Page 1
Newsom Blasts Fifth Circuit Decision Invalidating Gun Control Statute
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Gov. Gavin Newsom yesterday lambasted a Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision invalidating a federal statute that prohibits persons who are the subject of a domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms.
Newsom said in a press release:
“Now, a federal appeals court has ruled domestic abusers have the right to carry firearms. Where is the line? Who’s next?”
He recited the names of the judges who constituted the panel in U.S. v. Rahimi:
“Judge Cory Wilson, Judge James Ho, and Judge Edith Jones.”
The governor commented:
“These three zealots are hellbent on a deranged vision of guns for all, leaving government powerless to protect its people. This is what the ultra-conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court wants. It’s happening, and it’s happening right now.
“Wake up, America—this assault on our safety will only accelerate. This is serious—and it’s coming to California. We are probably only weeks away from another activist judge, Judge Roger Benitez, striking down California’s bans on assault weapons and large capacity magazines. California will continue to fight against these extremist judges to protect our residents’ right to be free from gun violence.”
Benitez is a senior judge U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. He was appointed by President George W. Bush.
In 2019, Benitez granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in a challenge to California’s ban on high-capacity magazines. The following year, a three-judge panel affirmed Benitez’s decision over a dissent; the Ninth Circuit then reversed the decision pursuant to en banc review; the U.S. Supreme Court remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit for reconsideration in light of the high court’s June 23 decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen; the matter was remanded to the District Court.
In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, it was held, in a 6-3 decision, “that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.” Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, said:
“Because the State of New York issues public-carry licenses only when an applicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, we conclude that the State’s licensing regime violates the Constitution.”
In yesterday’s Fifth Circuit decision, Wilson wrote:
“The question presented in this case is not whether prohibiting the possession of firearms by someone subject to a domestic violence restraining order is a laudable policy goal. The question is whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), a specific statute that does so, is constitutional under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. In the light of N. Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), it is not.”
Copyright 2023, Metropolitan News Company