FPC Statement on Appeal in Miller v. Bonta “Assault Weapon” Lawsuit

NRA ILA AR-15 Range
FPC Statement on Appeal in Miller v. Bonta “Assault Weapon” Lawsuit. IMG NRA-ILA

U.S.A.-(AmmoLand.com)- California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced in a press conference that the State has appealed FPC’s historic victory in our Miller v. Bonta lawsuit, which correctly held that California’s tyrannical ban on so-called “assault weapons” is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. Bonta further confirmed that the State would today be seeking a stay of the trial court’s injunction from the Ninth Circuit. Case documents are available at AssaultWeaponLawsuit.com.

FPC and our counsel presented the Court with the largest record ever compiled in any challenge to a ban on so-called “assault weapons,” including many expert witnesses testifying on a wide variety of relevant matters ranging from U.S. history, constitutional law, and firearms history and technology, to self-defense and use of force and the unorganized militia. In doing so, FPC prevailed against the State following a trial.

FPC will oppose any and all requests to stay enforcement of the final judgment. Any further delays or stays of the injunction would prejudice the fundamental, individual rights of the plaintiffs and all peaceable gun owners in California, undermine the rule of law, and put thousands at risk of felony criminal liability for accidental violations of the unconstitutional ban. Indeed, the State’s desire to continue imposing its ban should not be allowed to prevail over the fundamental rights of law-abiding gun owners.

Further, FPC will aggressively litigate this case on appeal and will take every action to defend the Court’s legally- and historically-correct decision up to and at the U.S. Supreme Court.

FPC condemns Governor Newsom’s outrageous and callous personal attacks on the honorable Federal District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez. Newsom’s verbal assaults on a long-respected member of the judiciary shows his deep and continuing disrespect for the rule of law, the judiciary, the Constitution, and the human rights of California citizens. Those speakers who attacked Judge Benitez’s character should be ashamed.

Further case updates, filings, and comments will be made available online at AssaultWeaponLawsuit.com and FPCLaw.org.

In 2019, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) developed and filed the Miller case, a federal Second Amendment challenge to California’s Assault Weapons Control Act (AWCA) ban on common semiautomatic arms with certain characteristics, including those with ammunition magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds.

FPC argued throughout the lawsuit that the State’s ban prohibits arms that are constitutionally protected, no more lethal than other certain arms that are not banned, and commonly possessed and used for lawful purposes in the vast majority of the United States. The Court agreed last Friday, ruling that many categories of firearms California bans as so-called “assault weapons” are protected by the Second Amendment, and that “[t]he Second Amendment stands as a shield from government imposition of that policy.”

Individuals that are interested in joining FPC in the fight against tyranny can become a member of the FPC Grassroots Army for just $25 at JoinFPC.org.

Firearms Policy Coalition and its FPC Law team are the nation’s next-generation advocates leading the Second Amendment litigation and research space. Some FPC legal actions include:

  • A challenge to California’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” (Miller v. Bonta) that resulted in a post-trial judgment and permanent injunction against the challenged regulations, the first such victory in United States history
  • A brief supporting certiorari in NYSRPA v. Bruen, which was granted by the U.S. Supreme Court
  • A challenge to Minnesota’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Worth v. Harrington)
  • A challenge to Illinois’ ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Meyer v. Raoul)
  • A challenge to Georgia’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Baughcum v. Jackson)
  • A challenge to Tennessee’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Basset v. Slatery)
  • A challenge to Maryland’s ban on handgun carry (Call v. Jones)
  • A challenge to New Jersey’s ban on handgun carry (Bennett v. Davis)
  • A challenge to New York City’s ban on handgun carry (Greco v. New York City)
  • A challenge to Pennsylvania’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Lara v. Evanchick)
  • A challenge to the federal ban on the sale of handguns and handgun ammunition to adults under 21 years of age (Reese v. ATF)
  • A challenge to Maryland’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” (Bianchi v. Frosh)
  • A challenge to California’s handgun “roster”, microstamping, and self-manufacturing ban laws (Renna v. Bonta)
  • A challenge to Pennsylvania’s laws completely denying the right to carry to individuals who were previously granted relief from prior non-violent convictions and are not currently prohibited from possessing firearms (Suarez v. Evanchick)

For more on these cases and other legal action initiatives, visit FPCLegal.org and follow FPC on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube.

About Firearms Policy Coalition

Firearms Policy Coalition (firearmspolicy.org), a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization, exists to create a world of maximal human liberty, defend constitutional rights, advance individual liberty, and restore freedom. FPC’s efforts are focused on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and adjacent issues including freedom of speech, due process, unlawful searches and seizures, separation of powers, asset forfeitures, privacy, encryption, and limited government. The FPC team are next-generation advocates working to achieve the Organization’s strategic objectives through litigation, research, scholarly publications, amicus briefing, legislative and regulatory action, grassroots activism, education, outreach, and other programs. FPC Law (FPCLaw.org), the nation’s largest public interest legal team focused on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, lead the Second Amendment litigation and research space.

Firearms Policy Coalition

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The courts will battle this out. Every firearm owner should spend at least a few hours reading the ATF proposed rules and writing comments opposing them, suggesting alternatives and explaining why it is illegal and unwarranted. Spend a couple hours each weekend till you submit. Make it thorough and cogent and leave out the cursing or they will trash your comment.

Last edited 1 year ago by Arizona

This is the comment I left to these crony scum atf pos. This rule change is the latest affirmation that the ATF as well as the communist politicians whom they answer to; consider the constitution they swore to uphold as being nothing but a roadblock to the Tyranny they aspire to make reality. The goal of this organization is clearly to create millions of new criminals by fiat decree so that it gives these anti-constitutionalist a bigger budget as well as create millions more slaves for the for profit prisons the crony politicians have vested interest to keep full. In… Read more »


Truth is on our side. This unconstitutional ban was passed with absolute no evidence to prove the basic theory of ‘public safety.” Government must make a compelling public interest argument based upon the best evidence available. California failed to do that in the legislative process and thus planted a time bomb for themselves. To this date there is no credible study supporting a ban based upon fact. Progressives govern by hyperbole and emotion. That is contrary to our Constitutional order of law based in reason. This is why progressive utopias like California, New York, New Jersey and others are such… Read more »


The “Government must make a compelling public interest argument” argument violates the very source of our rights which would be infringed by such action. In other words, you can not take away people’s rights by arguing that those people might one day conflict your interests in some way through processes made possible by having those rights.