In a 94-page ruling that could also serve be distributed as a primer entitled “Why the Second Amendment” Federal District Judge Roger Benitez simultaneously shredded California’s 30-year old ban on “assault weapons” and proved that those who best understand the importance of the right to keep and bear arms are people who came from places where guns were prohibited.

A Cuban-American, Judge Benitez understands the essential fact that led our founding fathers to declare the right “to keep and bear arms” was to prevent overreach, from either external or internal influences.

He also understands the power of straightforward, declarative sentences to make a point. “The Second Amendment is about America’s freedom: the freedom to protect oneself, family, home and homeland,” he opined, “California’s assault weapon ban disrespects that freedom.”

So straightforward was his opinion, that California Governor Gavin Newsome called the ruling “a direct threat to the public safety and lives of innocent Californians.” California Attorney General Rob Bonita called Judge Benitez’ decision “fundamentally flawed” and said it would be appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court.

Meanwhile, the plaintiffs in the suit are celebrating what they realize is at this point, a tenuous win. The Firearms Policy Coalition issued a statement saying Judge Benitez “held want millions of Americans already know to be true: Bans on so-called ‘assault weapons’ are unconstitutional and cannot stand.”

Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation says the ruling “shredded California gun laws regarding modern semiautomatic rifles.”

If it stands, it certainly will. And a 30-year law that has essentially done nothing to prevent violence will, indeed, fit Judge Benitez’ definition for it: “a failed experiment.”

Judge Benitez also punctured the myth that has led to the demonization of the modern sporting rifle.

“One is to be forgiven if one is persuaded by news media and others that the nation is awash with murderous AR-15 assault rifles. The facts, however, do not support this hyperbole, and facts matter. Federal Bureau of Investigation murder statistics do not track assault rifles, but they do show that killing by knife attack is far more common than murder by any kind of rifle. In California, murder by knife occurs seven times more often than murder by rifle. For example, according to F.B.I. statistics for 2019, California saw 252 people murdered with a knife, while 34 people were killed with some type of rifle – not necessarily an AR-15. A Californian is three times more likely to be murdered by an attacker’s bare hands, fists, or feet, than by his rifle. In 2018, the statistics were even more lopsided as California saw only 24 murders by some type of rifle.The same pattern can be observed across the nation.”

And that’s on page three of his 94-page opinion. As expected, it’s being attacked by lawyers, politicians and media who support California’s ban, being called everything from “overly rhetorical” to “basically flawed” in its logic.

What it is is a document that is thoroughly researched, based on facts, not emotions, and designed to explain in understandable terms, that a bad law based on an unprovable premise, should not be upheld. Why? Because bad laws don’t trump rights.

In his evisceration, Judge Benitez explains that:

“The mechanical features that identify a California assault rifle “tend to help a person shoot the rifle more accurately under pressure…The Plaintiffs make the point that this is a better condition for all lawful users, i.e., a more accurate gun is better for everyone…In contrast, the Attorney General argues that better accuracy makes it a more dangerous weapon….In the terrible mass shooting context, which fortunately is a rare event, reducing the number of innocent victims is the State’s goal, although it is not at all clear that a less accurate rifle would reduce the number of victims. A less accurate rifle in the hands of a mass shooter may well result in different victims, but not necessarily less victims. On the other hand, in the self-defense context, which seems to be more common, taking accurate shots at attackers is vitally important for the innocent victim. While the state ought to protect its residents against victimization by a mass shooter, it ought also to protect its residents against victimization by home-invading criminals.”

“Instead, the State’s litigation stance is more like the view recently expressed by a police chief in Oakland, California: ‘we do not want victims to arm themselves; we want them to be good witnesses.’ “

His conclusion to that line of reasoning is short and brutal: “

Of course, a dead victim is a lousy witness.”

As is the case when politicians are spending someone else’s money, this case is far from over, but the fact remains that this decision is the first step in forcing California officials to apply a seldom used test to their legislation: common sense.

Here’s a link to the entire decision.

On Saturday, I visited the 2021 Blade Show in Atlanta.

As has usually been the case, even withering Georgia heat doesn’t keep knife enthusiasts from learning more about throwing knives.

After a year’s absence due to pandemic lockdowns, what I would find in regards to exhibitors and attendees were question marks. Based solely on what I saw not attendance numbers, it looked as if knife enthusiasts are very ready to get back to something more closely approaching normal.

Outside, the exhibition area wasn’t as packed with spectators as normal, but the near-absence of available parking and long lines at the general admission area proved that neither long walks in sweltering heat nor $25 one-day admission fees were deterrents. The crowds were significant, unmasked, and seemed genuinely glad to see familiar exhibitors.

We’ll have more on Blade Show 2021 as the final figures are announced later this week, but it seems safe to say that consumers and manufacturers are ready to start getting together - for real- again. Virtual communications have made great strides in how business is conducted, but there’s still no real substitute for the tactile stimuli when it comes to finely-manufactured products.

We’ll keep you posted.

— Jim Shepherd