There isn’t likely to be a shortage of Second Amendment cases going forward. Bruen opened the floodgates as more and more gun laws are being challenged, and I expect to see most such laws fall. After all, Bruen laid the groundwork for just that.

It’s not that gun laws can’t be upheld, but they can only be upheld if there is a historical analog for that law dating from particular points in history.

For something like an assault weapon ban, there simply isn’t a viable analog from the time of the nation’s founding.

That likely directed Judge Benitez significantly when he ruled California’s assault weapon ban was unconstitutional.

Yet some people don’t seem to understand that. They see Benitez’s ruling and see something else.

To the editor: In finding the California assault weapons ban unconstitutional based in part on the lack of a “national tradition,” U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez displays his intellectual laziness.

This substitute for jurisprudence by applying a modern government interest to a test of the attitudes of the late 1700s shows that this judge doesn’t want to do the work.

This work requires an expansive mind to carefully consider the facets of a modern society, the broad range of interests of all stakeholders, and a fair application of justice for the broader social well-being.

There are historical traditions of gun control laws that have worked; the judge just needs to look at them. Benitez is either too narrow-minded to serve as a judge or he is just shirking his responsibility to the law.

The problem here is that Benitez isn’t on the Supreme Court. He doesn’t get to make those kinds of decisions. Instead, he’s charged with determining what is and isn’t constitutional based on the Supreme Court’s findings.

In Second Amendment cases, that means Bruen.

Yet it seems a number of people don’t really get this. They think federal court judges should just ignore inconvenient rulings.

Ironically, if it’s a ruling they agree with, doing such a thing is tantamount to treason and the judge should be strung up by his or her thumbs, but when they disagree with it, all bets are off.

Plus, it also seems the general public doesn’t really understand Bruen. That’s hardly surprising the way the media misrepresented the most important Second Amendment case possibly in history. It has nothing to do with the fact that there were gun control laws historically. It’s that there has to be an analog for that particular law from around the time the Second Amendment was ratified.

The letter writer here doesn’t seem to present an example, likely because there isn’t one.

But because the writer favors the assault weapon ban, Benitez’s reasoning here is “faulty” despite it aligning with the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Look, if lower courts just decide to ignore rulings from the Supreme Court, we’re going to have a lot of issues in this country. Particularly when the ruling in question is one of preserving the rights of the people.

Our Second Amendment rights aren’t responsible for violent crime or any other nefarious activity. It’s well past time for people in places like California to wake the hell up to this fact and start getting their crap in gear and deal with that instead of restricting the rights of ordinary people.

The Second Amendment isn’t negotiable.