風蕭蕭_Frank
以文會友
聯邦法官再次裁定加州攻擊性武器禁令違憲
A federal judge rules again that California's assault weapons ban is unconstitutional
2023 年 10 月 19 日
美聯社報道
2012 年，位於加利福尼亞州薩克拉門托的加州司法部展示了 AR-15 突擊步槍的三種型號。此前曾推翻加州攻擊性武器禁令的聯邦法官於 2023 年 10 月 19 日星期四再次推翻了這一禁令，並作出裁決 該州試圖禁止銷售半自動槍支侵犯了憲法攜帶武器的權利。
聖地亞哥——周四，一名聯邦法官再次推翻了加州長達30年之久的攻擊性武器禁令，裁定該州禁止銷售半自動槍支的行為違反了憲法規定的攜帶武器權利。
美國聖地亞哥地區法官羅傑·貝尼特斯承認，像 AR-15 步槍這樣的威力強大的武器經常被犯罪分子使用，但他表示，重要的是，這些槍支也屬於那些遵守法律並認為自己需要槍支來保護自己的人。
“加利福尼亞州認為，其‘攻擊性武器’禁令（這裏受到挑戰的法律）促進了解除一些大規模槍擊者武裝的重要公共利益，盡管它使堅持獲取這些槍支用於自衛的守法居民成為罪犯， ”貝尼特斯寫道。 “然而，維持禁令所需要的還不止於此。”
法官的裁決與 2021 年的裁決幾乎相同，他在裁決中稱加州對攻擊性武器的禁令是一次“失敗的實驗”。 貝尼特斯曾多次廢除加州多項槍支法。 就在上個月，他裁定該州不能禁止槍支擁有者擁有可容納 10 發以上子彈的可拆卸彈匣。
貝尼特斯的最新決定將推翻多項與攻擊性武器有關的州法規。 作為向美國第九巡回上訴法院上訴的一部分，法官給了該州 10 天的時間尋求暫緩裁決。
加州總檢察長羅布·邦塔表示，他的辦公室已經提交了上訴通知。
邦塔在周四的一份聲明中說：“加州的街道上不允許有戰爭武器。” “幾十年來，這一直是加州的州法律，我們將繼續爭取我們的權力，確保我們的公民免受造成大規模傷亡的槍支的傷害。與此同時，在加州購買、轉讓或擁有攻擊性武器仍然是非法的。 ”
提起訴訟推翻法律的原告律師約翰·狄龍 (John Dillon) 對法官的裁決表示歡迎。
狄龍在周四的一份聲明中表示：“法院的裁決符合憲法，並解決了國家論點的許多不足之處以及這項違憲禁令的所謂理由。” “我們將繼續通過任何上訴爭取原告的第二修正案權利，直到國家被迫開始尊重這些權利。”
Bonta 對法官 2021 年的裁決提出上訴，但在第九巡回法院做出裁決之前，美國最高法院就紐約的一起案件發布了一項裁決，為法院如何考慮槍支限製製定了新標準。 第九巡回法院撤銷了貝尼特斯之前的決定，並將案件發回給他根據新標準重新考慮。
貝尼特斯再次得出結論，該禁令違憲。 他又回到了之前所做的類比，將 AR-15 與 Bowie 刀進行了比較。
“就像 1800 年代公民和士兵普遍攜帶的鮑伊刀一樣，‘攻擊武器’很危險，但很有用。但與鮑伊刀不同的是，美國最高法院表示，‘這是一個悠久的傳統 貝尼特斯寫道：“這個國家的私人廣泛合法擁有槍支。”
加州於 1989 年首次限製攻擊性武器，此後對該法律進行了多次更新。
州總檢察長辦公室在 2021 年表示，法律定義的攻擊性武器比其他槍支更危險，並且不成比例地用於犯罪、大規模槍擊和反對執法，從而造成更多傷亡，並禁止使用這些武器“進一步損害了該州重要公眾的利益”。 安全利益。”
聖地亞哥縣槍支擁有者政治行動委員會、加州槍支權利基金會、第二修正案基金會和槍支政策聯盟提起的訴訟是槍支倡導團體發起的幾起挑戰加州槍支法的訴訟之一，該法是全美最嚴格的槍支法之一。
該文件是代表那些希望在合法步槍或手槍中使用大容量彈匣的槍支擁有者提交的，但表示他們不能，因為根據加州法律，這樣做會將它們變成非法攻擊武器。 與軍用武器不同，半自動步槍每次扣動扳機都會發射一顆子彈，原告稱它們在 41 個州是合法的。
Poll: Most Americans say curbing gun violence is more important than gun rights.
