Reaction & Commentary
Although if you ask that California ban how old it is, it’ll swear it’s only 25. The ban is officially known as the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act. It was passed after the Stockton schoolyard shooting in 1989. And it was signed into law by California Governor Ronald Reagan.
The law included a ban on certain types of AR-15s, a popular semi-automatic rifle. But in 2019, California resident James Miller and several pro-gun organizations challenged the assault weapons ban in a lawsuit. Which is what led to last week’s ruling. In his ruling, Judge Benitez says the banned “assault weapons” like AR-15s aren’t
Extraordinary weapons beyond the protections of the Second Amendment. They aren’t “bazookas, howitzers, or machine guns.” Pft. This guy thinks bazookas, howitzers, and machine guns are extraordinary? You can tell he doesn’t play ‘Gears of War.’ The chainsaw machine gun and Hammer of Dawn satellite lasers? *Those* are extraordinary weapons.
Bazookas are so tame, I wouldn’t even bring them to a gender reveal party. Judge Benitez called AR-15s “average guns used in average ways for average purposes,” which are protected by the Second Amendment. The judge also said that “it is on the government… to prove the banned arm is dangerous and unusual.”
Dangerous and unusual. You know, like a gender reveal party. So if California can’t prove that AR-15s aren’t commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens or not commonly possessed for lawful purposes, then the prohibition on the gun must be struck down. So how commonly possessed is the AR-15?
Well, it’s so popular that it’s been called America’s rifle. In 1994, President Clinton signed a federal assault weapons ban. That ban expired in 2004. And sales of AR-15s exploded like… yup… a gender reveal party. Hey, we paid our graphics guy a lot for this photoshop, so we’re getting our money’s worth.
“There are well over 11 million [AR-15s] and they are rarely used in crime. Handguns kill far more people.” But even though handguns kill more people, AR-15s and other semiautomatic rifles are often at the center of the gun control debate. That’s because they’ve been used in mass shootings.
That includes high-profile mass shootings like the Las Vegas shooting, and the Parkland and Sandy Hook school shootings. Plus “AR-15s inflict much more damage to human tissue than the typical handgun.” And frankly AR-15s just look more scary. The only way this would look scarier was if
It had spider legs, and each of those eight legs was holding a picture of you from back in high school. Ban that thing immediately! But just because a gun looks dangerous, doesn’t mean it can be banned. If that were the case, all guns would look like this. Which would probably cause other problems.
Judge Benitez called California’s assault weapons ban “a continuing failed experiment which does not achieve its objectives of preventing mass shootings or attacks on law enforcement officers.” But the way he made his conclusions really didn’t sit well with a lot of the media. I’ll tell you why after the break. Welcome back.
Many pro-gun advocates love Judge Benitez . He’s known for striking down California’s ban on high-capacity magazines. Judge Benitez also blocked the state’s background check law for purchasing ammunition. Probably because background checks are redundant in Los Angeles, since within 30 seconds of meeting you, everyone there hands you their headshot, resume, and/or mixtape.
Pro-gun organizations called Benitez’ latest decision a “historic victory for Second Amendment Rights.” It’s the biggest victory for gun fans since John Wick 6, or whatever number they’re on. But advocates for gun control called Benitez’s decision “a nutty court ruling” that “makes
Us less safe” with an extreme gun rights reading of the Second Amendment. The Giffords Law Center , a gun-control advocacy group, condemned Judge Benitez as “a judge with extremist views [who] prioritized weapons of war over the lives of Californians.”
And gun control advocates took offense to the part of his ruling where he compared the AR-15 to the Swiss Army Knife . Judge Benitez said that “like the Swiss Army Knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment.”
It *is* just like the Swiss Army Knife. Because let’s be honest: who *hasn’t* clipped their toenails or opened a bottle of wine with an AR-15 before? California Governor Newsom called Benitez’ statement “a disgusting slap in the face to those who have lost loved ones to gun violence.”
However, Newsom made no mention of the loved ones lost to Swiss Army Knives. I *told* him that’s not what corkscrews were meant for. Attorney General Rob Bonta said that the decision was “fundamentally flawed” since there’s “no sound basis in law…or common sense for equating assault rifles with swiss army knives.”
Now, in Judge Benitez’s defense, he wasn’t saying an AR-15 is as harmless as a Swiss Army knife. He was comparing the AR-15 to the Swiss Army Knife to illustrate how an AR-15 is versatile with more than one purpose. For example, you could use an AR-15 to dig a hole,
Reach something in the top cabinet, or kill a deer… by choking it out. But many are worried that Judge Benitez’s decision will lead to an increase in violence. Fortunately for gun control advocates, Judge Benitez’s decision won’t immediately change any laws.
He granted a 30-day stay of the ruling to allow California’s attorney general to appeal his ruling. So gun control advocates are optimistic that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will overrule the decision and restore the gun restrictions. However, gun rights activists say that if this ruling gets overruled, they’re prepared
To go all the way to the US Supreme Court. I’ll get to that after the break. Welcome back. It’s likely that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will overrule Judge Benitez’s ruling. They temporarily halted Benitez’s ruling rejecting California’s background check requirement for gun magazines last year.
But some experts say that even if the Ninth Circuit overrules Judge Benitez, it’s possible the Supreme Court will step in to settle the matter. Here’s a diagram that shows how the American court systems work. We paid our graphics team way less for that Photoshop.
The Supreme Court has made some landmark rulings related to the Second Amendment, like the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller case. That case affirmed that the Second Amendment applied to individuals, and not just a militia. That’s huge because in America, corporations are considered people, people are considered individuals, so legally,
Ronald McDonald and Colonel Sanders can purchase guns. The fast food wars are about to get way more intense. But in the last few years, the Supreme Court has refused to hear many cases related to the Second Amendment. If the Supreme Court refuses to hear a case, that means the lower court’s decision is
Upheld. Refusing to hear a case also means the Supreme Court is either incredibly overworked or incredibly lazy. Either way, they probably wear those robes because they’re great for napping. But earlier this year, the Supreme Court announced they would hear a case on carrying guns in public.
This will be their first Second Amendment case in over a decade. So gun rights advocates hope the Supreme Court will hear the California case, too. And they’re counting on the fact that the Supreme Court now has a bigger conservative majority. Although that doesn’t mean the court won’t surprise them.
The Supreme Court is full of surprises. For instance did you know under those robes, they’re all completely naked? Just look at those faces. Why do you think they’re smiling like that? But if the Supreme Court does overturn the California assault weapons ban, that could change laws across the country.
“If it gets to the United States Supreme Court, given the makeup of our court, yeah, it will survive, and that is the danger California has. There’s a lot of states out there right now that do not want California to appeal. They want to say, ‘Hey, California. You lost. You deal with it.
Don’t take it to the Supreme Court at some point because then we all have to deal with it.” After all, it’s not just California that has an assault weapons ban. Seven states have them, including New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, and Hawaii. As well as Washington DC.
So by trying to restrict guns, California could wind up ending assault weapon bans nationwide. So what do you think? Do you think the US Supreme Court will chime in this time to address gun policies? If so, what decision do you think it’ll make?
And please, support America Uncovered by going to the crowdfunding website Patreon.com/AmericaUncovered. We rely on your contributions. Leave your comments below. Once again, I’m Chris Chapel. Thanks for watching America Uncovered.
