Miller v. Bonta 9th Ckt "assault weapons": Held for Duncan result 1-26-24

[JiuJitsu]

Ok, normally I am a perpetual optimist but I have a question. So if Benitez issues a permanent injunction, wouldn’t the state just cry and request an emergency stay to Mommy 9th Circuit Appeals that would get instantly approved under dubious reasoning at like midnight on a Friday?

I mean this is CA and the 9th Circus, where blatantly unconstitutional gun laws get protected in hours yet court battles to strike them down and regain our civil rights take decades. I hope I am wrong after the latest Bruen decision but decades of painful history has tempered my expectations.

[ritter]

Originally Posted by JiuJitsu

Ok, normally I am a perpetual optimist but I have a question. So if Benitez issues a permanent injunction, wouldn’t the state just cry and request an emergency stay to Mommy 9th Circuit Appeals that would get instantly approved under dubious reasoning at like midnight on a Friday?

I mean this is CA and the 9th Circus, where blatantly unconstitutional gun laws get protected in hours yet court battles to strike them down and regain our civil rights take decades. I hope I am wrong after the latest Bruen decision but decades of painful history has tempered my expectations.

You're entirely correct, IMHO. With luck, we can then appeal that stay to SCOTUS who might say "take as much time as you like, but enjoined during that time period." Might being the key word.

[newbieLA]

Originally Posted by homelessdude

It's only permanent until it gets to the 9th for appeal. Thats where the real fun and GAMES start. JMO

unfortunately I think you're right. Even though an emergency stay by the 9th is supposed to be "rare and unusual"

[curtisfong]

Originally Posted by newbieLA

unfortunately I think you're right. Even though an emergency stay by the 9th is supposed to be "rare and unusual"

As "rare" as an en banc....

[Sputnik]

Does anyone know the percentages for non-2A en bancs? I feel like my view point is likely skewed because I really only follow 2A cases but en banc is obviously not the exception in these cases (because guns).

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by Sputnik

Does anyone know the percentages for non-2A en bancs? I feel like my view point is likely skewed because I really only follow 2A cases but en banc is obviously not the exception in these cases (because guns).

I looked at the En Banc cases once, and besides 2A cases the other cases (or some of them) were immigration cases where the En Banc was used to prevent a deportation or something like that.

[newbieLA]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

I looked at the En Banc cases once, and besides 2A cases the other cases (or some of them) were immigration cases where the En Banc was used to prevent a deportation or something like that.

so pretty much all politically motivated

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by newbieLA

so pretty much all politically motivated

Yeah, that's what I thought at time.

[abinsinia]

NOTICE of Appearance by Kevin James Kelly on behalf of Xavier Becerra (Kelly, Kevin)Attorney Kevin James Kelly added to party Xavier Becerra(pty:dft) (Entered: 11/30/2022)

Bonta is changing attorneys. This Kevin James Kelly has also been assigned to the Duncan case.

[bwiese]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

Bonta is changing attorneys. This Kevin James Kelly has also been assigned to the Duncan case.

This may or may not have terrible significance; DOJ is a large agency with state employees entering into holiday season. Many other fairly ordinary staff scheduling/reallocation activities may occur as well.

[Bolt_Action]

Originally Posted by bwiese

This may or may not have terrible significance; DOJ is a large agency with state employees entering into holiday season. Many other fairly ordinary staff scheduling/reallocation activities may occur as well.

It makes no difference who the attorneys are on either side. The merits of the case and the quality of the arguments have no bearing on the outcome. The only thing that matters is the composition of SCOTUS after the case arrives back at their doorstep.

[curtisfong]

Originally Posted by Bolt_Action

It makes no difference who the attorneys are on either side. The merits of the case and the quality of the arguments have no bearing on the outcome. The only thing that matters is the composition of SCOTUS after the case arrives back at their doorstep.

Correct. Do not forget that in most cases (except the ones before Benitez), the courts will fix whatever defects it finds in the State's filings for them.

The State could be represented by a box of hair. The outcome would be the same.

[homelessdude]

I think you sell some pretty good lawyers short. Do you ever have anything positive to add?

[curtisfong]

Originally Posted by homelessdude

I think you sell some pretty good lawyers short. Do you ever have anything positive to add?

If you are implying I'm selling the plaintiffs' lawyers short, I am doing no such thing.

In order for them to even have a *chance* of succeeding they have to be flawless, whereas Bonta could be replaced by a bowl of cat urine and it would not matter.

[Sgt Raven]

We will have to see who is on the 3 Judge panel & the En Banc panel. The makeup of the 9th has changed some from before. Trump helped us at SCOTUS, we will see if he helped us in the 9th...

[Lanejsl]

Here's the thing, and I would need folks smarter than me to opine, if Benitiez doesn't stay his decision, there will be a period of time between his final order and when the 9th grants an emergency appeal, correct? During that time, mod can be made to an AR correct? Theoretically that is.

[abinsinia]

Look to the two cases in New York on the CCIA laws. Both judges refused to give a stay on their opinions, and it took some time for the appeals court to gives stays. At least a week.

