So-called “assault weapons” ban appears headed for the Supreme Court

Photo by larryhw on Flickr

The conservative majority on the Supreme Court may face one of its most monumental cases.

Democrats are dreading the outcome.

And Clarence Thomas is about to drive the final nail in the coffin of this Democrat powerplay.

Ever since the landmark 2008 Heller decision – which for the first time established owning a firearm as a fundamental right – Clarence Thomas grew frustrated that the Supreme Court didn’t take up any more gun rights cases.

Thomas even wrote that the justices treated the Second Amendment like a “second-class right.”

That changed with 2022’s New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen decision which held that any gun control law on the books needed to withstand the test of if it fits within the history and tradition of America protecting Second Amendment rights.

The Bruen decision declared open season on laws meant to disarm American citizens.

California Federal Judge Roger Benitez ruled California’s ban on so-called “assault rifles” violated the Constitution.

Benitez cited the Heller ruling’s prohibition on the government owning commonly owned firearms to rebuke California for denying its citizens from exercising their full right to self-defense by restricting their ability to own the legal firearm of their choice.

“Guns and ammunition in the hands of criminals, tyrants and terrorists are dangerous; guns in the hands of law-abiding responsible citizens are necessary,” Benitez declared. “To give full life to the core right of self-defense, every law-abiding responsible individual citizen has a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear firearms commonly owned and kept for lawful purposes.”

Benitez ruled that owning a so-called “assault rifle” was well within America’s history and tradition of citizens owning deadly weapons to defend themselves dating back to the 1800s.

“Like the Bowie Knife which was commonly carried by citizens and soldiers in the 1800s,” Benitez wrote, adding that, “‘assault weapons’ are dangerous, but useful.”

California Attorney General Rob Bonta fumed about this usual liberal lie about “weapons of war” and promised an appeal.

“Weapons of war have no place on California’s streets,” Bonta exclaimed. “This has been state law in California for decades, and we will continue to fight for our authority to keep our citizens safe from firearms that cause mass casualties.”

California will appeal this case to the liberal-leaning Ninth Circuit where the majority will likely reinstate the so-called “assault weapons” ban.

But that is unlikely to be the last word in this case.

That’s because the Bruen decision is begging for a test case about gun bans to make it before the Supreme Court.

And gun rights activists will surely appeal any adverse ruling in the Ninth Circuit to the Supreme Court where they hope Clarence Thomas will get his wish to further expand the scope of Second Amendment rights in America.