A group of 20 states is throwing its weight behind California's controversial assault weapons ban. Led by Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, the coalition filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. They're putting their support behind the Golden State, arguing that the restrictions on assault weapons don't infringe on Second Amendment rights, according to a recent press release by the Office of the Attorney General.
In a move that is sure to rile up gun rights advocates, AG Campbell called the ban on high-powered weaponry like AR-15 and AK-47 rifles "commonsense" and necessary for curbing gun violence. "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," Campbell stated in the press release. The case at hand, Miller v Bonta, is currently under scrutiny after a preliminary injunction was placed against the ban, though this has been put on hold while the appeals court deliberates.
The attorneys general outlined three key arguments in their brief. They claim states have the right to impose restrictions on weapons that threaten public safety. Additionally, they argue some weapons aren't protected by the Second Amendment because they're unsuitable for self-defense and point to a long tradition of regulating particularly dangerous firearms to support California's stance. Last month, Campbell and New Jersey's Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin co-led a similar brief, this one geared toward curbing the spread of large-capacity magazines within California borders.
Joining Massachusetts and New Jersey in this legal brief are states across the country, including but not limited to Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, and Delaware. This alliance extends to the District of Columbia and a swath of states from Hawaii to Washington, reflecting a broad coalition in support of what they deem necessary measures for public safety. Meanwhile, opponents of these bans continue to argue that such laws unduly restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens and won't effectively deter criminals intent on violence.
