BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in the case of Miller v. Bonta, challenging California’s ban on so-called “assault weapons,” have filed a responding brief in the case, countering defense arguments and strategies already rejected by federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court.
“Our reply takes the state to task for going directly against the instructions of the federal court,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The state spent its entire 25-page brief trying to re-litigate the case, essentially arguing for ‘interest balancing’ by the court, which the Supreme Court nixed last year in its landmark Bruen ruling. The only logical conclusion is that the State of California is stalling, trying to delay the inevitable ruling that the ban on semiautomatic rifles is unconstitutional.”
SAF is joined by the San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee, California Gun Rights Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition and four private citizens, including James Miller, for whom the case is named. They are represented by attorneys George M. Lee at Seiler Epstein, LLP and John W. Dillon at the Dillon Law Group, APC. The case is now before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
Plaintiffs note in their response brief;
“The State’s attempt to ignore this Court’s instructions and introduce last-minute further “expert testimony” offered in other cases on the ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’ question—which has already been settled by this Court—is also a naked appeal to interest balancing and is irrelevant to the question of historical analogues requested by this Court (and required under Bruen). At this point, Defendants are simply padding the record with old (and misplaced) arguments and extraneous declarations.”
“It seems clear to us the state is trying to revive arguments they cannot use because they have no historical evidence to support their gun ban,” Gottlieb observed. “The court shouldn’t tolerate such legal shenanigans, which ultimately attempt to reframe this case into a policy matter, which boils down to whether average citizens ‘need’ a semiautomatic firearm.
“The Supreme Court already settled this,” he continued. “It’s not up to the government to make that choice, it’s up to the American people, and their rights are not subject to public opinion polls or the whims of anti-gun politicians in Sacramento.”
The 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 720,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.
Don’t underestimate virulence of anti-gun activism. Even if slapped down by the US Supreme Court, anti-gunners won’t see reality. We’ve seen this before with racist segregationist after Brown vs. Bd. of Ed. and after the passing of the historic Voting Rights Act. They just believe they’re morally right and you aren’t. Only difference, nearly all proponents of discrimination eventually not only faced reality, but learned to embrace racial equality. It’s doubtful hapliphobes will ever embrace civilian gun rights.
Insanity is defined as doing the same thing but expecting different results. And California’s anti-gun crowd… But I risk repeating myself.
Morally right (in their eyes) isn’t going to help when 50,000 enraged and armed CA citizens show up in Sacramento and “do stuff” – the way they are pushing this whole agenda, the “visit” is the only option that will matter.
the activism of the anit-2A crowd is indeed extreme. they, and their activist judges cannot ignore precedent any longer and we are beginning to see this come to fruition. frame it as a moral argument, “can you defend yourself from someone about to cause you harm”, and then wait for their answer.
haplophobia is the correct spelling, and i disagree, you can change someone’s beliefs in firearms.
I stand corrected on the spelling of “haplophobia”, thank you. Yes, you can bring reason to some anti-gunners, but there’s a breed, what I like to call, “congenital Democrat”, which dominates politics in blue states, and they’re not only unpersuadible, they won’t talk to you. California is a case in point.
Dangerous and unusual? There are more than 10 million BRACED PISTOL AR’s, magically now considered SBR’s, so both 16″ and shorter are all IN COMMON USE, with the full legal protection that that brings, under the 2nd, so cannot be banned nor subjected to NFA bullchit.
Renewing my 2AF membership makes me proud.
Good job Alan!
All started in ‘1871’ – PRESIDENT GRANT – Took a Loan from the MOST EVIL PEOPLE ON THE PLANET – Our country was Broke After the CIVIL WAR – After that = DC Became a seperate Intity from the states! why? the NEFARIOUS -UK/ VATICAN/ ROTHCHILD WORLD CENTRAL BANK = OWNED OUR ‘NATION’! All true People! – ever since then OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS > became PRIVILEGES!- This is why WE ARE ALWAYS FIGHTING OUR OWN GOVT’S! IN COURTS TO KEEP “SOME’ OF OUR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS!!!! think about it people = If this WERE “OUR TRUE FEDERAL GOV’T – AND “THEY… Read more »
This morning I had a bowl of Fruit Loops for breakfast. Delicious!
Let’s just stick to the provable FACTS here, shall we? It is the legal system working in cahoots with the banking system, that is the real issue that we have to deal with here and now. The antidote to these poisonous groups is contained within them! The legal and banking system and cannot tolerate it’s lies and hypocrisies being exposed, so if we do it enough, they will all go out of business!! Then we can institute new forms of laws and banking, instead of trying to repair that which is irreparable. And after we get rid of the 100%… Read more »
The facts are that the Civil War was fought to restrict states’ rights. Ending slavery was a byproduct of the war. The Federal Reserve Bank was created to allow wealthy groups to manipulate our nation’s currency and economy. The 16th Amendment to our Constitution was fraudulently passed during 1909-1913, removing more states’ rights and making Americans economic slaves to “income tax”. Those are facts that can be verified if one has the inclination to do so. Start with the book The Law That Never Was by Benson and Beckman, which describes how the income tax 16th Amendment was not passed… Read more »