TRENTON, NJ – New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin and Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell spearhead a coalition of 18 attorneys general in support of California’s assault weapons ban. They filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, defending the ban as consistent with the Second Amendment.
Platkin emphasized the state’s right and responsibility to protect the public from assault weapon-related violence. He asserted that civilians do not require such weapons to exercise their Second Amendment rights and that law enforcement safety is compromised in areas where such weapons are accessible.
The case, Miller v. Bonta, challenges the constitutionality of California’s Assault Weapons Control Act.
New Jersey law prohibits standard capacity rifle magazines and limits capacity to ten rounds. However, critics argue that the ban does nothing to stop a potential mass shooter from using illegal magazines. It also doesn’t limit the amount of ammunition or number of magazines, which critics say renders the law as being ineffective in stopping criminals from using those weapons for criminal purposes.
A preliminary injunction against the Act was issued by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, which California appealed. The Ninth Circuit has temporarily stayed the injunction, keeping the ban effective during the appeal process.
The attorneys general’s brief outlines three constitutional justifications for the ban:
- Public safety necessitates restrictions on dangerous weapons, accessories, and ammunition, with states historically imposing reasonable limits. Assault weapons, including AR-15 and AK-47-style rifles, are classified as such due to their potential for catastrophic injuries and prevalence in mass shootings.
- The Second Amendment does not protect assault weapons as they are not typically used or suitable for self-defense. The District Court is criticized for overlooking evidence that these weapons are designed for military use.
- California’s ban aligns with historical traditions of regulating distinctively dangerous weaponry. Historical firearm regulations aimed at safeguarding public safety support the prohibition of assault weapons, which lack a valid self-defense purpose.
This coalition’s action follows Platkin and Campbell’s previous amicus brief supporting California’s limitations on large-capacity magazines. The current brief is supported by attorneys general from Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.
The case for federal and state firearms bans and limits could eventually be settled by the U.S. Supreme Court.