No, Judge Benitez, we do not need weapons of war for 'home defense'
A FEDERAL judge’s decision overturning California’s longtime ban on assault weapons has been rightly mocked for its ludicrous likening of an AR-15 rifle to a Swiss Army knife. But the ruling is no laughing matter. While it will be appealed — and hopefully overturned by jurists who understand the Second Amendment is not without limits — the ruling is part of a sustained attack on gun safety laws that has been emboldened by the shift in balance of the U.S. Supreme Court.
U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez of the Southern District of California on Friday termed the state’s ban on assault weapons, implemented in 1989 and revised over the years, “a failed experiment” and ruled it unconstitutional. “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,” began the 94-page ruling that dripped with disdain for California’s efforts to confront gun violence and showed no concern for its victims. “No amount of ‘common sense’ gun control laws will prevent criminals from misusing guns,” he wrote, comparing California’s efforts to Victor Hugo’s Inspector Javert relentlessly searching for Jean Valjean. Also disturbing was his argument that assault weapons are protected by the Second Amendment because they could be useful in a citizens militia, citing his birth country of Cuba and the revolution there. Just the suggestion the country needs after the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.
The ruling runs counter to repeated decisions over the years in both state and federal courts upholding prohibitions against assault weapons on the grounds of the state’s compelling interest in protecting public safety. Among the states where bans of these weapons of war were ruled constitutional are Massachusetts, New York and Maryland. California’s own law was previously upheld by a federal district court of California and multiple state appellate courts. But those familiar with Judge Benitez, appointed to the federal bench by President George W. Bush, were not surprised by his ruling. He once wrote “the Second Amendment gets even less respect” than Rodney Dangerfield, and he previously struck down a law passed by the state’s voters that would have banned possession of magazines holding more than 10 bullets, a decision now pending appeal before the Ninth Circuit. His court, the New York Times reported, has become a welcoming place for gun-rights advocates because of a rule that allows “related cases” to be funneled to one judge rather than randomly assigned.
When the Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that the Second Amendment establishes an individual right to keep guns in the home for self-defense, it also made clear that the right is not absolute but is subject to government regulation. Assault weapons, more dangerous than other firearms, are disproportionately used in crimes and against law enforcement. They — not Swiss Army knives — are the weapon of choice of mass shooters because of their efficiency in killing as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time. If they can’t be banned, it is hard to see what reasonable gun regulations the government could impose to try to save lives.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/no-judge-benitez-we-do-not-need-weapons-of-war-for-home-defense/2021/06/08/c1639d56-c7d7-11eb-81b1-34796c7393af_story.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