Gun deaths hit their highest level ever in 2021, with 1 person dead every 11 minutes
How AR-15-style rifles write the tragic history of America's mass shootings
A federal judge rules again that California's assault weapons ban is unconstitutional
By The Associated Press
Three variations of the AR-15 assault rifle are displayed at the California Department of Justice in Sacramento, Calif., in 2012. A federal judge who previously overturned California's ban on assault weapons did it again on Thursday, Oct. 19, 2023, ruling that the state's attempts to prohibit sales of semiautomatic guns violates the constitutional right to bear arms.
SAN DIEGO — A federal judge who previously overturned California's three-decade-old ban on assault weapons did it again on Thursday, ruling that the state's attempts to prohibit sales of semiautomatic guns violates the constitutional right to bear arms.
U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez of San Diego conceded that powerful weapons like AR-15 rifles are commonly used by criminals, but said the guns are importantly also owned by people who obey the law and feel they need firearms to protect themselves.
"The State of California posits that its 'assault weapon' ban, the law challenged here, promotes an important public interest of disarming some mass shooters even though it makes criminals of law-abiding residents who insist on acquiring these firearms for self-defense," Benitez wrote. "Nevertheless, more than that is required to uphold a ban."
The judge's ruling is nearly identical to a 2021 decision in which he called California's ban on assault weapons a "failed experiment." Benitez has repeatedly struck down multiple California firearms laws. Just last month, he ruled the state cannot ban gun owners from having detachable magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
Benitez's latest decision would overturn multiple state statutes related to assault weapons. The judge gave the state 10 days to seek a stay on the ruling as part of an appeal to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta said his office had already filed a notice of appeal.
"Weapons of war have no place on California's streets," Bonta said in a statement Thursday. "This has been state law in California for decades, and we will continue to fight for our authority to keep our citizens safe from firearms that cause mass casualties. In the meantime, assault weapons remain unlawful for purchase, transfer, or possession in California."
John Dillon, an attorney for the plaintiffs who sued to overturn the law, cheered the judge's ruling.
"The Court's decision is constitutionally sound and addresses the many inadequacies of the State's arguments and so-called justifications for this unconstitutional ban," Dillon said in a statement Thursday. "We will continue to fight for our Plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights through any appeal until the State is forced to start respecting these rights."
Bonta had appealed the judge's 2021 ruling but before the 9th Circuit could decide the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in a New York case that set a new standard for how courts should consider gun restrictions. The 9th Circuit vacated Benitez's previous decision and sent the case back to him to reconsider under the new standard.
Benitez again concluded the ban was unconstitutional. And he returned to an analogy he made previously, comparing the AR-15 to Bowie knives.
"Like the Bowie Knife which was commonly carried by citizens and soldiers in the 1800s, 'assault weapons' are dangerous, but useful. But unlike the Bowie Knife, the United States Supreme Court has said, '(t)here is a long tradition of widespread lawful gun ownership by private individuals in this country,'" Benitez wrote.
California first restricted assault weapons in 1989, with multiple updates to the law since then.
Assault weapons as defined by the law are more dangerous than other firearms and are disproportionately used in crimes, mass shootings and against law enforcement, with more resulting casualties, the state attorney general's office argued in 2021, and barring them "furthers the state's important public safety interests."
The lawsuit filed by the San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee, California Gun Rights Foundation, Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition is among several by gun advocacy groups challenging California's firearms laws, which are among the strictest in the nation.
It was filed on behalf of gun owners who want to use high-capacity magazines in their legal rifles or pistols, but said they can't because doing so would turn them into illegal assault weapons under California law. Unlike military weapons, the semi-automatic rifles fire one bullet each time the trigger is pulled, and the plaintiffs say they are legal in 41 states.