[TheNinja]

Originally Posted by Lanejsl

Here's the thing, and I would need folks smarter than me to opine, if Benitiez doesn't stay his decision, there will be a period of time between his final order and when the 9th grants an emergency appeal, correct? During that time, mod can be made to an AR correct? Theoretically that is.

I have no idea and am just guessing here. But even if we get a "freedom week" or whatever to modify our ARs, what's to stop the 9th to stay the decision or to appeal it.....and then if feature ban is held up (or stayed I guess) then we'd have to change them all back or be guilty of holding an illegal weapon?

Basically it feels like even if we get some time to modify our ARs, what's to stop the other courts and lawmakers to reinstating rules or creating new ones where we'd have to convert them back?

I can see being able to keep freedom week mags b/c they can't legally come and take my property from me.

Again....I have no real idea just playing devil's advocate a bit.

[Gator15]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

I looked at the En Banc cases once, and besides 2A cases the other cases (or some of them) were immigration cases where the En Banc was used to prevent a deportation or something like that.

If you watched the en banc argument in Peruta your jaw would drop. Several of the justices questioned why not let low crime rural counties have lax CCW rules, while allowing high crime urban areas to have tighter restrictions or no CCW at all, since crime was such a problem in cities. Um, that is why you need CCW in cities! These folks are so anti gun that they equate "gun" reflexively with crime by default, and assume CCW holders will suddenly become crazed criminals and go on a shooting spree. Yeah, the gun just turns people evil.

[Sgt Raven]

Originally Posted by TheNinja

I have no idea and am just guessing here. But even if we get a "freedom week" or whatever to modify our ARs, what's to stop the 9th to stay the decision or to appeal it.....and then if feature ban is held up (or stayed I guess) then we'd have to change them all back or be guilty of holding an illegal weapon?

Basically it feels like even if we get some time to modify our ARs, what's to stop the other courts and lawmakers to reinstating rules or creating new ones where we'd have to convert them back?

I can see being able to keep freedom week mags b/c they can't legally come and take my property from me.

Again....I have no real idea just playing devil's advocate a bit.

You legally acquired AWs. I think it would force CA to open the AW registry again. This time there wouldn't be any Bullet Button crap. Your single shot AR pistol just became a semi-auto detachable mag pistol. Just have to be ready to jump the minute it comes down.

Looks like there is movement next week in the 4th Circuit Bianchi v Frosh AWB case... https://youtu.be/v7sP_j90L80

[Bolt_Action]

Originally Posted by Sgt Raven

You legally acquired AWs. I think it would force CA to open the AW registry again. This time there wouldn't be any Bullet Button crap. Your single shot AR pistol just became a semi-auto detachable mag pistol. Just have to be ready to jump the minute it comes down.

Looks like there is movement next week in the 4th Circuit Bianchi v Frosh AWB case... https://youtu.be/v7sP_j90L80

The CA DOJ will do whatever they want and we will comply. Doesn’t matter what the law says. If they don’t like the outcome, they’ll just arrest you if you don’t do what you’re told. That’s how it works. Look at their ruling about how it’s illegal to remove the bullet button from a RAW. That’s clearly not what they law says, but that doesn’t matter. Now they’re threatening the guy who makes the FIFY kit, even though it’s clearly legal. And we’ll do what we’re told, because the last we’re going to do is exercise our second amendment rights… we might lose our second amendment rights!

[ar15barrels]

Originally Posted by Sgt Raven

We will have to see who is on the 3 Judge panel & the En Banc panel. The makeup of the 9th has changed some from before. Trump helped us at SCOTUS, we will see if he helped us in the 9th...

He did.
The 9th is just barely biased liberal now.
I think it's around 60/40 makup instead of 80/20 makeup like before.

[bwiese]

Originally Posted by ar15barrels

He did.
The 9th is just barely biased liberal now.
I think it's around 60/40 makup instead of 80/20 makeup like before.

One of the Trump nominees (from HI) wasn't too great, IIRC.
(But couldn't be worse than others in past..)

[bigdaddyz1776]

Originally Posted by Bolt_Action

The CA DOJ will do whatever they want and we will comply. Doesn’t matter what the law says. If they don’t like the outcome, they’ll just arrest you if you don’t do what you’re told. That’s how it works. Look at their ruling about how it’s illegal to remove the bullet button from a RAW. That’s clearly not what they law says, but that doesn’t matter. Now they’re threatening the guy who makes the FIFY kit, even though it’s clearly legal. And we’ll do what we’re told, because the last we’re going to do is exercise our second amendment rights… we might lose our second amendment rights!

That is the hallmark of a nation's justice system in the third world like parts of Africa or South America or Asia.

The end result being that "The Law" only exists in the good and nice and clean areas. And the rest of the nation, is anything goes and nobody bothers with the government or its authorities, since they know its not for them but for the other.

Though Californian elites have made it their goal to reach that kind of society.

