A federal judge who previously overturned California’s three-decade-old ban on assault weapons did it again on Thursday, ruling that the state’s attempts to prohibit sales of semiautomatic guns violates the constitutional right to bear arms.

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez of San Diego conceded that powerful weapons like AR-15 rifles are commonly used by criminals, but said the guns are importantly also owned by people who obey the law and feel they need firearms to protect themselves.

“The State of California posits that its ‘assault weapon’ ban, the law challenged here, promotes an important public interest of disarming some mass shooters even though it makes criminals of law-abiding residents who insist on acquiring these firearms for self-defense,” Benitez wrote. “Nevertheless, more than that is required to uphold a ban.”

The judge’s ruling is nearly identical to a 2021 decision in which he called California’s ban on assault weapons a “failed experiment.” Benitez has has repeatedly struck down multiple California firearms laws. Just last month, he ruled the state cannot ban gun owners from having detachable magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

Benitez’s latest decision would overturn multiple state statutes related to assault weapons. The judge gave the state 10 days to seek a stay on the ruling as part of an appeal to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta said his office had already filed a notice of appeal.

“Weapons of war have no place on California’s streets,” Bonta said in a statement Thursday. “This has been state law in California for decades, and we will continue to fight for our authority to keep our citizens safe from firearms that cause mass casualties. In the meantime, assault weapons remain unlawful for purchase, transfer, or possession in California.”

John Dillon, an attorney for the plaintiffs who sued to overturn the law, cheered the judge’s ruling.

The Supreme Court on Monday ordered two internet sellers of gun parts to comply with a Biden administration regulation aimed at ghost guns, firearms that are difficult to trace because they lack serial numbers.

The court had intervened once before, by a 5-4 vote in August, to keep the regulation in effect after it had been invalidated by a lower court. No justice dissented publicly from Monday’s order, which followed a ruling from a federal judge in Texas that exempted the two companies, Blackhawk Manufacturing Group and Defense Distributed, from having to abide by the regulation of ghost gun kits.

Other makers of gun parts also had been seeking similar court orders, the administration told the Supreme Court in a filing.

“Absent relief from this Court, therefore, untraceable ghost guns will remain widely available to anyone with a computer and a credit card — no background check required,” Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, the administration’s top Supreme Court lawyer, wrote.

The regulation changed the definition of a firearm under federal law to include unfinished parts, like the frame of a handgun or the receiver of a long gun, so they can be tracked more easily. Those parts must be licensed and include serial numbers. Manufacturers must also run background checks before a sale - as they do with other commercially made firearms.

The requirement applies regardless of how the firearm was made, meaning it includes ghost guns made from individual parts or kits or by 3D printers.

The regulation will be in effect while the administration appeals the judge’s ruling to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans — and potentially the Supreme Court.

The Arkansas Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the procedural vote that allowed Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ education overhaul to take effect immediately, rejecting a judge’s ruling that threw into question the way state laws have been fast-tracked into enforcement over the years.

The state Supreme Court’s 6-1 decision has no effect on the education law that the Republican governor signed in March and is already in effect. The law created a new school voucher program, raised minimum teacher salaries and placed restrictions on classroom instruction pertaining to sexual orientation and gender identity before the fifth grade.

But the ruling rejects the argument that the Legislature violated the state constitution with its votes for the measure to take effect immediately. Opponents of the law argued that the emergency clause for the law, which requires a two-thirds vote, should have been taken up separately from the legislation. Lawmakers commonly vote on a bill and its emergency clause at the same time.

Justices ruled that this approach for the education law was constitutional, noting that the votes are recorded separately in House and Senate journals.

“The House Journal indicates a separate roll call and vote for the emergency clause. Likewise, the Senate Journal indicates a separate roll call and vote for the emergency clause,” Justice Barbara Webb wrote in the ruling. “Thus, according to the official record, the emergency clause was passed in compliance with article 5, section 1 of the Arkansas Constitution.”

Sanders, who took office in January, hailed the ruling.

“Today’s Supreme Court ruling in favor of the LEARNS Act is a historic victory for Arkansas parents, teachers, and students,” she posted on X, formerly Twitter, calling the ruling a “crushing defeat” for opponents of the law.

Ali Noland, an attorney for the plaintiffs who challenged the law, criticized the court’s decision and said the lawsuit was moot for two months since the overhaul was already in effect.

“Today’s Arkansas Supreme Court ruling makes it much harder for Arkansans to hold their government accountable for willfully violating the Arkansas Constitution,” Noland said in a statement.

Justices in June lifted the Pulaski County judge’s order that blocked enforcement of the law. Without the emergency clause, the law wouldn’t have taken effect until August.