In 2017, [Judge Roger T. Benitez] was assigned the large-capacity magazine lawsuit. Then came three more 2nd Amendment cases in the next two years, because of a court rule that allows either side to request that their case be heard by a judge with previous experience on the topic.
Gun control advocates have argued that gun-rights groups have used that rule to “judge shop,” filing 2nd Amendment cases in Benitez’s district in an effort to get a more favorable hearing.
The gun cases have become Benitez’s calling card, turning him into a polarizing figure: lionized by the firearms lobby as a hero unwinding onerous regulations, and vilified by advocates for stricter gun laws who say his interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is alarming and extreme.
After the assault-weapon ruling, Gov. Gavin Newsom excoriated Benitez as a “stone-cold ideologue” and a “wholly owned subsidiary of the gun lobby and the National Rifle Assn.,” comments that were criticized by multiple bar associations as personal attacks damaging trust in the judiciary.
Gun rights groups have hailed Benitez for what they deem an honest, clear-eyed approach to the law and an insistence that government lawyers prove that gun control measures actually work.
“He doesn’t take their word for something,” said attorney C.D. Michel, president of the California Rifle & Pistol Assn., who has had two of his lawsuits challenging gun laws decided favorably by Benitez. “You can’t just say, ‘This makes you safer’ — which is what politicians say in press conferences — but not have the empirical evidence to back it up.”
A gun owner himself, Benitez has made rulings that have taken aim at California’s decades-old attempts by lawmakers and voters to toughen gun laws. He deemed the state’s assault-weapon ban — signed into law in 1989 by Republican Gov. George Deukmejian — a “failed experiment.”
California’s assault-weapon ban violates the 2nd Amendment in part because militias could be forced to settle for “less than ideal” weapons rather than the “ideal” AR-15 rifle, Benitez wrote. (“That may not be a severe burden today when the need for the militia is improbable,” he wrote. “One could say the same thing about the improbable need for insurance policies.”)
“That was a new and deeply disturbing line of thinking,” said Ari Freilich, the California policy director for the Giffords Law Center. Benitez, he said, seemed to suggest that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of “average people in a civilian militia to make war against their government.”
“If we take that seriously, then there’s no limiting principle on the types of firearms that people should be allowed to possess, including tanks, anti-aircraft missiles and machine guns,” Freilich said.
— Laura J. Nelson and Kristina Davis in The judge upending California’s gun laws: ‘Blessed’ jurist or ‘stone-cold ideologue’?
I’m old enough to remember when I could order a gun from the Sears catalog and have it delivered to my house by the USPS. Then everything started to go to hell when Kennedy got whacked.
Yup, Never Let a Crisis go to Waste. If they wanted “Real Gun Safety” after Kennedy was murdered by the Cabal and their boy Lyndon Johnson was installed in his place, they should have banned gun ownership by the government.
I’ve always wondered if the “Sporting clause” of the 1968 GCA was at least partially inspired by the assassination of Robert Kennedy (Sirhan Sirhan’s weapon was a .22 Iver Johnson revolver).
JFK, ML King, and Robert Kennedy’s assassinations were used to motivate the GCA 1968 Act. I’m not old enough to say how much it influenced its passage. I just remember hearing news commentators bringing the points up.
We all know that the Governments agenda is, and always has been, control of people. They get that control in many ways including redefining what is or isn’t an acceptable ‘Arm’ (fire or otherwise). They also use the same process in other areas such as the mask/no mask, vax/no vax, and on and on into every nook and cranny of our lives. They will never be content, because as C.S. Lewis said:
*********************************
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
*******************************************
Take note that there are ways of governing being employed right now, that are NOT part of the formal definition of Government. Those include much of the MSM, Social Media, the educational system in this country, and your local HOA, among many others.
control is a means, not a goal.
The government agenda is always protection of its own power.
Control of people is the easiest and one of the more profitable ways to do this.
And just who do you think had him killed? Obviously you did not know LBJ very well.
