On Thursday, the California Supreme Court overturned a 1998 ruling by the California Third Appellate Court of Appeal that had struck down key provisions of California's Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act. The 1998 ruling had found that a provision of the 1989 law that allowed the state's Attorney General -- with a judge's consent -- to add guns to the list of banned firearms was unconstitutional because it violated the separation of powers between the Legislature and the judiciary. The 1998 Appellate Court ruling even went so far as to suggest that the entire law unconstitutionally "violates equal protection" because the banned firearms are indistinguishable from other guns not affected by the law. Thursday's ruling, however, held that the law did not improperly delegate legislative authority to the courts, did not violate equal protection guarantees when it left unaffected guns that are virtually identical to banned firearms, and did not violate due process protections despite leaving unclear which guns were banned. Attorney Chuck Michel, who represented NRA and others challenging the law along with civil rights attorneys Steven Halbrook, Don Kates, and others, asserted that yesterday's ruling "gives the attorney general the authority to just keep creating an ever-expanding list of firearms...that he deems to be illegal assault weapons." The Court did find, however, that it was the state's responsibility to let gun owners know which firearms are added to the list. Michel commented, "If there is any silver lining in this decision, it is that the confusion about what is and what is not an assault weapon is now thrown squarely into the attorney general's lap." But Michel also said, "We're not giving up." He stated that other lawsuits challenging the ban are being considered, and that an appeal of Thursday's ruling may be filed with the U.S. Supreme Court.
=+=+=+=+ | |||||||||||||||
