California Attorney General AG Bonta
California Attorney General Rob Bonta

From the Firearms Policy Coalition . . .

Moments ago, California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced in a press conference that the State has appealed FPC’s historic victory in our Miller v. Bonta lawsuit, which correctly held that California’s tyrannical ban on so-called “assault weapons” is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. Bonta further confirmed that the State would today be seeking a stay of the trial court’s injunction from the Ninth Circuit. Case documents are available at AssaultWeaponLawsuit.com.

FPC and our counsel presented the Court with the largest record ever compiled in any challenge to a ban on so-called “assault weapons,” including many expert witnesses testifying on a wide variety of relevant matters ranging from U.S. history, constitutional law, and firearms history and technology, to self-defense and use of force and the unorganized militia. In doing so, FPC prevailed against the State following a trial.

FPC will oppose any and all requests to stay enforcement of the final judgment. Any further delays or stays of the injunction would prejudice the fundamental, individual rights of the plaintiffs and all peaceable gun owners in California, undermine the rule of law, and put thousands at risk of felony criminal liability for accidental violations of the unconstitutional ban. Indeed, the State’s desire to continue imposing its ban should not be allowed to prevail over the fundamental rights of law-abiding gun owners.

Further, FPC will aggressively litigate this case on appeal and will take every action to defend the Court’s legally- and historically-correct decision up to and at the U.S. Supreme Court.

FPC condemns Governor Newsom’s outrageous and callous personal attacks on the honorable Federal District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez. Newsom’s verbal assaults on a long-respected member of the judiciary shows his deep and continuing disrespect for the rule of law, the judiciary, the Constitution, and the human rights of California citizens. Those speakers who attacked Judge Benitez’s character should be ashamed.

Further case updates, filings, and comments will be made available online at AssaultWeaponLawsuit.com and FPCLaw.org.

In 2019, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) developed and filed the Miller case, a federal Second Amendment challenge to California’s Assault Weapons Control Act (AWCA) ban on common semiautomatic arms with certain characteristics, including those with ammunition magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds.

FPC argued throughout the lawsuit that the State’s ban prohibits arms that are constitutionally protected, no more lethal than other certain arms that are not banned, and commonly possessed and used for lawful purposes in the vast majority of the United States. The Court agreed last Friday, ruling that many categories of firearms California bans as so-called “assault weapons” are protected by the Second Amendment, and that “[t]he Second Amendment stands as a shield from government imposition of that policy.”

Individuals that are interested in joining FPC in the fight against tyranny can become a member of the FPC Grassroots Army for just $25 at JoinFPC.org.

Firearms Policy Coalition and its FPC Law team are the nation’s next-generation advocates leading the Second Amendment litigation and research space. Some FPC legal actions include:

  • A challenge to California’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” (Miller v. Bonta) that resulted in a post-trial judgment and permanent injunction against the challenged regulations, the first such victory in United States history

  • A brief supporting certiorari in NYSRPA v. Bruen, which was granted by the U.S. Supreme Court

  • A challenge to Minnesota’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Worth v. Harrington)

  • A challenge to Illinois’ ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Meyer v. Raoul)

  • A challenge to Georgia’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Baughcum v. Jackson)

  • A challenge to Tennessee’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Basset v. Slatery)

  • A challenge to Maryland’s ban on handgun carry (Call v. Jones)

  • A challenge to New Jersey’s ban on handgun carry (Bennett v. Davis)

  • A challenge to New York City’s ban on handgun carry (Greco v. New York City)

  • A challenge to Pennsylvania’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Lara v. Evanchick)

  • A challenge to the federal ban on the sale of handguns and handgun ammunition to adults under 21 years of age (Reese v. ATF)

  • A challenge to Maryland’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” (Bianchi v. Frosh)

  • A challenge to California’s handgun “roster”, microstamping, and self-manufacturing ban laws (Renna v. Bonta)

  • A challenge to Pennsylvania’s laws completely denying the right to carry to individuals who were previously granted relief from prior non-violent convictions and are not currently prohibited from possessing firearms (Suarez v. Evanchick)

For more on these cases and other legal action initiatives, visit FPCLegal.org and follow FPC on InstagramTwitterFacebookYouTube.

46 COMMENTS

  1. For everyone still “supporting” NRA, ask yourself, “Why isn’t my organization that actively involved as challenging government overreach?”

    And, “How does a pipsqueak group like FPC get the money to pay for all that litigation, while NRA is mired in living off memories of yesteryear”?

    My question to NRA believers, “Why do you continue to believe only a 100+ year old brand name organization sn effectively defending your constitutionally protected right to keep and bear firearms?”

    • Yada, yada, yada…Obviously sambo it does not matter which org. you belong too because when and if the going gets tough you’ll make like a tree and leave. As for me and my NRA life membership I’ll be the one left to turn off the lights if that is what it takes.

