U.S. Appeals Court Upholds California’s Ban on Semi-Automatic Rifles, Reversing Lower Court Decision
A U.S. appeals court has upheld California’s ban on certain types of semi-automatic rifles, known as assault weapons, reversing a previous decision by a lower court. The ban on semi-automatic rifles has been in place in California since 1989, with updates made to keep the law in effect.
On October 19, U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez in San Diego ruled that the ban violated Second Amendment rights and issued an injunction blocking its enforcement. However, California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed an appeal against the ruling.
On Saturday, a panel of three judges from the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the injunction, allowing the ban to remain in effect in the state. The panel cited a similar case and found that the attorney general was likely to succeed on the merits and that California would be irreparably harmed without the ban.
California Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, criticized Judge Benitez’s ruling and argued that weapons of war have no place in communities. However, the Firearms Policy Coalition applauded the decision, calling it a demonstration of the unconstitutional nature of bans on constitutionally protected arms.
The Ninth Circuit’s ruling comes at a time when the Biden administration is pushing for stronger gun control regulations in the wake of the recent mass shooting in Maine. President Biden has called for the passage of a bill banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, as well as universal background checks and safe storage of guns.
In a recent interview, Speaker Mike Johnson dismissed calls for more gun laws, stating that the problem lies with the human heart, not the weapons themselves. He emphasized the importance of protecting citizens’ right to self-defense.
California’s ban on semi-automatic rifles will remain in effect as the legal battle continues. The decision by the appeals court has sparked debate on both sides, with supporters arguing for public safety and opponents asserting their constitutional rights. As the case progresses, it will be interesting to see how the courts ultimately decide on this contentious issue.