Don’t remember exactly how old I was , 13 or 14 maybe as I bought it with paper route money, but I rode home with a Remington 788 from the JCPenney Auto Center strapped to the banana seat of my Schwinn “Lemon Peeler” bike… and I still have both.
When I was 13 I bought a .22 at a yard sale and rode it home on my bike. I had a 16 ga. shotgun at home bought through the Sears catalog and mailed to our door.
Funny how much safer America was then.
“Funny how much safer America was then”
not at all, just look around and see what has changed to make it less safe.
everybody at the time knew this would happen. those who said so were shouted down, by those who wanted it to happen. and here we are.
Libturds had barely begun the process of Government Plantation Dwellers dropping Defective Citizens in training.
I too had a “Lemon Peeler”. That was 50 years ago. My best friend at the time had an “Apple Krate”. We thought we were so baddass. I saw one in a local bike shop a few years ago that was absolutely mint. My wife said if I bought the bike she would spend the next 3 gun funds so I passed.
The Second Amendment is whittled away when politically inept fools join hands with democRats following an attention grabbing criminal act. Gotta run to blame something after seeing all those dead unarmed defenseless victims. And you can bet the farm Gun Control Zealots see to it the inanimate object is the center of attention. Like in the days of Salem Witch Hunts when a wagon wheel was put on trial after coming off and causing injury. Yes there are people just that dumb living today and that’s why you have loud mouth, misguided busy bodies like BAWN.
The problem is all eyes are fixated on the Gun and few eyes are on Gun Control. Crowds are eager to let Gun Control take the wheel and drive America to Utopia. That is expected when history illiterates sidestep the diabolical evil of Gun Control and its Long History of Racism and Genocide. That kind of evil is embedded in Gun Control and it shows everywhere it has been and everywhere it goes. That level of evil is inherent with Gun Control and no court should ever give Gun Control standing anymore than a noose is allowed standing.
Isolated criminal acts whether it be crime committed with a firearm, bat, knife, vehicle, etc. are not and never will be on the level of slave shacks, nooses, burning crosses, concentration camps, gas chambers, swastikas, etc. You need Gun Control and unarmed people for such evil to rise…again.
When a right is traded for a bogus promise of security it only leaves fools unarmed and easy pickings for criminals and tyrants. When the next televised criminal act happens and it will it is time to think clearly. In order to think clear you toss out the clutter and hold the line…
1) The Second Amendment is one thing.
2) The criminal misuse of firearms, etc. is another thing.
3) History confirms Gun Control is a racist and nazi based Thing.
“3) History confirms Gun Control is a racist and nazi based Thing”
(laugh) you mean boolshevik.
ant…Obviously you missed the word, “clutter.” Pay Attention.
“Boolshevik!”
You’re like a trained seal. Debbie throws the ball in the air, and you bark. You’re also an unwelcome fascist shill.
“Obviously you missed the word, ‘clutter.'”
100,000,000 boolshevik dead and counting, yeah, that’s a lot of clutter to toss out. gotta stay focused on the REAL problem ….
“Debbie throws the ball in the air, and you bark”
well if pointing out what she’s evading is a “bark” ….
“unwelcome”
yeah, facts are frequently unwelcome.
“…facts are frequently unwelcome.” Whether welcomed or not, they have some value. Unlike fascist shills.
ads for those Carcano rifles used to be everywhere…even in comic books…and sold for as cheap as $9.95….
“If we take that seriously, then there’s no limiting principle on the types of firearms that people should be allowed to possess….”
That’s exactly what shall not be infringed means you idiot. Does she think they just needed to add a few extra words for flair and those words don’t mean what they say?
Yes. Or doesn’t care. Same result.
The anti-freedom crowd can’t be honest and truthful, because honesty and trust won’t allow them to achieve their goals.
The anti-freedom crowd can’t handle the truth!