      • “As for me and my NRA life membership I’ll be the one left to turn off the lights if that is what it takes.”

        Not to be unkind, but did you read your comment before submitting? Reads like battered wife syndrome.

        Just so you know, I am a hostage member of NRA; requirement to be a volunteer RSO at the range operated by the LGS.

      • lol debbie, stfu. Seriously.

        I’ve had it out with Sam a couple times, just a couple…

        But it’s truly sad to see so many FUDD’s like you think you are going to be the first ones inside the state capitals when “the going gets tough”. Make sure to wear your NRA hats so we can spot you tucking tale.

        At this point, NRA merch and bumper stickers equate to the same shit the pink hat dc marches do. Nothing. Go save the world though.

      • The NRA has negotiated our rights away for over a hundred years. Every anti-gun bill passed has been supported and often co-written by the POS money grabbers at the NRA.

        Supporters of the NRA have been abused and used, and bled dry not for the defense of the 2nd, but to enrich the executive team and their attorneys. Wise up and support any org except the enemy of the people, aka NRA.

    • How does FPC get the money? From donors like me who want their money spent on defending gun rights.
      Once FPC gets the money they spend it efficiently on what it was intended for, not lining the pockets of WLP, his overpriced external lawyer, and their cronies. I’ll leave it to Debbie and her like to offer up to Wayne her money and virtue.

      • “How does FPC get the money? From donors like me who want their money spent on defending gun rights.”

        Haven’t investigated the mechanism for FPC funding. Don’t know if they hired a company, or do it internally. However it is done, FPC seems to have the wherewithal to put the money to good use.

        Maybe the issue regarding NRA is that NRA is a lobbying unit, not an aggressive litigant against 2A encroachments. If NRA is a lobbyist, not a litigant, NRA owes a clarification about what NRA actually does with whatever money it receives (other than funding executive privilege). Lobbyist, or litigant?

        • If the NRA is a lobbyist, it’s time for retirement. That dog just don’t hunt no more.

    • I am still a Benefactor Life member, but that did not prevent me from online donation to FPC of $100 days ago, soon as I heard of this victory.

      And the NRA-ILA is in fact supposed to be in the litigation business.

      • “And the NRA-ILA is in fact supposed to be in the litigation business.”

        Curious that ILA avoids publicity about its aggressive legal attacks against gun control laws. Maybe they are just being financially prudent; saving money by avoiding publicizing/advertising their legal efforts and victories.

    • As a NRA Endowment member I think you are throwing out the baby with the bath water. You are quite correct that WLP and his crowd are a bunch of slimly POS’S. However the rank and file are good people and generally want the same thing you do (to get the Gov gun grabbers out of our business). I do not and will not send anymore dollars to the NRA until WLP is gone, however that does not stop me from supporting other organizations. Every one and every organization is needed in this fight for our FREEDOM. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”.

      • No problem with the membership of NRA (other than curiosity that “members” still exist in an organization that has done so little stop, not mitigate, gun control laws. The famed leadership of NRA runs the organization, not the members.

        If NRA want to be a lobby unit, fine. If they want to lead the fight against gun control, then be proud and out loud; lead a widespread wave of law suits against gun control.

  2. I donate to other gun right groups and not the NRA. The only reason I am a NRA member as it is a requirement for the local gun club to be able to be a member.

    The NRA would have tons of money if they would quit sending me weekly mailers begging for cash and their stupid guns and truck giveaways that they always ask for a donation for but not required to win.

    • “The NRA would have tons of money if they would quit sending me weekly mailers begging for cash…”

      Thing to know about donation campaigns….they are almost exclusively operated by a hired organization specializing in fund-raising. It is common to find that only 10% of raised funds actually arrive at the treasury of the organization one is trying to donate to. Even “donation” options on the named organization website might be directed to the fund-raising group.

      Know who is controlling your donations !

      • Well under 10%. Well under.

        Like Under Armour and their “support for troops”. Pretty sure their tax returns showed less then .01% related to supporting military.

        • “Well under 10%. Well under.”

          Can’t disagree. My fund-raising experience was in 90-95, so 10% was an accepted “general rule” back then.

        • “If the NRA is a lobbyist, it’s time for retirement. That dog just don’t hunt no more.”

          Indeed. Clarity of mission should be an important element of a person’s choice of donation recipient. Intentionally muddying the mission should be an instant disqualifier for financial support.

  3. FPC will likely lose on the stay issue, as I would assume that the Ninth will rule that the risk of harm from a surge of now legal “assault weapons” into the state of California posses a far greater risk of harm that the “minor inconvenience” to plaintiffs if a stay is imposed. Somewhere down the road it will likely stay the entire action until the Supreme Court rules in the NY carry case sometime next term. After the stay is lifted, the Ninth will dither for at least two or three more years (longer if it goes en banc) before a final decision at that level issues.

