California “Assault Weapon” Ban Ruled Unconstitutional: What It Means For Gun Owners?

California “Assault Weapon” Ban Ruled Unconstitutional: What It Means For Gun Owners? IMG Jim Grant

California – -( United States District Court Judge Roger Benitez meant it when he took his oath to uphold the Constitution as he was sworn in as a federal judge in 2004.

Indeed, in recent years, he delivered bold and comprehensive pro-Second Amendment decisions in CRPA-supported cases Duncan (challenge to magazine capacity limits) and Rhode (challenge to ammunition sales bans and background checks). And, on June 4, 2021, he issued a 94-page opinion in Miller v. Bonta that vigorously scrutinized the “evidence” the state offered in support of California’s “assault weapon” ban, found it woefully inadequate, and declared California’s laws banning common “assault weapons” (like the AR-15) unconstitutional. The arguments Judge Benitez addressed in Miller are the same arguments that CRPA made in Rupp v. Becerra—a challenge to California’s “assault weapon” ban already on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. (Rupp is fully briefed and argued but is stayed at the Ninth Circuit pending resolution of other important Second Amendment cases noted below).

In his opening paragraph, Judge Benitez observes, “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.” Judge Benitez further observes, “The Second Amendment protects modern weapons.” A few pages later, he adds, “Modern rifles are popular. Modern rifles are legal to build, buy, and own under federal law and the laws of 45 states.” Perhaps most importantly, Benitez notes that California’s ban on such firearms “has had no effect” on shootings in the state and that “California’s experiment is a failure.”

Judge Benitez’s June 4 ruling in Miller is a final trial decision. Originally, the plaintiffs requested a preliminary injunction—a request for immediate relief, based on limited evidence, to be put in place pending the final resolution of the case at trial based on a complete body of evidence. But, in limited instances when it is appropriate, a preliminary injunction request can be consolidated with a trial. That is what happened in Miller.

Most significantly, this ruling has no immediate impact. Usually, when a federal judge enters an order for injunctive relief, that order takes effect immediately. But Judge Benitez’s ruling includes an automatic 30-day stay of his order. This gives the state time to appeal to the Ninth Circuit, which the Attorney General has already promised to do.

So, for now, at least, nothing changes. Don’t go reconfiguring your rifle just yet.


Judge Benitez’s decision to stay his own order out of the gate makes sense. First, the Department of Justice would have no doubt obtained a stay sooner or later, whether from Judge Benitez or under the rule that allows the Ninth Circuit to grant a stay. Recall that both Duncan and Rhode were stayed, albeit with some time between Judge Benitez’s order and the stays becoming effective. But second, and more importantly, an automatic stay decreases the likelihood of confusion among gun owners caused by a time gap between the entry of Judge Benitez’s order and the entry of the stay—a gap during which “assault weapons” theoretically would have been unregulated. Had there been a gap, some people would inevitably (and illegally) modify and reconfigure their presently California-compliant firearms into “assault weapon” configuration. This would be a big mistake.

We know with certainty that the state will appeal Miller to the Ninth Circuit. It will then take at least a year for a final ruling from a standard three-judge panel if there are no extended delays. But the Miller appeal will almost certainly be stayed at the Ninth Circuit, pending rulings in other important Second Amendment cases—like DuncanRhode, and Rupp—that are already on appeal at the Ninth Circuit. So, an extended delay is likely.

Indeed, Second Amendment law in the Ninth Circuit is facing a bottleneck right now. The reason is the extraordinary success of DuncanDuncan won at both the district court level (in Judge Benitez’s courtroom), and then won again before a three-judge panel at the Ninth Circuit. In line with the Ninth Circuit’s hostility toward the Second Amendment, an 11-judge en banc panel will rehear Duncan on June 22nd. Because Duncan could have a tremendous impact on Second Amendment law in the Ninth Circuit, other Second Amendment cases at the appeal stage have been “stayed” or “held in abeyance” pending the resolution of the Duncan en banc rehearing. That is the situation with RuppRhode, and likely with Miller.