D Y…..ever notice how the anti’s always go to the extreme when they know they have nothing to justify their socialist view .
“the anti’s always go to the extreme”
so does the modern internet right, and unthinkingly.
would you accept any random person who moves next door to you having, say, chemical munitions in their garage?
@ant7,
Everyone has chemical munitions in their kitchens aND garages already.
“Everyone has chemical munitions in their kitchens aND garages already”
no, they have chemicals, not munitions. but ok – would you accept any random person who moves next door and installs a 10,000 gallon tank of chlorine?
Two words. Dems lie. Remember those two word grass hopper. Dems lie.
Freilich did demonstrate the “slippery slope” argument. What will stop most people from owning such weapons is their cost and the cost of the ammunition.
“…arrogant, short-tempered and ‘altogether lacking in people skills.'” -aba
ola, cubano!
He is a federal court judge. What often appears as arrogance is impatience for the stupidity of the lawyers appearing in front of them. These are ve ry busy judges, and they find it a matter of absolute necessity to maintain very tight schedules at trial with no shenanigans.
When the 2A was written, citizens did indeed own cannon and corvettes. Privateers were commissioned to make war against pirates and brigands. Many communities had their own cannon to defend against raiders
“Many communities had their own cannon to defend against raiders”
indeed. “come and take it” and all that.
but … those were communities. the 2A was written by people in communities. which the modern internet right rejects on principle in favor of individual rights held individually alone by individuals acting individually alone. “the security of a free state” and “well-regulated” simply play no role in their ideology.
WE get it, ant. You want to bring back the everybody walks, talks, dresses the same. Your role models in Germany from 1933 to 1945 are clearly your inspiration.
The enemy of my enemy is not my friend. And from where I stand there is not a bit of difference in the fascists of the right or the left. None.
“And from where I stand there is not a bit of difference in the fascists of the right or the left. None.”
and you are absolutely completely admirably correct. from your point of view, there is in fact no difference whatsoever. because both involve people acting as a group, as a team, as a tribe, as a nation. and that’s just not you.
and so you’ll lose, or just plain get run over. because you’re alone.
Not alone. There are far more of us than there are of you.
You’re no better than the antifa fucktards — just larping the opposite side of the commies vs. fascists divide. But this isn’t Germany circa 1930. This is AMERICA, where there are millions upon millions of people whose only answer to “which flavor of totalitarianism do you want?” is NO.
You’ve failed to realize that one of the few areas where we *do* unite is against people like you.
“Not alone. There are far more of us than there are of you.”
not going by what I read here (and elsewhere). and even if it’s true, it doesn’t matter, because y’all make a fetish out of being isolates. 3 men may fight 97, if the 97 will oblige the 3 by standing around as the 3 attack each of the 97 individually – and that’s what you’re doing. it’s what you’ve been trained to do.
“This is AMERICA, where there are millions upon millions of people whose only answer to ‘which flavor of totalitarianism do you want?’ is” …
… whichever pays the most.
“You’ve failed to realize that one of the few areas where we *do* unite is against people like you.”
… you’re kidding, right? good grief, how could I miss it? I say, “hey, you loner isolates better work together or you’re going to lose”, and you all unite saying “you fascist!” yeah, sure dude.
We say you’re a fascist because you are one. There are more of us than there are of you, and our united answer to you, the “boolsheviks,” and all the other totalitarians is NO.
The 2A was not written by “communities.” It was written by an exceptionally well educated and well-read gentleman and then debated in a small committee. The debates were recorded. Perhaps you should read them.
“If we take that seriously, then there’s no limiting principle on the types of firearms that people should be allowed (“Allowed” – Really?) to possess, including tanks, anti-aircraft missiles and machine guns,” Freilich said.
NEWS FLASH Mr, Freilich, we can own all of the things you mentioned and many actually do so. Other than the Unconstitutional $200 Tax on our Rights levied by the BATFE, the main bar to ownership is not law, but finances and availability. The really good stuff is expensive and sometimes hard to find for sale.
