Jump to content

Miller v. Bonta

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Miller v. Bonta
CourtUnited States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Full case name James Miller, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Rob Bonta, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California, et al., Defendants
Citation19-cv-1537-BEN (JLB)
Case history
Prior actions
  • Miller v. Bonta No. 19-cv-1537-BEN (JLB), injunction and stay, ECF No. 115 (S.D. Cal. 2021)
Appealed fromUnited States District Court for the Southern District of California

Miller v. Bonta is a pending court case before Judge Roger Benitez of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California concerning California's assault weapon ban, the Roberti–Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 (AWCA). Judge Roger Benitez struck down the ban in a ruling on June 5, 2021. A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit issued a stay of the ruling on June 21, 2021, which left the ban in place as appeals were litigated.[1][2] The panel then vacated Judge Benitez's ruling and remanded it back down after [1] was decided. The case was known as Miller v. Becerra before Rob Bonta succeeded Xavier Becerra as Attorney General of California in April 2021.

Background

[edit]

Gun laws in California are among the strictest in the country.[3] The Roberti–Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 (AWCA) banned the ownership and transfer of specific models of firearms that were categorized as assault weapons. Signed by Governor George Deukmejian, a Republican, it was the first law passed in response to the Cleveland Elementary School shooting in Stockton that year. It inspired similar bans in six other states and the District of Columbia, as well as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 that expired in 2004. In the years since, assault weapons banned by these measures have been used in school shootings in the United States, which remain gun free zones.[4][5][6][7][8][9] An amendment to AWCA took effect in 2000, banning assault weapons based on an alternative set of characteristics instead of by model.[10] However, gun owners have been able to comply with the law by making minor adjustments to the weapons or purchasing "California-compliant" rifles of all types.[11]

In August 2000, the AWCA survived a state constitutional challenge in Kasler v. Lockyer before the California Supreme Court. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Nordyke v. King that the Second Amendment, which protects the right to bear arms, does not apply to state and local governments. However, the U.S. Supreme Court later ruled in McDonald v. City of Chicago that it does apply to all levels of government, making it possible for the act to be challenged in federal court.[4]

Rulings by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, headquartered in San Diego, can have implications across the entire Ninth Circuit, by far the largest in the country.[12] Judge Roger Benitez was nominated to the court by President George W. Bush and confirmed by the Senate with 98 votes in favor and one against, despite overwhelming opposition by a committee of the American Bar Association.[13] Benitez has overturned several California gun control laws.[14] In Duncan v. Becerra and Rhode v. Becerra, he struck down portions of 2016 California Proposition 63 that prohibited possession of high-capacity magazines and required background checks for ammunition purchases, respectively. The state appealed both decisions;[7] the ruling in Duncan v. Bonta was reversed by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.[15] Gun control advocates say the San Diego court's unique process for transferring related cases to a single judge, out of the court's more than a dozen judges, has encouraged gun rights advocates to engage in forum shopping.[12]

[edit]

District court

[edit]
Judge Roger Benitez issued an injunction against the ban on June 4, 2021. His decision was stayed pending appeal.

On August 15, 2019, James Miller, a board member of the San Diego County Gun Owners, sued Attorney General Xavier Becerra and the Director of the California Bureau of Firearms,[8][16] alleging that the ban was an unconstitutional restriction of Second Amendment rights. He was joined by the San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee, California Gun Rights Foundation, Second Amendment Foundation, and Firearms Policy Coalition, along with three other San Diego County residents who said they legally own rifles or pistols but are unable to use high-capacity magazines in them due to the law.[4][7][17]

The case was argued before Senior Judge Roger Benitez of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The plaintiffs argued that the definition of "assault weapon" is politically motivated and prevents law-abiding citizens from obtaining and using firearms for self-defense, hunting, and other legal purposes.[8] Becerra's office argued that the ban was necessary because assault weapons are more lethal and are disproportionately used in crimes and mass shootings.[4] Benitez denied requests by Everytown for Gun Safety and the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence to file amicus briefs in favor of the state.[12] In April 2021, Rob Bonta took over the defense when he succeeded Becerra as Attorney General of California.

