Miller v. Bonta, SDCA - "assault weapons"

[Bolt_Action]

If we all keep agreeing with each other, we can’t lose!

[newbieLA]

Originally Posted by Bolt_Action

If we all keep agreeing with each other, we can?t lose!

Agree

[mossy590]

Originally Posted by Bolt_Action

If we all keep agreeing with each other, we can?t lose!

Agreed.

[SpudmanWP]

Originally Posted by Bolt_Action

If we all keep agreeing with each other, we can?t lose!

Ditto

[boomer8800]

"So say we all"

[vino68]

"This is the way."

[snailbait]

"When you have attained the way of strategy there will be nothing that you cannot understand. You will see the way in everything."


- Miyamoto Musashi

[homelessdude]

Between this thread and Duncan I've learned the history of drinking in the military and we should all agree on something. Maybe agree to dink more.

[RipTownTech]

Some confusion on my part, hoping you can assist. In a story in The Federalist yesterday, the author says the California ?assault weapons? ban challenge was remanded to Judge Josephine Staton, citing Rupp v Bonta. Based on this thread, and prior rulings, I believed it is being litigated in Judge Benitez? court under ?Miller.? Is the case cited in The Federalist something different? Federalist article: https://thefederalist.com/2023/03/16...-gun-ban-case/

[Bhobbs]

Rupp and Miller are different cases, with different judges, challenging the assault weapons ban. I think they are challenging different aspects of the ban.

[ar15barrels]

Originally Posted by RipTownTech

Some confusion on my part, hoping you can assist. In a story in The Federalist yesterday, the author says the California ?assault weapons? ban challenge was remanded to Judge Josephine Staton, citing Rupp v Bonta. Based on this thread, and prior rulings, I believed it is being litigated in Judge Benitez? court under ?Miller.? Is the case cited in The Federalist something different? Federalist article: https://thefederalist.com/2023/03/16...-gun-ban-case/

Rupp case is about named assault weapons (Example: Colt AR-15) and is in front of the liberal judge Staton.

Miller case is about assault weapons defined by features (Example: detatchable magazine and a pistol grip) and is in front of the conservative judge Benitez.

[RipTownTech]

Thanks to you both for the clarity. Colt should create a new brand called Pony and Bushmaster should start one called Hedge Clipper.

[Sgt Raven]

Originally Posted by RipTownTech

Thanks to you both for the clarity. Colt should create a new brand called Pony and Bushmaster should start one called Hedge Clipper.

Back in the Heady Days of OLLs, it was a common thought. If AG Lockyer updated the 'by name' AWB list. That manufacturers could rename their models faster than the AG could add them to the list. In fact AG Lockyer got a bill passed that removed his ability to add make/models to the named list. That it would turn into a game of 'whack-a-mole' if he tried.

[chris]

Originally Posted by Sgt Raven

Back in the Heady Days of OLLs, it was a common thought. If AG Lockyer updated the 'by name' AWB list. That manufacturers could rename their models faster than the AG could add them to the list. In fact AG Lockyer got a bill passed that removed his ability to add make/models to the named list. That it would turn into a game of 'whack-a-mole' if he tried.

I remember that law. Don't hear much about it anymore.

[gobler]

Originally Posted by vino68

"This is the way."

This is the most apt statement. After all, weapons are our religion.

This is the way!

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

[1911su16b870]

Originally Posted by Sgt Raven

Back in the Heady Days of OLLs, it was a common thought. If AG Lockyer updated the 'by name' AWB list. That manufacturers could rename their models faster than the AG could add them to the list. In fact AG Lockyer got a bill passed that removed his ability to add make/models to the named list. That it would turn into a game of 'whack-a-mole' if he tried.

We also thought back in "the day" with OLLs and the Bullet Button if CA DOJ moved to make them AWs...we would be able to remove the BB after registration...and then CA DOJ played the "you make another AW if you alter the photos of your registered AW" card...

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by 1911su16b870

We also thought back in "the day" with OLLs and the Bullet Button if CA DOJ moved to make them AWs...we would be able to remove the BB after registration...and then CA DOJ played the "you make another AW if you alter the photos of your registered AW" card...

The problem back then was that it was not worth the cost to challenge CA DOJ over their new weapon position. And as it turned out NY gave us Bruen which will take out the whole AW ban BS and allow Californians the ability to remove their BBs and Mag locks.

