Press Release  AG Campbell Co-Leads Multistate Amicus Brief Urging Appeals Court To Uphold California's Assault Weapons Ban

BOSTON — Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell has co-led a coalition of 20 states in supporting California’s defense of its assault weapons ban. The coalition filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, arguing that California’s regulation of the purchase and possession of assault weapons is consistent with the Second Amendment to the Constitution.  

“I’m proud to co-lead this coalition of states committed to protecting our commonsense gun laws including restrictions on assault weapons which are exceptionally dangerous and have enabled some of the deadliest mass shootings in recent memory,” said AG Campbell. “My office will continue to defend common sense gun laws that we know save lives and protect the public from gun violence.” 

The case, Miller v Bonta, concerns the constitutionality of California’s assault weapons ban. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California issued a preliminary injunction against California’s Assault Weapons Control Act, and California has appealed the decision. The Ninth Circuit has stayed the lower court’s preliminary injunction while it considers California’s appeal, allowing the law to remain in effect for now.   

In the amicus brief, the attorneys general argue three ways that California’s assault weapons ban is a constitutionally permissible restriction. 

1. To encourage public safety, states can and do impose restrictions on dangerous weapons, accessories, and ammunition that pose a threat to communities: States have widely adopted reasonable restrictions on the public carry, possession, and sale of many types of weapons, accessories, and forms of ammunition that are not suitable for self-defense and undermine the public’s safety. Semiautomatic assault weapons, such as AR-15 and AK-47-style rifles, fall into this category. They inflict catastrophic injuries and are uniquely devastating in mass shootings. Common-sense assault weapons restrictions are intended to reduce these senseless injuries and deaths. 
2. Assault weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment because they are not commonly used or suitable for self-defense: The District Court overlooked the abundance of incontrovertible evidence that assault weapons were designed and engineered for military combat, and to create as many devastating injuries and deaths in as short a time period as possible. 
3. California’s assault weapons ban is consistent with a historical tradition of regulating and imposing restrictions on new and distinctively dangerous forms of weaponry: There is longstanding tradition of firearm regulation that supports California’s prohibition. States and the federal government have long had to adopt laws and regulations to cope with new weapons technologies that create public safety threats if there is no valid purpose for their usage in self-defense. 

Last month, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, together with New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin co-led an amicus brief in a similar case, supporting California’s efforts to restrict the capacity of large-capacity magazines within its borders. 

In addition to Massachusetts and New Jersey, the amicus brief in Miller v Bonta was joined by Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. 

###