[ad_1]
Firearms advocates welcome Federal Court ruling overturning California's ban on high-volume firearms magazines, perhaps the largest and most the most impactful so far on the right to bear arms, an antidote to what they view as a second amendment treatment. "Disadvantaged right."
The draconian decision of San Diego-based US District Judge Roger Benitez has declared unconstitutional a section of Proposition 63, approved by state voters in 2016 after several large-scale shootings, banning the possession of state-owned magazines. 'weapons containing more than 10 cartridges.
[Read the ruling: Duncan et al v. Becerra]
Benitez, appointed by President George W. Bush, began with a dramatic and anecdotal recital of assassinations during which victims tried to defend themselves before running out of ammunition. He mentioned the Nazis' ban on the use of weapons to Jews and reviewed the recent mass shooting in the United States, saying there was no evidence that a ban like California's saved the least person.
"We can not stop bad political ideals by criminalizing bad political speeches," writes Benitez in his judgment, released last week. "Crime waves can not be broken with warrantless searches and unreasonable searches. The government also can not react to some gunmen armed with gun and ammunition by passing a law that turns millions of people responsible and law-abiding by trying to protect themselves as criminals. "
The National Rifle Association's Legislative Action Institute called it "one of the strongest legal pronouncements in favor of the second amendment to date." In a statement, the group's executive director, Chris W. Cox, said it was a "recognition the courts have too often been treated as an unfavorable right".
Chuck Michel, who represented the plaintiff Virginia Duncan as well as the California Rifle and Pistol Association, said in an interview that the ruling could be used to counter what he called the "judicial wrongdoing" caused by "robbery". other courts.
Eric Tirschwell, Director of Litigation at Everytown for Gun Safety, said the ruling underscored "the dangerous gun lobby that more deadly guns would make America safer," he said. .
Among them is the US Court of Appeals of the 9th circuit, where the decision of Benitez is linked.
Nevertheless, in the long debate on US gun rights, the strong wording of Benitez's decision will be used to reinforce the political demands of those who face increasing challenges as a result of mass shootings.
A magazine, for a handgun or rifle, is a spring container that feeds ammunition into the chamber of a semi-automatic weapon with each squeeze of the trigger. The Sandy Hook elementary school shooter, for example, used a rifle with a 30-cartridge magazine, which allowed him to shoot 154 rounds in less than five minutes. Adam Lanza's 2012 assault in Newton, Connecticut killed 28 people, including 20 young children.
[Families of Sandy Hook shooting victims can sue gunmaker Remington over 2012 attack, court says]
The second amendment reads: "A well-regulated militia, indispensable to the security of a free State, shall not affect the right of peoples to keep and bear arms."
But until the decision of the Supreme Court in 2008 District of Columbia c. Heller the High Court had not applied the provision to individuals, to defend themselves, or for any other reason. And saying in Heller that some regulations were "eligible", the court has not yet developed.
Benitez's was inspired by the majority opinion of the Supreme Court, written by Judge Antonin Scalia, who stated that although the Second Amendment does not necessarily protect the possession of weapons designed primarily to a military use, it covers weapons commonly chosen by people for lawful purposes. as self-defense in their homes.
To make this point, Benitez emphasized the millions of American-owned semi-automatic agents. This is clearly a weapon of choice, the judge said.
And he tried to demonstrate that large-capacity weapons were commonly used for centuries, dating back to the late 15th century, when, he says, Leonardo da Vinci had designed a 33-shot weapon. From there, the judge focuses on the Lewis and Clark expedition in 1803, when the explorers used a magazine containing 22 .465 caliber bullets.
Using the argument most often heard by abortion rights advocates to protest the restrictions that make the medical procedure inaccessible, Benitez pointed out that removing magazines was so expensive that it had to be removed. 'armed. chosen by US citizens for legitimate self-defense purposes. "
The fact that high-capacity magazines may or may not be more "deadly" than revolver bullets is irrelevant from a constitutional point of view, he wrote: "The second amendment does not exist to protect the right to wear pillows and foam baseball bats. It protects firearms and every weapon is dangerous. "
Particularly for gun rights advocates, the decision strongly stated that the second amendment was no different from the first and fourth and fifth amendments and all Charter rights guarantees, subject to "narrowly defined" limits only when the government can show undeniable interest in them.
California law "is not at all suitable," wrote Benitez. "It's like a jute bag. This is a one-dimensional and prophylactic blanket thrown on the state's population. "
[Supreme Court declines to stop Trump administration’s ban on bump stocks]
The Supreme Court has, in the past, refused to review the decisions of the first instance court in the second amendment. For example, he rejected the analysis of the 4th Circuit US Court of Appeals decision in 2017 confirming Maryland's ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.
This decision was opened by a dramatic description of the shooting in Newtown, contrary to Benitez's decision, which was opened by dramatic tragedies that hit people trying to defend themselves.
[ad_2]
Source link