FPC Statement on 9th Circuit Order Injunction on ‘Assault Weapon’ Ban

‘Yet again, the Ninth Circuit treats the right to keep and bear arms as a “second-class” right and “constitutional orphan.” ‘

Ninth Circuit Panel Ruling Holds California Magazine Ban Unconstitutional
The fanatically anti-Second Amendment Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals elected to disregard that fundamental duty.  IMG iStock-898278698

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Yesterday, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) issued the following statement rebuking the Ninth Circuit’s stay order blocking the enforcement of the district court’s judgment and injunction in FPC’s Miller v. Bonta lawsuit, a case challenging the State’s ban on so-called “assault weapons”:

The first duty of our federal courts is to uphold the Constitution and protect the People’s fundamental rights enshrined therein. But today, as it has too many times before, the fanatically anti-Second Amendment Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals elected to disregard that fundamental duty, ignore the text and public meaning of our Constitution, and fail the very people they swore an oath to serve.

If this case were about a similarly broad abortion ban, restrictive immigration policy, or reduction of voting rights, just to name a few examples, there is no question that the Ninth Circuit’s decision here would have gone the other way. Just as Justice Clarence Thomas accurately explained in his 2018 dissent from denial of certiorari in Silvester v. Becerra—the first-ever federal Second Amendment trial victory that the Ninth Circuit outrageously reversed based on its own (anti-rights) “common sense” rather than the Constitution and Supreme Court’s D.C. v. Heller decision—“the right to keep and bear arms is apparently [the Supreme] Court’s constitutional orphan. And the lower courts seem to have gotten the message.”

Indeed they have, and that is precisely what the Ninth Circuit did again today in its order granting the stay—treat your fundamental, individual Second Amendment freedoms as a “second-class right.” Rather than allow the parties to brief and litigate the appeal as it would in appeals about rights it favors, the Ninth Circuit put Judge Benitez’s incredibly detailed, historically accurate, and legally sound decision and judgment—and your rights—on ice.

FPC will continue to Fight Forward for the fundamental rights of all People in this and many other lawsuits around the country. And to be sure, neither a stay order in this case nor the Ninth Circuit itself will prevent us from aggressively working to eliminate unconstitutional laws and expand human liberty.

Tens of millions of Californians have suffered under the State’s unconstitutional and oppressive gun control scheme for far too long. Today the Ninth Circuit chose government tyranny over human lives and rights. If the federal courts wish to remain a relevant part of this Republic’s system of ordered liberty, then they should do their [well-paid, lifetime-tenure] jobs and stand up for the rights of the people of the United States in every case—not merely when it is convenient to them and anti-rights radicals like Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta.

We will provide further updates about Miller v. Bonta and other FPC lawsuits at FPCLegal.org.


About Firearms Policy Coalition

Firearms Policy Coalition (firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to protect and defend constitutional rights—especially the right to keep and bear arms—advance individual liberty, and restore freedom through litigation and legal action, legislative and regulatory action, education, outreach, grassroots activism, other programs. FPC Law is the nation’s largest public interest legal team focused on the Second Amendment and adjacent fundamental rights including freedom of speech and due process, conducting litigation, research, scholarly publications, and amicus briefing, among other efforts.Firearms Policy Coalition

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

I read the TRADEROUS reports of KKKafornia for information.
Why??
Many other “states” follow the IDIOTIC ANTI-CONSTITUTIONAL ANTICS which KKKalifornia exhibits daily, just like mobs of lemmings running over a cliff to their deaths!!!!!!!!

JPM
JPM
1 month ago

When a bunch of liberal California Judges (2-bit hack lawyers) in California can overrule the Constitution and piss on the Constitutional rights of citizens ACROSS THE ENTIRE NATION, there is something very wrong with a system that allows that to happen.

Happy Everafter
Happy Everafter
1 month ago

So, an official that rejects his sworn oath to protect and defend is, what, a hero?
There oughta be a law…!!!

USMC0351Grunt
USMC0351Grunt
1 month ago

There IS a law… Look it up!

JPM
JPM
1 month ago

In this particular case, a short rope and a long drop would go a lot further in protecting our rights.

Laddyboy
Laddyboy
1 month ago
Reply to  JPM

NOPE!! Not a long drop! A short drop of six inches will suffice perfectly!!

nrringlee
nrringlee
1 month ago

Progressives deny the very concept of natural and inalienable rights. Progressive courts enforce that statist brand of authoritarianism through their decisions. It will come down to The People asserting their rights and defending their rights either by massive disobedience or through the reconstitution of government in accordance with our Founding Principles. It is that simple.

USMC0351Grunt
USMC0351Grunt
1 month ago
Reply to  nrringlee

This is true. One must first believe in Goin order to understand “inalienable rights”. Without God, these rights do not exist. Without God, the Constitution does not exist. This nation was founded under Judeo-Christian values, principles and moral standards and the blood of patriots. WE OWE THEM to protect their legacy and OUR freedom and liberty.

ROCK6
ROCK6
1 month ago

King George III’s lawyers are suffering from the very same issue King George did: acute mental illness.

Ryben Flynn
Ryben Flynn
1 month ago

The 9th. District Court for Southern California has 18 Judges, 9 appointed by a Republican President (including 1 by President Trump) and 8 appointed by a Democrat President. Also that is the Court where Judge Benitez sits.

DIYinSTL
DIYinSTL
1 month ago
Reply to  Ryben Flynn

Never mind.

Last edited 1 month ago by DIYinSTL
Hazcat
Hazcat
1 month ago

“…That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, …” I DO NOT CONSENT.

Deplorable Bill
Deplorable Bill
1 month ago

All men are created equal. They are endowed by their creator with certain UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, that among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, self defense, to keep and bear arms, to assemble PEACEABLY, to vote etc. When government becomes destructive of these ends it is in the right of the people to alter or abolish it. Most of what I just said can be found in the declaration of independence, one of OUR FOUNDING DOCUMENTS. When you serve the nation, when you are elected to serve the nation, you must take your oath to defend the people, the… Read more »

buzzsaw
buzzsaw
1 month ago

Did anyone really expect any different?

Same ol’ same ol’. Wash, rinse repeat…

Russn8r
Russn8r
1 month ago
Reply to  buzzsaw

I’m surprised FPC’s Brandon Combs didn’t declare VICTORY IN CALIFORNIA! as he did when “secretly pro-gun Jerry Brown” only signed half the 15 or so draconian bans on his desk.

USMC0351Grunt
USMC0351Grunt
1 month ago
Reply to  buzzsaw

We have been doing this for decades and the stain still remains. Time to change tactics!