Even Joe Biden’s F15 will at some point become available on the used market for millionaires to enjoy and fly. Although Nukes are harder to get, they are not impossible, but are illegal to possess. Heck a kid was enriching Uranium in his backyard shed and getting materials from scrapped old smoke detectors. The shed probably became the world’s smallest EPA Super Fund clean-up site.
The only thing we can’t really buy or make is New Machine Guns as these were illegally banned in 1986. Heck a New H&K MP7A2 sells for around $1,795, less than my CZ BREN 2, so I’d be all over that, if I wasn’t denied my civil rights as an American. The next hurdle would be getting customer hating H&K to actually sell be one.
some mg’s were actually selling for less than the transfer tax prior to ’86…probably why they snuck that bill through in the middle of the night….
Can we clone Judge Benitez?!? Just sayin…
If Breyer hangs on for another couple of years Benitez would make a great replacement for him, and just watch the left melt down! That would be fun to watch!
The Second Amendment is very clear, and the US Supreme Court in DC v Heller made it very plain, “The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms,” is the operative and controlling clause of the Second Amendment. It is clear and unmistakably a right of the people not of the Government.
He is already a senior judge and too old to even be considered as a replacement.
The ACLU and other left wing organizations including the gun grabbers all without question judge shop. The Giffords crowd would open a lawsuit in Beijing if they could for a win. So now people who don’t want to follow the left wing hive mind have a judge they can go to in order to escape left wing authoritarianism. Good for them.
” Gun Control Orgs baffled that there are judges who haven’t been bought off or intimidated / blackmailed by the left still on the bench.”…. there, fixed it for ya.
Yep.
These people accusing anyone of judge-shopping as if it’s a new thing is pretty rich. Remember those two judges in the 9th circuit — one in Hawaii, one in WA — that issued injunctions against almost everything Trump tried to do in his first two years?
some time it takes awhile for our side to wise-up and copy their methods…probably what they’re pissed about….
“Shall not be infringed.” The Founding Fathers understood both the meaning of words and punctuation.
they also understood the meaning of “security of a free state” and “well-regulated”. but the modern internet right casts these aside. really, you guys are a lot like the left.
Read the United State Supreme Courts Decision in DC v Heller (2008) it plainly states that the 2nd Amendment is a RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE not of the Government.
“the 2nd Amendment is a RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE not of the Government”
absolutely. the right of the people functioning in a well-regulated militia to secure the freedom of their state. (following the model of the ancient greek polis)
@ant7
The SCOTUS in Heller held: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
You can read about it here > https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
“Well-regulated” is an adjective that modifies “militia” in the dependent clause, not “arms” in the independent clause. We know it is a dependent clause because it is not a complete phrase; it thus depends on the independent clause for its completeness and meaning. Therefore as a matter of grammatical construction, it does not provide for the regulation of arms. Moreover, as extensively explored in Heller, and in that portion of the opinion on which ALL NINE justices agreed, the 2A guarantees an individual right, not a collective right, to keep and bear arms.
Ari Freilich, the California policy director for the Giffords Law Center. Benitez, he said, seemed to suggest that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of “average people in a civilian militia to make war against their government.”
Well, duh! Because that is literally what it says, and explained in more detail by the men who included the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution that yes, that is exactly what they intended.
These gaslighters make my head hurt when I try to understand how they can deny such obvious facts without their heads exploding.
“If we take that seriously, then there’s no limiting principle on the types of firearms that people should be allowed to possess, including tanks, anti-aircraft missiles and machine guns,” Freilich said.
EXACTLY!!!
May it ever be thus!
They’re finally coming around!