[Batman]

Originally Posted by Bolt_Action

The CA DOJ will do whatever they want and we will comply. Doesn’t matter what the law says. If they don’t like the outcome, they’ll just arrest you if you don’t do what you’re told. That’s how it works. Look at their ruling about how it’s illegal to remove the bullet button from a RAW. That’s clearly not what they law says, but that doesn’t matter. Now they’re threatening the guy who makes the FIFY kit, even though it’s clearly legal. And we’ll do what we’re told, because the last we’re going to do is exercise our second amendment rights… we might lose our second amendment rights!

It's not a question of whether or not we comply, it's a question of whether or not we want to be the test case. Easy to pontificate the merits when your rights and possibly freedom aren't on the line. When you might lose everything just to try to prove the point is where the proverbial rubber meets the road.

[tacticalcity]

Is this case still set to be heard on 12-12-22 this Monday? Or did I misread that? I thought several 2A cases were being heard on 12-12-22 including this one. But if that is true I expected more fanfare.

[Bolt_Action]

Originally Posted by Batman

It's not a question of whether or not we comply, it's a question of whether or not we want to be the test case. Easy to pontificate the merits when your rights and possibly freedom aren't on the line. When you might lose everything just to try to prove the point is where the proverbial rubber meets the road.

At this point, exactly what rights and/or freedoms do you think any of us have left that we’re going to lose?

[tacticalcity]

Originally Posted by Bolt_Action

At this point, exactly what rights and/or freedoms do you think any of us have left that we’re going to lose?

I heard a great line in a movie that went something like this. "High school is like prison. The sex you want is not the sex you are getting and the sex you are getting is not the sex you want."

[Sgt Raven]

https://youtu.be/T1InjeZ6M6Y

[RANGER295]

Originally Posted by tacticalcity

Is this case still set to be heard on 12-12-22 this Monday? Or did I misread that? I thought several 2A cases were being heard on 12-12-22 including this one. But if that is true I expected more fanfare.

I asked the same question essentially in the Duncan thread a few days ago. I believe this case, another 2A case, and a baton related case are all being heard on the 12th (based on the replies I got in the Duncan thread). I would have to go back and look to see what the other case was.

[homelessdude]

Dec 12 @ 10:30. Miller ( assault weapons ), Duncan (Large Mags ), Rhodes ( ammo sales ), and another case involving batons. I don't remember the name of the baton case. A member here is going to be in the courtroom Monday.

[Frozenguy]

So where are we with this? If I have rifles that I did not register years ago do they have to remain featureless, no pistol grip etc.

[eaglemike]

Originally Posted by homelessdude

Dec 12 @ 10:30. Miller ( assault weapons ), Duncan (Large Mags ), Rhodes ( ammo sales ), and another case involving batons. I don't remember the name of the baton case. A member here is going to be in the courtroom Monday.

Yes, I'm planning to attend. Courtroom 5a. I looked up the docket. Looks like hearings on some motions. Don't know how exciting it will be. Just thought it would be nice to see what happens.

[RANGER295]

Originally Posted by Frozenguy

So where are we with this? If I have rifles that I did not register years ago do they have to remain featureless, no pistol grip etc.

At this time nothing has changed. All AW laws are still in place.

[Metal God]

Yes, I'm planning to attend.

I'll be there as well along with my buddy who is a plaintiff in one of the cases .

We'll see you there

[DentonandSasquatchShow]

Originally Posted by eaglemike

Don't know how exciting it will be. Just thought it would be nice to see what happens.

This will be CA history in the making (either way it goes).

[tacticalcity]

Wish I had known about all these cases coming up sooner. I would have saved up some money in anticipation of favorable rulings...for the day or two before the next injunction bursts our bubble.

[SmallShark]

Originally Posted by tacticalcity

Wish I had known about all these cases coming up sooner. I would have saved up some money in anticipation of favorable rulings...for the day or two before the next injunction bursts our bubble.

i already got what i need, just in case the rulings are in our favor.

the manufacture even rushed my order after i wrote them an email explaining everything

[tacticalcity]

Hoping for favorable rulings tomorrow. And the discussions that follow about what exactly this means for currently owned featureless and registered bullet button assault rifles.

I assume both will be able to be converted to standard configuration if we get a favorable ruling. But the question is can they stay converted if there is an injunction a day or two later like we have seen in the past? Or will only newly purchased rifles be able to remain unconverted until such time as California creates a whole new registration process sans bullet button?

Either way, Monday will have me on pins and needles.

[jcwatchdog]

Originally Posted by tacticalcity

Hoping for favorable rulings tomorrow. And the discussions that follow about what exactly this means for currently owned featureless and registered bullet button assault rifles.

I assume both will be able to be converted to standard configuration if we get a favorable ruling. But the question is can they stay converted if there is an injunction a day or two later like we have seen in the past? Or will only newly purchased rifles be able to remain unconverted until such time as California creates a whole new registration process sans bullet button?

Either way, Monday will have me on pins and needles.

If we convert our guns to an AW, the state can’t make them become non AW by telling us to convert them back. They would have to open up the AW registry. Because even for that short time we were in violation of the law and eligible for prosecution of having possessed an AW. We would need some type of relief 🙂