Home»Commentary»FPC: New Filings and Order in Lawsuit Challenging California’s “Assault Weapon” Ban

FPC: New Filings and Order in Lawsuit Challenging California’s “Assault Weapon” Ban

0
Shares
Pinterest WhatsApp

Article first appeared on Ammoland.com

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) submitted two new filings to the Court in Miller v. Becerra, its federal Second Amendment challenge to the State of California’s ban on so-called “assault weapons.” The filings can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

Last week, FPC announced the filing of its proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, which detailed the legal and factual holdings we wish the Court to adopt in its judgment. FPC filed its response to the State’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law this week, where we continue to contend that:

  • The arms banned by California as “assault weapons” are constitutionally protected
  • The arms banned by California as “assault weapons” are commonly possessed and used for lawful purposes including self-defense in the majority of the United States
  • The arms banned by California as “assault weapons” are not more lethal than arms that are not banned

FPC also filed its objections to the State’s evidence and trial exhibits on the basis of:

  • Lack of relevance;
  • Lack of foundation; and
  • Confusion of the issues.

Additionally, a new order was filed today by District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez, requiring the State to supplement the trial record, on or before March 15, with the following information from 2020 and 2021:

  • The total number of firearms sold in the state with background checks
  • If ascertainable, the total number of rifles, the total number of shotguns, the total number of semiautomatic pistols, and the total number of revolvers sold in the state, with background checks; and,
  • If ascertainable, the number of first-time buyers of a firearm in the state.

The relief sought in Miller v. Becerra includes:

  1. Declaratory relief adjudging that the definitions of “assault weapon” pursuant to Penal Code §§ 30515(a) and (b), and Title 11, California Code of Regulations §§ 5460 and 5471, are unconstitutional on their face and as applied, and violate the Second Amendment, to the extent that the State’s laws and regulations operate to prohibit or prevent Plaintiffs and similarly situated persons from exercising their rights, including acquiring, keeping, bearing, transporting, transferring, and using “assault weapons” for lawful purposes;
  2. Declaratory relief adjudging that California Penal Code §§ 30600, 30605, 30800, 30910, 30915, 30945, 30950, 31000, and 31005 are unconstitutional on their face and as applied, and in violation of the Second Amendment, to the extent that the State’s laws and regulations operate to prohibit or prevent Plaintiffs and similarly situated persons from exercising their rights, including acquiring, keeping, bearing, transporting, transferring, and using “assault weapons” for lawful purposes;
  3. Declaratory relief supporting an injunction, and an order temporarily and permanently enjoining Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, who receive actual notice of the injunction, from enforcement or application of Penal Code §§ 30515(a) and (b), 30600, 30605, 30800, 30910, 30915, 30945, 30950, 31000, and 31005, as well as Title 11, California Code of Regulations §§ 5460 and 5471, against Plaintiffs on an as-applied basis, and against all similarly situated persons;
  4. Costs of suit, including attorneys’ fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and any other applicable law; and,
  5. Any and all further relief to which Plaintiffs may be justly entitled.

Firearms Policy Coalition and its FPC Law team are the nation’s next-generation advocates for the right to keep and bear arms and adjacent issues, having recently filed many major federal Second Amendment lawsuits, including challenges to the State of Maryland’s ban on “assault weapons” (Bianchi v. Frosh), the State of Pennsylvania’s and Allegheny County’s carry restrictions (Cowey v. Mullen), Philadelphia’s Gun Permit Unit policies and practices (Fetsurka v. Outlaw), Pennsylvania’s ban on carry by adults under 21 years of age (Lara v. Evanchick), California’s Handgun Ban and “Roster” laws (Renna v. Becerra), Maryland’s carry ban (Call v. Jones), New Jersey’s carry ban (Bennett v. Davis), New York City’s carry ban (Greco v. New York City), the federal ban on the sale of handguns and handgun ammunition by federal firearm licensees (FFLs) to adults under 21 years of age (Reese v. BATFE), and others, with many more cases being prepared today. To follow these and other legal cases FPC is actively working on, visit the Legal Action section of FPC’s website or follow FPC on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube.


About Firearms Policy Coalition

Firearms Policy Coalition (www.firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to protect and defend constitutional rights—especially the right to keep and bear arms—advance individual liberty, and restore freedom through litigation and legal action, legislative and regulatory action, education, outreach, grassroots activism, and other programs. FPC Law is the nation’s largest public interest legal team focused on Second Amendment and adjacent fundamental rights including freedom of speech and due process, conducting litigation, research, scholarly publications, and amicus briefing, among other efforts.

Don't forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

Previous post

Real Avid Lets You Clean Your Kalash Like a Gun Boss

Next post

SIG SAUER P365XL, Romeo Zero, Best EDC? – Video Review