CRPA’s efforts to overturn California’s magazine ban in Duncan and ammunition laws in Rhode are just two fronts in CRPA’s sophisticated legal campaign to defend the Second Amendment. Long before Miller, CRPA launched a direct challenge to California’s “assault weapon” ban that is already at the Ninth Circuit. That matter, Rupp v. Becerra, was filed in April 2017 and has been on appeal since August 2019.

The Rupp case is fully briefed and argued but is stayed at the Ninth Circuit pending resolution of Duncan. The Ninth Circuit panel of judges decided to essentially pause the case, because of the impact that the Duncan en banc rehearing (scheduled for June 22, 2021) may have on Second Amendment law in the Ninth Circuit.

Regardless, Rupp is ahead of Miller in the Ninth Circuit, challenges the same laws, involves the same legal issues, and has already been argued. So, while it is heartening to read another brilliant evisceration of California’s gun control regime penned by Judge Benitez, Miller will likely have little impact and will be caught up in the bottleneck of cases already waiting at the Ninth Circuit.


The Supreme Court will soon hear New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Corlett, which will very likely reset the legal test that courts apply to Second Amendment questions. The current composition of the court makes a pro-Second Amendment decision look very possible.

Because the Ninth Circuit is just as aware of this as we are, there is a good chance that the Ninth Circuit will stay Duncan, citing Corlett as the reason, after it conducts the en bancoral argument in Duncan. If that happens, then all the cases that are being stayed pending Duncan will essentially remain stayed as well until the Supreme Court issues its Corlett decision—including this most recent ruling in Miller.

So, for now, we have room to be cautiously optimistic that the hard work CRPA has done in California’s courts will have a meaningful chance to truly change the scope of gun rights in the state.  That said, we will have to be patient and await what unfolds in the Supreme Court.

We are planning the march to the Supreme Court now and you can help! Please donate today to the Litigation Victory Fund today.

About the California Rifle & Pistol Association

Founded in 1875, the California Rifle & Pistol Association provides training in the safe, responsible, and enjoyable use of firearms; sanctions competitive shooting state championships; and fights for the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms for those who choose to own a gun in California for sport, hunting, or self-defense. Join and donate! For more information, visit

California Rifle & Pistol Association

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

30 years so far having rights delayed, and a right delayed is a right denied. SCOTUS and other courts will add a handful of years to get a decision, and that decision is uncertain. We are living in a post Constitutional America, where our government appropriates powers and authority We the People never granted it, and attempts to deny civil rights, using the full force of the government against us. This is morally, ethically and legally wrong, and deserves immediate action.


1968 law was enacted to keep the people from stopping criminal actions like kent state shooting by nasty guard non were charged like waco and ruby ridge government criminals protected by false laws


Gavin Newsom’s head exploding in response to the Courts ruling.
comment image


Got this from Newsom’s comrades. Michael – Over the weekend, a federal judge overturned California’s assault weapons ban — the first one passed in the nation more than 30 years ago after a shooting at a Stockton elementary school. First, don’t worry. The assault weapons ban is still law pending our state’s appeal to a higher court. Before our state files an appeal on the dangerous ruling overturning California’s assault weapons ban, Gavin Newsom needs you to make your voice heard on this issue. Please read his message and act today. Sign the petition: say you support California’s assault weapons… Read more »


Maybe we can help him with a boot or two…really get it up there. Nice and secure.


“Because the Ninth Circuit is just as aware of this as we are, there is a good chance that the Ninth Circuit will stay Duncan, citing Corlett as the reason, after it conducts the en bancoral argument in Duncan.”

I can’t help but feel the federal judicial process takes a certain sadistic pride in being slow as they rest on their “it takes time” excuse.

BTW: it’s “en banc oral,” not “en bancoral.”


I’ve seen a lot of argument that the stays are good, and that those protections go both ways. I can certainly see why Benitez, things working the way they do, would issue a stay of his own decision.

I wholeheartedly disagree though that stays should ever be used to benefit the government when the issue is government deprivation of rights. If there is a question of whether deprivation of rights is legal, the pro tempore default should always be NO.