风萧萧_Frank
以文会友
联邦法官再次裁定加州攻击性武器禁令违宪
A federal judge rules again that California's assault weapons ban is unconstitutional
2023 年 10 月 19 日
美联社报道
2012 年，位于加利福尼亚州萨克拉门托的加州司法部展示了 AR-15 突击步枪的三种型号。此前曾推翻加州攻击性武器禁令的联邦法官于 2023 年 10 月 19 日星期四再次推翻了这一禁令，并作出裁决 该州试图禁止销售半自动枪支侵犯了宪法携带武器的权利。
圣地亚哥——周四，一名联邦法官再次推翻了加州长达30年之久的攻击性武器禁令，裁定该州禁止销售半自动枪支的行为违反了宪法规定的携带武器权利。
美国圣地亚哥地区法官罗杰·贝尼特斯承认，像 AR-15 步枪这样的威力强大的武器经常被犯罪分子使用，但他表示，重要的是，这些枪支也属于那些遵守法律并认为自己需要枪支来保护自己的人。
“加利福尼亚州认为，其‘攻击性武器’禁令（这里受到挑战的法律）促进了解除一些大规模枪击者武装的重要公共利益，尽管它使坚持获取这些枪支用于自卫的守法居民成为罪犯， ”贝尼特斯写道。 “然而，维持禁令所需要的还不止于此。”
法官的裁决与 2021 年的裁决几乎相同，他在裁决中称加州对攻击性武器的禁令是一次“失败的实验”。 贝尼特斯曾多次废除加州多项枪支法。 就在上个月，他裁定该州不能禁止枪支拥有者拥有可容纳 10 发以上子弹的可拆卸弹匣。
贝尼特斯的最新决定将推翻多项与攻击性武器有关的州法规。 作为向美国第九巡回上诉法院上诉的一部分，法官给了该州 10 天的时间寻求暂缓裁决。
加州总检察长罗布·邦塔表示，他的办公室已经提交了上诉通知。
邦塔在周四的一份声明中说：“加州的街道上不允许有战争武器。” “几十年来，这一直是加州的州法律，我们将继续争取我们的权力，确保我们的公民免受造成大规模伤亡的枪支的伤害。与此同时，在加州购买、转让或拥有攻击性武器仍然是非法的。 ”
提起诉讼推翻法律的原告律师约翰·狄龙 (John Dillon) 对法官的裁决表示欢迎。
狄龙在周四的一份声明中表示：“法院的裁决符合宪法，并解决了国家论点的许多不足之处以及这项违宪禁令的所谓理由。” “我们将继续通过任何上诉争取原告的第二修正案权利，直到国家被迫开始尊重这些权利。”
Bonta 对法官 2021 年的裁决提出上诉，但在第九巡回法院做出裁决之前，美国最高法院就纽约的一起案件发布了一项裁决，为法院如何考虑枪支限制制定了新标准。 第九巡回法院撤销了贝尼特斯之前的决定，并将案件发回给他根据新标准重新考虑。
贝尼特斯再次得出结论，该禁令违宪。 他又回到了之前所做的类比，将 AR-15 与 Bowie 刀进行了比较。
“就像 1800 年代公民和士兵普遍携带的鲍伊刀一样，‘攻击武器’很危险，但很有用。但与鲍伊刀不同的是，美国最高法院表示，‘这是一个悠久的传统 贝尼特斯写道：“这个国家的私人广泛合法拥有枪支。”
加州于 1989 年首次限制攻击性武器，此后对该法律进行了多次更新。
州总检察长办公室在 2021 年表示，法律定义的攻击性武器比其他枪支更危险，并且不成比例地用于犯罪、大规模枪击和反对执法，从而造成更多伤亡，并禁止使用这些武器“进一步损害了该州重要公众的利益”。 安全利益。”
圣地亚哥县枪支拥有者政治行动委员会、加州枪支权利基金会、第二修正案基金会和枪支政策联盟提起的诉讼是枪支倡导团体发起的几起挑战加州枪支法的诉讼之一，该法是全美最严格的枪支法之一。
该文件是代表那些希望在合法步枪或手枪中使用大容量弹匣的枪支拥有者提交的，但表示他们不能，因为根据加州法律，这样做会将它们变成非法攻击武器。 与军用武器不同，半自动步枪每次扣动扳机都会发射一颗子弹，原告称它们在 41 个州是合法的。
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.
