The Ninth Circuit encompasses all the western states, including Hawaii and Alaska.

One of Benitez’ earlier cases, Duncan v. Becerra, was upheld 2-1 in August. That case struck down California’s ban on so-called “high capacity” magazines. The majority opinion was authored by Judge Kenneth K. Lee, a Donald Trump appointee.

Earlier this year, Judge Benitez declared California’s background check requirement for ammunition purchases is unconstitutional.

Long story short, Benitez is a judge anti-gunners do not want on the bench, at least when it comes to hearing Second Amendment cases. The gun prohibition lobby is spinning Judge Benitez’ expertise on gun issues into a threat to efforts aimed at curtailing so-called “gun violence.” As noted by the San Diego Union-Tribune—quoting Ari Freilich, state policy director for the Giffords Law Center—“The  purpose of the rule is for judges engaged in complex cases really drilling into the issues, and not having to reinvent the wheel on a really similar case…This has been taken to an illogical extreme now when one judge is ruling on everything touching upon gun violence in the state of California.”

Another way to frame this, however, is that Judge Benitez is ruling on everything touching upon gun control in the state of California. Essentially, Benitez is Judge Weinstein in reverse.

This week’s case before Judge Benitez reportedly challenges several state laws that define “assault weapons.” Plaintiffs include the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., California Gun Rights Foundation, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, two private businesses and five private citizens.

By no surprise, amicus briefs have been filed by the Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund and Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

The Miller case unfolds against a dramatic backdrop that includes the confirmation effort to place Judge Barrett on the high court—succeeding the late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg—and the looming presidential election pitting career anti-gun Democrat Joe Biden against incumbent President Trump, who has spent the past three-plus years filling federal court vacancies with constitutional judges. This has brought some semblance of balance back to the federal courts, say Trump supporters, and it may be Trump’s most important and lasting legacy, whether he is elected to serve another four-year term, or Biden wins in what will be a hotly contested election outcome.

Adding to this mix, Trump has once again promised to sign national concealed carry reciprocity legislation, if such a bill hits his desk. As far back as 2015, Trump has expressed support for reciprocity, comparing the issue to that of a state driver’s license being recognized across the country. Driving is a privilege, bearing arms is a constitutionally enumerated fundamental right.

Yet Trump still has critics within the firearms community who are sore about bump stocks, and about some pronouncements, he has made in the past. Some observers say privately, however, that it’s not what Trump may have said in the past, but what he has actually done that should draw strong gun owner support.

The fact he is being challenged by Biden, who has bragged loudly he will ban so-called “assault weapons” and essentially make life miserable for gun owners via additional regulations and restrictions, is no small consideration, either. And his running mate, Sen. Kamala Harris, has been no friend to California gun owners.

Three years ago, the House under then-Speaker Paul Ryan, passed reciprocity legislation, but it gathered dust in the Senate. For such legislation to hit Trump’s desk will require the House to flip to Republican control, the GOP to retain the Senate and for the president to be re-elected.

Those are tall orders and would require every gun owner in the country to vote uniformly for Republicans.

Currently, many states have concealed carry reciprocal agreements, but only a federal law would cement that and apply it to all states. Politicians from New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Maryland and other eastern and northeastern states have opposed this idea, along with those in California.

RELATED:

Gun Prohibition Lobby: ‘Judge Barrett does not belong on our highest court’

Antis Alarmed That ACB Confirmation Could Be ‘Huge Setback for Gun Safety’



About Dave Workman

Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.

Dave Workman

Subscribe
Notify of
26 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Laddyboy
Laddyboy
1 month ago

YEP! The DemoKKKrat national communists party members of Maryland do not want HONEST LEGAL LAW ABIDING AMERICAN CITIZENS their RIGHT to DEFEND themselves OUT-SIDE of their DOMESIDES.
One even gets arrested when a bus driver tries to run over an American while trying to inform the driver of a wrong done by one of their riders.

nobodyuknow
nobodyuknow
1 month ago

GO FOR IT, JUDGE BENITEZ!!! UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES!!! SHOVE RHEIR COMMUNIST DOGMA RIGHT BACK UP THEIR GLUTEUS MAXIMUS’!!!

Get Out
Get Out
1 month ago

Outstanding, appears Judge Benitez knows and understands the 2nd Amendment. He especially understands the “shall not be infringed’ part.
Amendment II.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Last edited 1 month ago by Get Out
Tionico
Tionico
1 month ago

there are some “judges” who will rule on such nonsense as “my dog barked three different tomes last night before midnight, therefore no one can have magazines that can hold more than ten ruonds”. Judges like Hnbl Benitez dig into the constitituon,what the framers meant when they wrote it, a d the meanings of words at that time and place. In other words, he is consistent in his decisions, basing them upon solid laws and original intent. Of COURSE the Giffies, Shoogermans, WattsHerNayme, , Sleepy Joe, and the Harris creature are unhappy. They.ve whinged, stomed their feet, hufffed and chuffed,… Read more »

MikeTX
MikeTX
1 month ago

“Three years ago, the House under then-Speaker Paul Ryan, passed reciprocity legislation, but it gathered dust in the Senate. For such legislation to hit Trump’s desk will require the House to flip to Republican control, the GOP to retain the Senate and for the president to be re-elected.”

It was REPUBLICAN Senator CHUCK GRASSLEY who sat on that legislation and let the clock run out on it at the end of 2018. The problem is within the GOP – they don’t respect the 2nd Amendment in Washington D.C.

musicman44mag
musicman44mag
1 month ago

What’s wrong demoncraps. You always liked it when the ninth circus court of seals ruled in your favor and you ran constantly to them for any little thing you disagreed with that republicans did. Funny how you don’t like it when the shoe is on the other foot and is fair and balanced. LMAO

MICHAEL J
MICHAEL J
1 month ago

As much as I like Judge Roger Benitez,
that slithering snake Becerra will always counter anything using virtually unlimited tax payer money. Even the newly transformed 9th circuit bows to Becerra as evidenced by the magazine stay on anything larger than 10 rounds.