On June 4, 2021, Benitez ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring the AWCA to be unconstitutional and issuing a permanent injunction against enforcing specific provisions of the law.[10] He opened the 94-page ruling by likening an AR-15 style rifle to a Swiss Army knife as "a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment" and describing the AR-15 as "good for both home and battle", citing District of Columbia v. Heller and United States v. Miller.[4][18][19][20][21] He described the ban as a failed experiment and reasoned that the ban covers weapons that are commonly used for legal purposes. In dismissing the need for a ban on assault rifles, he cited the prevalence of stabbing deaths in the state compared to murders by rifle, and also claimed that "More people have died from the COVID-19 vaccine than mass shootings in California."[4][13][22][23] Upon Bonta's request, Benitez granted a stay of the injunction for 30 days pending appeal.[4]

Appellate court

[edit]

On June 10, 2021, California Attorney General Bonta and Bureau of Firearms Director Luis Lopez appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.[10][16] On June 21, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit – Barry G. Silverman, Jacqueline Nguyen, and Ryan D. Nelson – granted their request to extend the stay as appeals are litigated.[1][2] Mayor Sam Liccardo of San Jose has invited other California cities to join an amicus brief supporting the state's appeal.[24][25]

Another challenge to the AWCA, Rupp v. Bonta, has already been appealed to the Ninth Circuit court from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.[26]

On November 30, 2021, the Ninth Circuit Court restored the state ban on high-capacity magazines in Duncan v. Bonta, suggesting that the court would also reverse the lower court ruling in Miller v. Bonta.[15]

On June 23, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, broadly rejecting any "means-end tests" such as the strict or intermediate scrutiny the Ninth Circuit had applied in upholding the constitutionality of various gun regulations. The opinion, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, emphasized that going forward the standard for applying the Second Amendment will require the government to "justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation." This newly clarified "text as informed by history" standard is widely expected to significantly affect how gun control cases such as Miller and Rupp are decided.[27]

On August 1, 2022, the Ninth Circuit three-judge panel vacated and remanded the case “for further proceedings consistent with the United States Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen.”[28]

Remanded case at District Court

[edit]

On October 19, 2023 Judge Roger Benitez delivered a decision on the remanded case in the United States District Court Southern District of California. In this decision he ruled the California assault weapons ban unconstitutional for the second time in that it violated the defendants' Second Amendment rights and granted a permanent injunction on the enforcement of the California statute. A 10 day stay on this ruling was also issued by Judge Benitez in anticipation of an appeal to the Ninth Circuit.[29]

Reaction

[edit]

State officials, including Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta, issued strongly worded statements opposing Judge Benitez's ruling. Newsom took particular issue with Judge Benitez comparing an AR-15 style rifle to a Swiss Army knife in the first sentence of his opinion. Bonta noted that the ruling had come down days after a mass shooting in San Jose, although the semiautomatic pistols used in that shooting had not been banned. The Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence called it insulting that the ruling was handed down on National Gun Violence Awareness Day.[4][7] Gun-rights groups, including the National Rifle Association of America, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Gun Owners of America, celebrated the ruling.[7][8][23]

