Kris Brown, president of the gun-control nonprofit Brady, said the U.S. Supreme Court is unlikely to back Benitez’s rulings if either case reaches the high court.
“I cannot imagine the court rubber-stamping those opinions — they’re lacking in logic,” Brown said. Pointing to Benitez’s ruling in the assault-weapons ban case, in which the judge compared AR-15s to “Swiss Army knives,” Brown said such thinking is “crazy town.”
Eric Ruben, an assistant professor at SMU Dedman School of Law in Dallas and a fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law, said the ruling [overturning the ban on high capcity] magazines is particularly vulnerable to reversal because it didn’t properly spell out why the restriction is a “substantial burden” on the Second Amendment.
“It’s the first time a federal district court concluded that large-capacity magazine bans are unconstitutional,” Ruben said. “And six federal appeals courts have upheld the constitutionality of these restrictions.”
Erik Jaffee, a lawyer for Firearms Policy Coalition, one of the plaintiffs, said California’s lawmakers are the ones who lack logic. He said they pass illegal gun-control laws to score political points instead of focusing on preventing crime.
And plaintiffs’ attorney George M. Lee, who is involved in suits challenging both state laws, said law-abiding citizens shouldn’t be burdened by an arbitrary limit on bullets.
“There’s no evidence that bans on large-capacity magazines do anything to reduce crime or reduce the number of fatalities that are associated with a mass killing,” Lee said.
— Erik Larson in California Gun Laws Reviled by NRA Face Pivotal Test at Hearing