I WANT AN ANTI-AIRCRAFT MISSILE!! 🙂
strictly for self-defense, you understand ….
see also: dunning krueger effect
it means they dont know what theyre talking about
and theyre not even smart enough to know that
FreeLick has a Very NARROW view of “Tank” and “Anti-Aircraft Missile”…. B.D. HOLT of Caterpiller Tractor fame Inadvertently, Invented the Idea of Tanks from the advent of the tracked farm implement, Adapted by the british Into a War weapon….. and the Anti-Aircraft missile is currently available at most sporting goods stores, Hobby shops and Toy stores ( check on the numbers of fire-fighting aircraft grounded by Drones last year ) and The number of Airliners Making a “Go-Around” after a Drone Impeded approach into Lax…. Personally I carry a revolver To Work, Mainly Because Auto-loaders don’t feed Rat-shot too well, But if FreeLick wants to walk ahead of me on the Ranch, or My home ranch and Check out the Rattlesnake Situation…. I might Consider leaving it in the car, Or cupboard at Home…. At least until HE gets bitten and can no longer report Back….
“Gov. Gavin Newsom excoriated Benitez as a “stone-cold ideologue” and a “wholly owned subsidiary of the gun lobby and the National Rifle Assn.,” comments that were criticized by multiple bar associations as personal attacks damaging trust in the judiciary.”
no-one takes newsom seriously, his opinions don’t damage anything.
People should be allowed to possess those weapons, yes. Tanks and ,to some extent, machine guns are already legal.
Possessing a weapon capable of more destruction than a typical semi-auto firearm doesn’t mean one will use it for that purpose and also doesn’t mean one should be thrown in prison for for simply having it.
I wish they would elaborate how one would acquire anti-aircraft missiles and other explosive ordnance if they were legal to possess. Companies are not obligated to commercially sell them to private citizens.
remember seeing that tank and its crew at Knob Creek…reminiscent of that bunch in “Kelly’s Heroes”….
“seemed to suggest that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of ‘average people in a civilian militia to make war against their government.’”
a subversive fraudulent cabal is not a government.
Every once in a while you get something right.
The left complaining about judge shopping is hilarious quite frankly. Talk about a case of the pot and the kettle. Quite frankly if anything the right needs to likely do it more to make a point.
“seemed to suggest that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of ‘average people in a civilian militia to make war against their government.’”
what of the reverse? do governments have a right to wage war against their populations? citizens waging war against their legitimate government is uncommon in human history, while governments waging low-level war against a plurality or even majority of their population is common.
“seemed to suggest that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of “average people in a civilian militia to make war against their government.”
That’ not being suggest but its true anyway and there is historical and legal “duty right” precedent for it too.
“average people in a civilian militia” made war against England which at the time was the government, it was called the Revolutionary War.
The Declaration of Independence says that we not only have the right but we also have the duty to alter or abolish any government that does not secure our unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The colonists did it to England with “average people in a civilian militia”, and established a thing we like to call “The United States Of America”.
This is an important thing, what this guy said. It represents the “constitutional law” think but not the constitution. In constitutional law its illegal to overthrow the U.S. government because the federal government is able to enact laws if the states (via congress representatives) agree to do so (e.g. 18 U.S. Code § 2385) – but in Constitution its not illegal because the Declaration makes it a duty under certain circumstances and in constitution the federal government is suppose to be subservient to the “sovereign states” with the “sovereign states” being responsible to the people.
Legally, technically, the Constitution is actually a form of contract called a “compact”. If the constitution was argued in court in terms of contract law we would not have gun control advocates able to bring any anti-gun cases to court because they would lack standing, the government would not be able to infringe the 2’nd or any right at all or place any requirements or restrictions. But constitutional law is argued mostly the opposite of contract law.
But alas, because of the way we have a supreme court and court system the area of law dealing with the constitution has evolved into “constitutional law” and not what it should be which is contract law.
“In constitutional law its illegal to overthrow the U.S. government”
it already has been overthrown.
aside from the out of context usage you present….that was suppose to read
In constitutional law its illegal to overthrow the U.S. government because the federal government is able to enact laws making it illegal….
Ari Freilich was so close!
Yes that is what the 2nd amendment is for you idiot!
