3 gun owners allied with pro-gun groups filed a federal lawsuit on Thursday against California officials difficult the state’s “assault weapon” ban. The gun owners — James Miller, Patrick Russ, and Ryan Peterson — argue that the state’s longstanding prohibition on numerous usually-owned semi-automatic firearms violates the Second Amendment.
The lawsuit names California Lawyer Common Xavier Becerra and other folks as defendants and is supported by the Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, Second Amendment Foundation, the California Gun Rights Foundation and San Diego County Gun Owners, the latter of which has signed on as a co-plaintiff.
“The government can not ban the constitutionally-protected firearms at challenge in this case,” stated lawyer George M. Lee, representing the gun owners. “We appear forward to proving that the State’s statutes, policies, and practices at challenge, in this case, are each unconstitutional and irrational.”
The 19-web page complaint argues that the firearms banned by the existing law are “exactly the sorts of lawful weapons in prevalent use that law-abiding folks possess at residence for lawful purposes and specifically what they would bring to service in militia duty ought to such lead to be essential.” Going on to hold that the Second Amendment is not a second-class ideal, the filing argues the rising layers of bans established in California given that the state initially moved to outlaw particular guns in 1989 continue to step on that ideal with increasingly heavy boots.
Whilst the 3 gun owners in the case admit they personal AR-15-style firearms, their guns have been retrofitted to have fixed magazines as mandated by state law to be compliant– in contrast to the exact same rifles ordinarily discovered in practically every single other state that has no such requirement. This requirement, outlines the filing, is incompatible with a ruling issued by a federal court in March that discovered the state’s prohibition on the possession of huge-capacity magazines was unconstitutional.
“This is a straight-forward case to shield our clients’ constitutional rights and home,” stated John Dillon, an attorney for the gun owners. “The State of California’s ban on these firearms will fail constitutional scrutiny for the exact same motives that its ban on firearm magazines did.”