[michigander]

Any chance Benitez references the Boland decision that came out today in his ruling?

[SpudmanWP]

Originally Posted by michigander

Any chance Benitez references the Boland decision that came out today in his ruling?

Not likely as he had all his ducks in a row last time and only needs to refresh the sources & specifics.

[SpudmanWP]

MILLER Dropped..

Damn, wrong case

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...320.49.0_2.pdf

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by SpudmanWP

MILLER Dropped..

Damn, wrong case

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...320.49.0_2.pdf

Yeah, miller 2 . I posted it on that thread.

[chris]

Originally Posted by BAJ475

The problem back then was that it was not worth the cost to challenge CA DOJ over their new weapon position. And as it turned out NY gave us Bruen which will take out the whole AW ban BS and allow Californians the ability to remove their BBs and Mag locks.

Plus the crappy grips that we have had to use.

[Inoxmark]

Originally Posted by michigander

Any chance Benitez references the Boland decision that came out today in his ruling?

As I understand it there's no decision, only preliminary injunction was granted. The case itself has not been decided.

[FreemanG]

Originally Posted by Inoxmark

As I understand it there's no decision, only preliminary injunction was granted. The case itself has not been decided.

Actually the order was a judgement enjoining the law. That is different than a preliminary injunction.

[ar15barrels]

Originally Posted by FreemanG

Actually the order was a judgement enjoining the law. That is different than a preliminary injunction.

They are talking about Boland, not Miller II.

Boland is a preliminary injunction.
Miller II is a judgment.

Neither of those are the topic of this thread which is Miller.

[A-J]

Originally Posted by chris

Plus the crappy grips that we have had to use.

You should try the Thordsen grip. In a world where you can't run it the way it was designed, they offer a very comfortable alternative.

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by A-J

You should try the Thordsen grip. In a world where you can't run it the way it was designed, they offer a very comfortable alternative.

I went that route to avoid registration as an "assault weapon", and they work well.

[algebraist]

Judgement entered by Judge Benitez:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...320.49.0_3.pdf

1. ? 1021.11 is unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause.
2. ? 1021.11 is unconstitutional under 1st amendment.
3. ? 1021.11 is unconstitutional under Equal Protection Clause.
4. Permanently enjoins defendants from bring action or motion for attorney's fees. Rob Bonta, Intervenor-Defendant Gavin Newsom are enjoined from implementing ? 1021.11

So that's no more fee shifting bollocks then.

[algebraist]

Apologies. Wrong thread, and already duped.

[EM2]

Originally Posted by algebraist

Apologies. Wrong thread, and already duped.

Which thread does it belong?

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by EM2

Which thread does it belong?

Miller 2, fee shifting case.

[Tactical Bean]

Originally Posted by algebraist

Apologies. Wrong thread, and already duped.

Damn got me all riled up?.

[Sgt Raven]

Originally Posted by EM2

Which thread does it belong?

Miller 2 (fee shifting).

[algebraist]

That's why I included the statute numbers. I had a feeling it wasn't the entire case.

I also didn't look to see that Miller v Bonta had been split into two threads. So that'll teach me for not reading fully.

[Sgt Raven]

Originally Posted by algebraist

That's why I included the statute numbers. I had a feeling it wasn't the entire case.

I also didn't look to see that Miller v Bonta had been split into two threads. So that'll teach me for not reading fully.

Miller-2 is a completely different case filed at a different time.



Just look at the thread titles. One says AW Ban & the other fees.

Most threads in here will list the case name and the subject of the case.
Both are called Miller because they have the same plaintiff. You see the same happening thing in some of the NY state cases. Or in the D.C. cases Heller & Heller 2.

[boomer8800]

Maybe its a sign of a good Friday coming

[JWHuey]

Another Friday arrives.

Another, ?

[3rd_gear]

Originally Posted by JWHuey

Another Friday arrives.

Another, ?

Day's not over yet.

[AdamVIP]

Today seems like a good day. Im hopeful.

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by JWHuey

Another Friday arrives.

Another, ?

Originally Posted by 3rd_gear

Day's not over yet.

Originally Posted by AdamVIP

Today seems like a good day. Im hopeful.

Patience.

It takes time to get it right and we don?t want to spend the time to fix it later.