Elisa Delaurenti
Elisa Delaurenti
1 month ago

The gun grabbing shrews are all up in arms today…….
They don’t have ALL the judges any more.

Laddyboy
Laddyboy
1 month ago

Yep! The CONTROLLING Demokkkrat national communist party members of Maryland do not want to ALLOW LEGAL LAW ABIDING Americans our Constitutionally acknowledged RIGHT to DEFEND themselves where ever they happen to be. Every one of the OVER 25,000 Anti-Second Amendment “laws” that go against the Constitution IS ILLEGAL!!! This also includes the “BATF / ATF / ATFE” bureaucratic initiated rules and regulations.

nrringlee
nrringlee
1 month ago

It is easy to find the factions James Madison described in the Federalist. Just look for usurpers hanging around federal and state courts and watch them conspire against the rights of their fellow citizens. In this case you have both billionaire funded private sector factions like the Brady Bunch, the Mad Moms and the Gabby Giffords gang as well as reinforcements from rogue states like Kalifornia and its bureaucracy. Those who conspire against the rights of their fellow citizens are committing a very special brand of sedition. That brand of sedition needs to be codified, specified and criminalized under an… Read more »

Green Mtn. Boy
Green Mtn. Boy
1 month ago

The Left better get used to it because the 2 nd amendment says what it says and doesn’t say what it doesn’t say.
That a read of it would clearly mean that each and every civilian disarmament law is un Constitutional.

Arizona
Arizona
1 month ago
Reply to  Green Mtn. Boy

The Left has a simple path to travel if they want to regulate firearms legally: amend the Constitution, changing the 2nd to say “shall not be infringed except in the following ways…” Otherwise, any and all regulations interfering with citizens’ decisions about firearms is illegal, as it always has been, and without Constitutional authority.

nrringlee
nrringlee
1 month ago
Reply to  Arizona

Wrong answer. The enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights are natural law based rights that predate the Constitution. The Bill of Rights is simply list inalienable rights and specify the prohibition on the general government from infringing upon those specific rights. Amend all you want. You still go back to natural law. The natural law basis and the history of English Common Law prevail.

RoyD
RoyD
1 month ago
Reply to  nrringlee

That is it in a nutshell!

CourageousLion
CourageousLion
1 month ago
Reply to  nrringlee

FINALLY! Someone who “gets” it! NATURAL RIGHTS are the ONLY rights you have. Anything else is a privilege granted by some sort of licensing agency.

Last edited 1 month ago by CourageousLion
Tionico
Tionico
1 month ago
Reply to  Arizona

Reality check, Sir: even of the wackoes get their way, stuff Biden and Harris into the White house, pack the Court, own both houses and do away with the elctoral college and mandate mail in voting nationwide, and manage to play the charade of repealing that pesky Second Article of Ammendment entirely, the RIGHT will remain, and remain OURS, because that right predates the COnstitutin, AND the Repiublic, is not subject to government at any level, nor is it even dependent upon the exoressed will of The People. That RIGHT comes from the God who made the universe, AND us… Read more »

CourageousLion
CourageousLion
1 month ago
Reply to  Green Mtn. Boy

Now if we can only get those first 13 words back into force and effect. THEN the rest would fall right into place as we convene grand juries to indict these traitors.

Ansel Hazen
Ansel Hazen
1 month ago

I renewed my drivers license which allows me to operate a vehicle in all 50 states ONLINE this year. Providing no documentation whatsoever beyond being willing to sport for the $30 fee. Late last year I renewed my concealed carry license. 6 pages of documentation that included a background check and release of my medical history. Massachusetts and NY block me from being able to travel any further in the US because the Turtle refused to bring it to the floor of the Senate. Trump waved his magic wand and got bumpstocks off the table. I want the same treatment.… Read more »

Grigori
Grigori
1 month ago
Reply to  Ansel Hazen

“BEFORE NOV 3”

Quoted for truth!

Finnky
Finnky
1 month ago
Reply to  Grigori

I want it as well, but I also recognize it will not happen in that time frame or in any way short of taking the house or getting a scotus order. Right now senate republicans are focused on putting ACB on the bench in a manner that minimizes risk of court packing. Much as I want legislative support port for reciprocity, a friendly court is more important and a much more realist goal. Even if republicans passed such a law at federal level, states would fight it in courts. With sensible judges on the bench, states may “only” be able… Read more »

Arizona
Arizona
1 month ago
Reply to  Ansel Hazen

I disagree. I will never ask permission to carry, concealed or open. Every state needs Constitutional Carry, not a reciprocity statute covering CCW permission slips!

CC is what the spineless and corrupt politicians must pass. And we should demand nothing less!

Green Mtn. Boy
Green Mtn. Boy
1 month ago
Reply to  Arizona


Correct,the nation all ready has any form of carry on the books as the supposed supreme law of the land.
Each and every state had to sign on to agree to the Constitution to gain admittance to the union, it’s beyond time to hold them to adherence to that promise.

CourageousLion
CourageousLion
1 month ago
Reply to  Green Mtn. Boy

AND THE ONLY WAY THAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN is if we get the FIRST THIRTEEN WORDS BACK INTO FORCE AND EFFECT. Otherwise? WHAT?

J Gibbons
J Gibbons
1 month ago
Reply to  CourageousLion

The first step is to keep the promised gun-grabbers Biden and Harris out of the White House. Then, keep as many gun-grabbing Democrats out of the Senate as possible.

If those two fail, the road back to true 2A will become almost impossible to traverse.