Over the years, we’ve seen a lot of court decisions go in every direction when it comes to the Second Amendment. Some courts rule one way, some rule another, and it really doesn’t seem to clarify a blasted thing.
However, what’s hilarious is that the media is taking issue with one pro-gun judge, which they take as evidence of a flawed system.
In the past two years U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez has issued sweeping rulings, written in vigorous and sharply-worded prose, in two separate lawsuits challenging California state laws banning high-capacity magazines and mandatory background checks for ammunition purchases.
On Monday Benitez will hold a hearing in his courtroom in the downtown San Diego federal courthouse on another case filed last year that challenges several laws regulating and defining assault weapons in the state.
And he is also overseeing a fourth weapons case — one that challenges the state prohibition on possessing batons, billy clubs and blackjacks — that the plaintiffs say violates the Second Amendment.
In a federal district with more than a dozen judges, Benitez has been able to oversee and rule on a series of challenges to state gun laws. His rulings have wide implications, not only in California but also across the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — a huge section of the nation stretching from Montana to Hawaii and Guam to Alaska.
With a U.S. Supreme Court that is seemingly on the verge of establishing a strong conservative majority where several justices, including current nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett, support an interpretation of the Second Amendment more favorable to gun ownership rights, Benitez’s rulings are drawing scrutiny from gun control groups.
That scrutiny also includes the question of how various gun cases have gone to Benitez. In federal courts, cases are assigned randomly to judges when they are filed.
The reason the cases land in front of Benitez lies in an obscure court rule for the federal court district in San Diego that governs “related cases.”
Of course, this is just awful. This can’t possibly be right, now can it? I mean, heaven forbid that Judge Benitez see gun cases regularly.
See, this is only a problem because Benitez tends to side with gun rights activists when it comes to the Second Amendment. Because he’s the one who tends to hear most Second Amendment cases in his district and he doesn’t come down on the anti-gun side, this represents a massive problem. Now, bear in mind that he has sound legal reasoning for coming down this way. He’s not throwing the gun rights crowd a bone, he just happens to reach similar conclusion as we do.
However, if one person seemingly getting all these cases were the true issue, why were so many of them silent when Judge Jack Weinstein in New York was getting so many gun-related cases? Anti-gunners had zero issue with the notoriously anti-gun jurist hammering the firearm industry every chance he got, especially when it looked like cases were being steered directly toward him, but now it’s an issue.
The difference is that there’s actually a reason Benitez gets these cases, and since he’s not an anti-gun jihadist, that’s the sole reason it’s an issue and we all know it.
The hypocrisy of the whole situation is absolutely amazing.