加州萨克拉门托——一名联邦法官周五推翻了加州长达30年的攻击性武器禁令，裁定该禁令违反了携带武器的宪法权利。

圣地亚哥的美国地方法官罗杰·贝尼特斯(Roger Benitez)裁定，该州对非法军用步枪的定义非法剥夺了守法的加州人在大多数其他州和美国最高法院通常允许的武器。

“在任何高度的审查下，法律都无法生存，”贝尼特斯说。他发布了一项永久禁令，禁止执行该法律，但暂停了30天，以便州司法部长罗布·邦塔有时间上诉。

州长加文·纽瑟姆谴责了这一决定，称之为“对公众安全和无辜加州人生命的直接威胁”

在他长达94页的裁决中，法官对现代武器给予了好评，称它们绝大多数是出于法律原因使用的。

“像瑞士军刀一样，广受欢迎的AR-15步枪是本土防御武器和本土防御装备的完美结合。对家庭和战斗都有好处，”法官在他的裁决导言中说。

纽森在一份声明中说，这种比较“完全破坏了这一决定的可信度，是对那些因这一武器而失去亲人的家庭的一记耳光”。“我们不会在这场斗争中退缩，我们将继续推动常识性的枪支法律，以拯救生命。”

Bonta称该裁决有缺陷，并表示将对其提起上诉。

加州于1989年首次限制攻击性武器，此后对法律进行了多次更新。

州司法部长办公室认为，法律定义的攻击性武器比其他武器更危险，在犯罪、大规模枪击和执法中被过度使用，造成更多伤亡，禁止使用这些武器“有利于该州重要的公共安全利益”。

此外，去年超过116万支其他类型手枪、步枪和猎枪的销售激增——其中三分之一以上可能是首次购买者——表明，攻击性武器禁令“没有阻止该州守法公民出于合法目的获取一系列枪支，包括自卫，”该州在3月份提交的一份法庭文件中辩称。

该州辩称，类似的攻击性武器限制此前已得到另外六个联邦地区法院和上诉法院的支持。州官员说，推翻禁令将不仅允许突击步枪，还允许突击猎枪和突击手枪等东西。

但是贝尼特斯不同意。

“这个案件不是关于第二修正案保护范围之外的特殊武器。被禁止的“攻击性武器”不是火箭筒、榴弹炮或机枪。这些武器是危险的，只用于军事目的，”他的裁决说。

法官说，尽管加州颁布了禁令，但目前在该州登记的攻击性武器估计有185，569件。

“这是一个普通案件，普通枪支以普通方式用于普通目的，”裁决称。“如果一个人被新闻媒体和其他人说服，认为这个国家充斥着杀人不眨眼的AR-15突击步枪，那他是可以被原谅的。然而，事实并不支持这种夸张，事实很重要。”

“在加利福尼亚，持刀杀人比用步枪杀人多七倍，”他补充道。

在9月份的初步裁决中，贝尼特斯表示，加州对攻击性武器的复杂法律定义可能会给守法的枪支所有者带来刑事处罚，其中包括剥夺他们在第二修正案中拥有枪支的权利。

“第二修正案核心权利的负担，如果有的话，是最小的，”该州辩称，因为这些武器仍然可以使用——只是不经过将它们变成攻击性武器的修改。州官员说，像较短的枪管或可折叠的枪托这样的改进使它们更容易隐藏，而像手枪握把或拇指孔握把这样的东西通过提高它们快速开火的准确性使它们更具杀伤力。

圣迭戈县枪支所有者政治行动委员会、加州枪支权利基金会、第二修正案基金会和枪支政策联盟提起的诉讼是枪支倡导组织挑战加州枪支法律的几起诉讼之一，加州枪支法律是全国最严格的法律之一。

在2019年8月提起诉讼之前，全国发生了一系列涉及军用步枪的致命大规模枪击事件。

它是代表那些想在合法步枪或手枪中使用大容量弹匣的枪支所有者提交的，但他们说他们不能，因为根据加州法律，这样做将把它们变成非法攻击武器。与军用武器不同，半自动步枪每次扣动扳机都会发射一颗子弹，原告称它们在41个州是合法的。

该诉讼称，加州是“少数几个禁止国内许多最受欢迎的半自动枪支的州之一，因为它们拥有一个或多个共同特征，如手枪握把和螺纹枪管”，通常但不仅限于与可拆卸弹药盒一起使用。

该州正在对贝尼特斯2017年的裁决提出上诉，该裁决反对该州近20年来禁止销售和购买超过10发子弹的杂志的禁令。在法官在上诉期间停止销售之前，这一决定引发了为期一周的购买热潮。8月份，一个由三名法官组成的上诉小组维持了原判，但美国第九巡回上诉法院在3月份表示，一个由11名成员组成的小组将重新审理此案。

该州还对贝尼特斯2020年4月阻止2019年加州法律的决定提出上诉，该法律要求对任何购买弹药的人进行背景调查。

这两项措施都是纽森担任副州长时倡导的，并在2016年的投票中得到选民的支持。

U.S. judge overturns California’s ban on assault weapons

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- A federal judge Friday overturned California’s three-decade-old ban on assault weapons, ruling that it violates the constitutional right to bear arms.