    • None of this is surprising. If the ruling was left to stand, the CA AWB would be dead, but they’d probably pass a new version. After going the the appeals, it could eventually make it to the Supreme Court and be applied to the entire country. The ruling also invites an SC decision that provides guidelines for interpreting all firearms laws, as well as bringing US v. Miller back to the forefront of 2A interpretation (militarily useful weapons are protected). If the en banc case is lost or the SC doesn’t grant cert, CA will be the same as before the ruling. It won’t happen tomorrow, but we can only gain from this point. I don’t see an SC is the next decade or so choosing to reverse Heller.

    • Per Heller, any and all AWB’s are unconstitutional. Anyone who can read English can see the AR15 and similar style weapons are in common use, and as militia arms are protected per Miller and a number of other cases, they can’t claim to ban it for being a particularly dangerous or military arm either.

      Every gun law is an infringement, violating our civil rights.

      • My donations are going to The second amendment foundation and FPC for the time being. We still need an organization for lobbing congress. The NRA has crapped it’s own bed. Maybe a rehab will work but for now the NRA is as corrupt as the DC swamp it claims to protect our civil rights against

  4. California Democrat Elites in Sacramento: “We’ll be appealing again to preserve our push for unconstitutional gun control and the refusal of your rights…”

    In other news, water is wet.

  5. I highly recommend everyone jump in to support the FPC, SAF, and CGF.
    They need all the help they can get.

    Miller v. Bonta was a lawsuit handcrafted by FPC!
    SAF and CGF also worked alongside FPC in crafting the victory.

    We need to focus on groups that show true results.

  6. Oh, no! California will descend into the Mad Max dystopia we observe in the ~47(?) states that don’t have an “assault weapons” ban and even have constitutional or “shall issue” concealed carry!

  7. “Oh, no! California will descend into the Mad Max dystopia…”

    Is it possible the Guv knows his population quite well??

    • Well, it won’t be long before California is majority Mexican. Mexico has really strict gun control. How well has that worked out?

      I wouldn’t trust the California governor to know how to tie my shoes.

  8. Here we go again. The California AG appeals this decision. The 9th circuit upholds the decision. The California AG requests and En Banc hearing which requires the ENTIRE 9th circuit to rehear the appeal. This will result in the decision being overturned. This script has played every time a trial judge makes a ruling on firearms the California legislature doesn’t like. Until the makeup of the 9th circuit changes, no lower ruling in our favor will stand.

    • The 9th is so large that an En Banc is not the entire 9th Circuit, they “randomly” select members for an En Banc, I think they choose 11 of the 29. So less than half and that is after the appeal to the three judge panel and assuming the 9th accepts the third bite of the apple.

    • Thanks to Trump, the ninth has changed. With any luck, en banc could go our way in a win for the Constitution.

      Otherwise, 5 years or more to SCOTUS.

  9. When someone steps to a podium to pontificate, why do they always have Useful Idiots standing in the background? And, why is there a butcher/meat cutter standing behind AG Bonta in above pic? Oh, my bad, that’s supposed to be medical support Useful Idiot. I apologize to all butcher/ meat cutters out there.

  10. I have been meaning to join FPC for some time, and I just did. I urge you all too as well. Forget the NRA, they are old and corrupt. I support the SAF as well.

  11. California’s government is saying, “we’ll abide by the law, as long as the law is whatever we want it to be.’

  12. Look at those poor “victims” behind him. True experts in manipulation.

    Every time I see this kind of shit, I remember the guy who pulled a mask out of his pocket backstage – but not behind cover like he thought he was – put the mask on his face, walked out to make a statement to the press, and took the mask off once he got to the podium.

    All for show. These poor slaves. I hate using the word, but “sheeple” is a pretty solid fit.

  13. Just donated to the FPC. I’ll support Second Amendment organizations that KICK ASS like this. *Fuck* California. The judge’s 94 page ruling was a masterpiece. Everyone should read it. All of it.

    • A masterpiece? Maybe except for the part declaring machine guns to be only for military use. That just added more reinforcement to the NFA.

      • I have fired enough machine guns in this life, but that does not change the fact that 2A says I can have all I want without so much as infringement.

  14. Sure the leftist control freaks are going to appeal the ruling. No surprise there. And no surprise they trotted out the victims families to parade for sympathy. Forgetting the deaths were caused by someone who chose to commit murder. Would they be trying to shut down the truck industry if some hateful person chose to pull another version of Oklahoma City? Or demand we hold Ford motor company accountable if someone drove an F150 into a crowd?

  15. California government, having lost in court, has the right to an appeal. Actually they can appeal all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court one supposes. After all, they can always tap the public purse for legal fees. Even people who disagree with their actions would allow appeals. Isn’t it a crying shame that California government doesn’t have equivalent respect for the rights of it’s law abiding citizens?

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here