In December 2021, Governor Newsom again cited Judge Benitez's Swiss Army knife comparison in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson that effectively upheld enforcement of the Texas Heartbeat Act. He called for the California State Legislature to apply the act's framework to gun control, by introducing a private right of action against manufacturers, distributors, and sellers of assault weapon or privately made firearm supplies in the state.[30][31]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ a b "9th Circuit court blocks federal judge's decision to overturn California's assault weapons ban". Los Angeles Times. June 21, 2021 – via KTLA.
  2. ^ a b Paybarah, Azi (June 22, 2021). "Appeals Court Blocks Ruling That Overturned California's Assault Weapons Ban". The New York Times. Retrieved June 22, 2021.
  3. ^ Egelko, Bob (May 27, 2021). "Do strict guns laws work to prevent violence? Depends on whom you ask". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved May 28, 2021.
  4. ^ a b c d e f g h Wigglesworth, Alex; Curwen, Thomas (June 5, 2021). "California officials decry ruling overturning assault weapons ban". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved June 6, 2021.
  5. ^ Barmann, Jay (July 30, 2019). "Regarding the 1989 Schoolyard Shooting That Prompted California to Ban Assault Weapons". SFist. San Francisco: Gothamist. Archived from the original on June 8, 2021. Retrieved June 6, 2021.
  6. ^ Escalante, Eric (January 17, 2019). "Need to Know: The 1989 Cleveland School Shooting". Sacramento, California: KXTV. Retrieved June 6, 2021.
  7. ^ a b c d e Moleski, Vincent (June 5, 2021). "California officials to fight to restore assault weapons ban". The Sacramento Bee. Retrieved June 6, 2021.
  8. ^ a b c d Kelliher, Fiona (June 5, 2021). "'We are at great peril': Overturn of California's weapons ban stokes fear among gun violence experts". The Mercury News. San Jose, California. Retrieved June 8, 2021.
  9. ^ Hubler, Shawn; Liptak, Adam (June 5, 2021). "A Gun Rights Win in California With Sights Set on the Supreme Court". The New York Times. Retrieved June 9, 2021.
  10. ^ a b c "Attorney General Bonta and Governor Newsom Announce Appeal of Decision to Overturn California's Three-Decade-Old Assault Weapons Ban" (Press release). Office of the Attorney General of California. June 10, 2021. Retrieved June 10, 2021.
  11. ^ Beckett, Lois; Clayton, Abené (June 8, 2021). "What the overturning of California's assault weapons ban means for America". The Guardian. London. Retrieved June 10, 2021.
  12. ^ a b c Moran, Greg (October 17, 2020). "Obscure court rule sends gun rights cases to one San Diego federal judge, troubling gun control groups". The San Diego Union-Tribune. Retrieved June 7, 2021.
  13. ^ a b Ortiz, Erik (June 9, 2021). "Judge who reversed California assault weapons ban faces barrage of criticism". NBC News. Retrieved June 9, 2021.
  14. ^ Elinson, Zusha; Gershman, Jacob (June 21, 2021). "California Gun-Control Battles Sparked by One Judge's Decisions". The Wall Street Journal. New York City. Retrieved June 21, 2021.
  15. ^ a b Thrush, Glenn (November 30, 2021). "California's Ban on High-Capacity Magazines Is Restored by Appeals Court". The New York Times. Retrieved November 30, 2021.
  16. ^ a b "Case No. 19-cv-1537-BEN-JLB Notice of Appeal" (PDF). Attorney General of California. June 10, 2021. Retrieved June 10, 2021.
  17. ^ Singh, Kanishka (June 5, 2021). "U.S. federal judge overturns California's ban on assault weapons". Reuters. Retrieved June 6, 2021.
  18. ^ "US gun laws: Judge overturns California assault weapons ban". BBC News. June 5, 2021. Retrieved June 6, 2021.
  19. ^ Pengelly, Martin (June 5, 2021). "'Disgusting slap in the face': California governor slams judge as assault rifles ban overturned". The Guardian. London. Retrieved June 6, 2021.
  20. ^ Callery, James (June 5, 2021). "Federal judge overturns California's ban on assault weapons". The Times. London. ISSN 0140-0460. Retrieved June 6, 2021.
  21. ^ Meeks, Alexandra; Campbell, Josh; Levenson, Eric (June 5, 2021). "Federal judge overturns California's ban on assault weapons and likens AR-15 to Swiss Army knife". CNN. Retrieved June 6, 2021.
  22. ^ Blake, Aaron (June 7, 2021). "A judge's momentous gun-rights ruling comes with a side of coronavirus vaccine misinformation". The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.
  23. ^ a b Cahill, Nick (June 10, 2021). "California Appeals 'Disturbing' Dump of Assault Weapons Ban by Federal Judge". Pasadena, California: Courthouse News Service. Retrieved June 10, 2021.
  24. ^ Angst, Maggie (June 8, 2021). "VTA shooting: San Jose mayor unveils new plan for gun liability insurance and video recorded gun sales". The Mercury News. San Jose, California. Retrieved June 10, 2021.
  25. ^ "San José Leaders Propose Ordinances for Greater Gun Harm Reduction" (Press release). City of San José. June 8, 2021. Retrieved June 10, 2021.
  26. ^ Westfall, Austin (June 10, 2021). "What it means now that the state is appealing the assault weapons ban ruling". Bakersfield, California: KERO-TV. Retrieved June 11, 2021.
  27. ^ Millhiser, Ian (June 23, 2022). "The Supreme Court's new gun ruling means virtually no gun regulation is safe". Vox Media. Archived from the original on June 23, 2022. Retrieved June 24, 2022.
  28. ^ "Miller v Bonta Order Remanding Case" (PDF). United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. August 1, 2022. Archived (PDF) from the original on November 17, 2022. Retrieved May 20, 2024.
  29. ^ "Miller v. Bonta Post-Bruen Decision" (PDF). October 19, 2023. Archived (PDF) from the original on October 19, 2023. Retrieved October 19, 2023.
  30. ^ Hubler, Shawn (December 12, 2021). "Newsom Calls for Gun Legislation Modeled on the Texas Abortion Law". The New York Times. Archived from the original on December 12, 2021. Retrieved December 12, 2021.
  31. ^ "Governor Newsom Statement on Supreme Court Decision" (Press release). Sacramento, California: Office of the Governor of California. December 11, 2021. Archived from the original on December 12, 2021. Retrieved December 12, 2021.

Further reading

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miller_v._Bonta&oldid=1258915585"