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez of San Diego ruled that the state’s definition of illegal military-style rifles unlawfully deprives law-abiding Californians of weapons commonly allowed in most other states and by the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Under no level of heightened scrutiny can the law survive," Benitez said. He issued a permanent injunction against enforcement of the law but stayed it for 30 days to give state Attorney General Rob Bonta time to appeal.

Gov. Gavin Newsom condemned the decision, calling it “a direct threat to public safety and the lives of innocent Californians, period."

In his 94-page ruling, the judge spoke favorably of modern weapons, said they were overwhelmingly used for legal reasons.

“Like the Swiss Army knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment. Good for both home and battle," the judge said in his ruling's introduction.

That comparison “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 said in a statement. “We’re not backing down from this fight, and we’ll continue pushing for common sense gun laws that will save lives.”

Bonta called the ruling flawed and said it will be appealed.

California first restricted assault weapons in 1989, with multiple updates to the law since then.

Assault weapons as defined by the law are more dangerous than other firearms and are disproportionately used in crimes, mass shootings and against law enforcement, with more resulting casualties, the state attorney general’s office argued, and barring them “furthers the state’s important public safety interests.”

Further, a surge in sales of more than 1.16 million other types of pistols, rifles and shotguns in the last year — more than a third of them to likely first-time buyers — show that the assault weapons ban “has not prevented law-abiding citizens in the state from acquiring a range of firearms for lawful purposes, including self-defense,” the state contended in a court filing in March.

Similar assault weapon restrictions have previously been upheld by six other federal district and appeals courts, the state argued. Overturning the ban would allow not only assault rifles, but things like assault shotguns and assault pistols, state officials said.

But Benitez disagreed.

“This case is not about extraordinary weapons lying at the outer limits of Second Amendment protection. The banned ‘assault weapons’ are not bazookas, howitzers, or machine guns. Those arms are dangerous and solely useful for military purposes," his ruling said.

Despite California's ban, there currently are an estimated 185,569 assault weapons registered with the state, the judge said.

“This is an average case about average guns used in average ways for average purposes," the ruling said. “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."

“In California, murder by knife occurs seven times more often than murder by rifle," he added.

In a preliminary ruling in September, Benitez said California’s complicated legal definition of assault weapons can ensnare otherwise law-abiding gun owners with criminal penalties that among other things can strip them of their Second Amendment right to own firearms.

"The burden on the core Second Amendment right, if any, is minimal,” the state argued, because the weapons can still be used — just not with the modifications that turn them into assault weapons. Modifications like a shorter barrel or collapsible stock make them more concealable, state officials said, while things like a pistol grip or thumbhole grip make them more lethal by improving their accuracy as they are fired rapidly.

The lawsuit filed by the San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee, California Gun Rights Foundation, Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition is among several by gun advocacy groups challenging California’s firearms laws, which are among the strictest in the nation.

The lawsuit filed in August 2019 followed a series of deadly mass shootings nationwide involving military-style rifles.

It was filed on behalf of gun owners who want to use high-capacity magazines in their legal rifles or pistols, but said they can’t because doing so would turn them into illegal assault weapons under California law. Unlike military weapons, the semi-automatic rifles fire one bullet each time the trigger is pulled, and the plaintiffs say they are legal in 41 states.

The lawsuit said California is “one of only a small handful states to ban many of the most popular semiautomatic firearms in the nation because they possess one or more common characteristics, such as pistol grips and threaded barrels,” frequently but not exclusively along with detachable ammunition magazines.

The state is appealing Benitez’s 2017 ruling against the state’s nearly two-decade-old ban on the sales and purchases of magazines holding more than 10 bullets. That decision triggered a weeklong buying spree before the judge halted sales during the appeal. It was upheld in August by a three-judge appellate panel, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in March that an 11-member panel will rehear the case.

The state also is appealing Benitez’s decision in April 2020 blocking a 2019 California law requiring background checks for anyone buying ammunition.

Both of those measures were championed by Newsom when he was lieutenant governor, and they were backed by voters in a 2016 ballot measure.