THE RISING TIDE OF GUN LOBBY INFLUENCE: BENITEZ’S RULING AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT, Boston University Pre-Law Review Article

On January 31st of this year, US Federal Judge Roger Benitez struck down a California law, Senate Bill 1235, requiring background checks for purchasing ammunition and banning bringing in out-of-state firearms. Benitez made this ruling after it was challenged by the California Rifle & Pistol Association on the account that it infringes on the constitutional right of the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms for self-defense. This is the second time around that Benitez has thwarted this law - it was originally rejected in 2020 where the ruling went to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, yet was returned to Benitez on account of changes to the government’s jurisdiction over firearm regulation by the Supreme Court. 

Benitez’s ruling came from a challenge by California Rifle and Pistol Association to the states original Bill 1235, “treats all citizens as if they do not enjoy a right to buy ammunition. It forces Americans to entreat and supplicate the state for permission.” According to Judge Benitez, the 

law was designed to be overturned since “these laws are not consistent with the Nation’s history and tradition, they must yield to the Constitution.” However, the central counter-argument against Benitez’s ruling is the idea that this reason for striking the background check mandate, cited by many conservative judges in such cases, is a consistently inaccurate interpretation of the ideas of the Second Amendment. Having received intense backlash, this ruling by Judge Benitez is also alleged as being a reflection of the gun lobby’s increasingly far reaching and severe impact on rulings in America’s judicial system. Going further, to Judges such as Warren Burger and Rob Bonta, this ruling indicates the rising schism between originalism and impartial rulings in conservative judges. Benitez himself has overturned two other laws in accordance with an appeal brought about by gun lobby organizations. 

The argument that background checks go diametrically against the United States Constitution’s Second Amendment is one that is cited in rulings by conservative judges, such as Benitez, who intend to keep the promise of “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free 

State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Owing to their limited specifications, such constitutionally binding rulings and laws are often interpreted differently in different cases resulting in inconsistent outcomes in cases that cite them. A famous historical example of this justification is seen in the District of Columbia v. Heller case where the ban on carrying handguns was seen as a violation of the “Second Amendment right to keep a functional firearm” at home without a license. One of the most controversial clauses from the original U.S. The Constitution has been the Second Amendment: a 27 word clause which has been used as a legal tool to design multiple state and national level bills relating to ammunition and firearm ownership. According to the Former Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, Warren Burger, “the need for a State militia was the predicate of the “right” guarantee, so as to protect the security of the State. Today, of course, the State militia serves a different purpose.” 

The evolution of the significance and purpose of the Second Amendment exhibits a much clearer chronicle of the ways in which modern rulings are the victim of an improper interpretation of this Constitutional clause. However, since it was written in the post-revolutionary context, many argue that the purpose of the Second Amendment served the much grander purpose of calling to arms a state serving ‘militia’, as the Amendment stated the current citizenry to be. This aspect was reinforced by The Federalist Papers, released between October of 1787 and August of 1788, three years before the ratification of the Second Amendment. These papers argue for

the introduction of an ‘organized’ militia, military branches such as the National Guard and Naval Militia, and an ‘unorganized’ militia, the general and physically apt public. Given the nascent status of the United States as a foundational democracy, the constitutional responsibility for every citizen to be a ready-at-duty serviceman was essential in order to defend the sovereignty of the newfound country. However, this justification also experienced an eventual corrosion as investing resources into armaments and training a citizenry already unwilling to fight became impractical. An instance of this is the Quaker community’s success in applying a ban on the requirement to bear arms and forced military duty; a method of restriction used by the Quakers was refusing to pay taxes dedicated to defense efforts. Eventually, gun ownership evolved from a requirement for the defense of the union to a more individualistic form of protection from domestic threats. This sentiment has now been translated from the revolutionary times to modern America where a citizen living in a state not mandating background checks and permits is allowed to keep a firearm in their bedroom nightstand, car glove compartment, and/or on their person. Owing to this changed definition, preventing ammunition in the wrong hands became of paramount importance: an attitude slowly being eroded in the times of the NRA and its counterparts.

Historically, California has been one of the least-friendly states for gun ownership owing to its high rates of background checks, purchase limitations, and rising urban crime rates. However, due to the efforts of District Judges such as Benitez, California has had a history of the repealing or even removal of Congressionally approved laws when they are challenged by the gun lobby. Many, like attorney Esther Sanchez-Gomez of the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, purport that the true nature of this decision is for the benefit of the gun lobby. “Judge Benitez has once again legislated from the bench to the benefit of the gun lobby. We are confident that his misguided decision will be reversed,” said Gomez. This claim is evidenced by a comment made by Chuck Michel, president and general counsel of the California Rifle & Pistol Association. “This law, like most of California’s gun control laws, has not made anyone safer,” says Michel. “But it has made it much more difficult and expensive for law-abiding gun owners to exercise their Second Amendment right to defend themselves and their family, and has blocked many eligible people from getting the ammunition they need.” The California Rifle & Pistol Association is the NRA affiliate that challenged this claim. Given its influence in the existing gun lobby in Congress many, like Governor Gavin Newsom, do not find it hard to see its influence in the judiciary system as well. Newsom describes judges like Benitez and others like him as “a wholly owned subsidiary of the gun lobby.” Given its influence in the existing gun lobby in Congress, many, like Governor Gavin Newsom, do not find it hard to see its influence in the judiciary system as well. 

With the rising number of gun related homicides in the United States, many pro-gun control proponents see this encroachment of the NRA into politics as a measure that affects the law 

making decisions of a well-established judicial system. The originalism of the justice system must only be influenced by the truth thus sees an augment of exterior influence when the power and reach of such organizations is accounted for. Seemingly original decisions, based solely on presented evidence and court proceedings, may indeed be more partisan and prone to manipulation from forces not directly involved in the judicial system. Unlike the legislative branch which remains dependent on party directives and voting power to drive bill legislation, the judicial branch is expected to operate according to a set of required regulations and norms. This landmark decision thus marks a gradually rising tide of influence in the legal echelons of America and perhaps even a displacement of the very fibers of the justice system. In a country which experienced more than 650 mass shootings in 2023, severing monetary and political influence from profit mongering organizations is of ultimate importance.