Oh and we need look no further than San Jose California for the need for insurance which is exactly what the judge referred too!
Right now the En Banc rulings are being held up as long as possible because they know they would lose. If the Feds can ban a rifle that they can’t even define, than they will toss the case a moot.
They can’t stand that “we the people” are playing by their rules and winning!
It was all fine and dandy when only they did it. Now it is a problem???
“They can’t stand that ‘we the people’ are playing by their rules and winning!
It was all fine and dandy when only they did it. Now it is a problem???”
yes. see, in their ideology, they are people and you are not. “we the people” refers to them, not you. you are cattle. does the rancher acknowledge that his cattle have rights just like he does? no. neither do they acknowledge that you have rights, for exactly precisely the same reason. they herd the cattle, the cattle do not herd them.
“and winning!”
not yet, they have many more control tools available to them.
“In constitutional law its illegal to overthrow the U.S. government because the federal government is able to enact laws”
that should have been
In constitutional law its illegal to overthrow the U.S. government because the federal government is able to enact laws making it illegal….
“In constitutional law its illegal to overthrow the U.S. government”
it already has been.
“In constitutional law its illegal to overthrow the U.S. government because the federal government is able to enact laws making it illegal….”
Overthrowing British rule was illegal.
The Constitution (including amendments) permits Congress to call forth the militia to put down insurrection, yet simultaneously protects the right of the People to instigate insurrection (Second Amendment).
“The Constitution (including amendments) permits Congress to call forth the militia to put down insurrection, yet simultaneously protects the right of the People to instigate insurrection (Second Amendment)”
(grin) yep. it’s kinetic democracy – whoever has the most numbers wins.
Over throwing british rule was illegal according to the british. It was not illegal under the legal concept of “natural law”.
The colony’s had joined together and held unto them selves the power of “sovereign states” under the British legal concept of “natural law”. A power of a “sovereign state” is to make war, thus the revolutionary war and declaring our independence. The Declaration of Independence is based on Natural Law, while the Constitution is based on conventional (basically contract) law.
“Over throwing british rule was” …
… accomplished by raw warfare. the “constitutional” and “natural law” stuff was tacked on after-the-fact.
Gun control advocates have argued that gun-rights groups have used that rule to “judge shop,” filing 2nd Amendment cases in Benitez’s district in an effort to get a more favorable hearing.
Maybe that’s why Mexico and Everyclown for Gun Safety sued the gun manufacturers in Massivetwoshits. Oh the horror of forum shopping — except when the Communists do it.
Judge Benitez is a Cuban immigrant who has personal knowledge of the importance of the need for people to be armed against an oppressive government. His “conservatism” on that point is hardly surprising. So far he has had two rulings upheld by a Ninth Circuit panel, only to see them reversed en banc. At least one, maybe two are pending review but have been stayed.
The people should be as well armed as those who seek to oppress us.
I think jail time for those that try to destroy our amendments because they don’t like it!
Jail is to good for an Ideology that wants Unfettered Control over Humanity. Much in the same realm as Socialism, Communism and Fascism. The Only difference is now it’s called Progressivism. It is not only the Right of all Freedom loving people’s to fight these Ideologies of Control…It is the Charge that was handed forth by the Founding Patriots as payment for the Sacrifices Made in establishing the Freest Nation in the history of humanity. If unwilling to do so they Deserve Not it’s Prosperity, but to Languish Under the Boot of Tyranny. For All who believe in Freedom and Liberty the choice is clear. It is the decision to Do the Right Thing that comes hard. Courageous Sacrifice for the Greater Good or Complacent Cowardice for Life. Albeit a Life where Freedom is a tale told of bygone days lost to history and of Men who chose to let it Die.
My goodness, Judges that uphold the Constitution. Mercy me what this world coming too?
Theres no room in New America for people that uphold their oaths.
Hopefully theBiden can put a stop to this lunacy.
Comments are closed.