Federal judge overturns California's ban on assault weapons

A federal judge overturned California's longtime ban on assault weapons on Friday in a ruling that likened the AR-15 to a Swiss Army knife. Assault weapons have been banned in California since 1989, according to the ruling. The law has been updated several times since it was originally passed. According to the ruling by US District Judge Roger Benitez of San Diego, the assault weapons ban violates the Second Amendment's right to bear arms and deprives Californians from owning assault-style weapons commonly allowed in other states. Benitez issued a permanent injunction Friday so the law cannot be enforced. "Like the Swiss Army Knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment," Benitez said in the ruling. "Firearms deemed as 'assault weapons' are fairly ordinary, popular, modern rifles."..The comparison of the AR-15 to a versatile pocket knife favored by campers drew sharp criticism from California officials including Gov. Gavin Newsom, who called the AR-15 a "weapon of war." The comparison, he said in a statement, "completely undermines the credibility of this decision and is a slap in the face to the families who've lost loved ones to this weapon." Newsom added: "We're not backing down from this fight, and we'll continue pushing for common sense gun laws that will save lives."...MORE

While critics have chosen to attack the Swiss army knife comparison, below is the language in the opinion to which they really object:

The Second Amendment “elevates above all other interests the right of lawabiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” Heller, 554 U.S., at 635. The Supreme Court clearly holds that the Second Amendment protects guns commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. At the same time, “the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms . . . that ‘have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.’” Id. at 622. And although the Supreme Court cautioned that the Second Amendment does not guarantee a right to keep and carry “any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose,” Heller, 554 U.S., at 626, lower courts have often cited this proviso about extreme cases to justify gun laws in average contexts. There is no evidence that the Supreme Court intended that language to be a license to avoid its common sense holding in average contexts. Unfortunately, Heller’s acknowledgement of exceptions for gun laws at the extreme is in danger of swallowing Heller’s rule for tThis case is not about extraordinary weapons lying at the outer limits of Second Amendment protection. The banned “assault weapons” are not bazookas, howitzers, or machineguns. Those arms are dangerous and solely useful for military purposes. Instead, the firearms deemed “assault weapons” are fairly ordinary, popular, modern rifles. This is an average case about average guns used in average ways for average purposeshe average case.

You can view the opinion here