Miller v. Bonta, SDCA - "assault weapons"

[Bolt_Action]

Originally Posted by Dvrjon

Patience.

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

Who cares if it?s done right? The outcome is the same regardless.

[homelessdude]

Then why are you even here? According to you nothing will change.

[SpudmanWP]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

And this goes back to my point of why dicta is a major weakness in pro 2A rulings.

I will have to disagree.

The biggest failure has been the lack of follow-up enforcement by the Circuits and SCOTUS.

The post-Heller "two-tier" failure was tied to a dissenting opinion and not from the Holding or Dicta. Heller mentioned "common use for self-defense" because that is what the case was about. Heller also said that "all bearable arms" were covered but gun grabbers seemed to have forgotten that one.

Anyone with kids understands how children will twist your words to say whatever they want and SCOTUS will have to treat some Circuits the same way until they get a clue. SCOTUS's quick response to the 2nd Circuit's terse stay gives me hope that they will not let the post-Heller bastardization of the ruling repeat after Bruen.

[rational_behavior]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

And this goes back to my point of why dicta is a major weakness in pro 2A rulings. The rulings keep saying that weapons are protected, if they are commonly used for activities like self defense, which then establishes self defense as the only legal activity covered by self defense. If they bothered to take the 10 seconds to list other activities that apply to the common use test, this argument would be restricted.

To be clear the judge himself enumerates self-defense as one of any number of lawful purposes, and then later on says that since standard capacity magazines have a higher capacity than what is normally used for self defense, the constitution isn't implicated in bans of them. He also says that public interest balancing is forbidden by Bruen, but in the same paragraph approves of a judge saying that "considering public safety" is good.

Presumably these people aren't all mentally deficient. If so, it must be the case that logic and principles are not the means for deciding firearms rulings. It follows then that it doesn't matter how carefully crafted the pro 2A arguments are, they are just going to do what they want.

I've always disliked Senator Turtle, but his strategy for judicial branch nominations seems like the only way out. Draw your own conclusions with respect to voting day.

[BlessedHunter]

I wish I didn't have to type from mobile but what I gathered from that denial was his reasoning was (paraphrasing) "modern technological advances" and of "great societal concern".

That isn't even a test under Bruen, so how can one logically come to the conclusion that the denial is merited?

Outright ignoring the standard that Bruen set (plain text & historical analogues), is there a possibility that the case will *only" be decided on the methodology Bruen prescribes?

IANAL but since Bruen I've started to spend hours reading briefs and opinion and this is the first time I've found it hard to justify the reasoning.

It's almost as if he's applying intermediate scrutiny.

[TFA777]

Originally Posted by SpudmanWP

I will have to disagree.



The biggest failure has been the lack of follow-up enforcement by the Circuits and SCOTUS.



The post-Heller "two-tier" failure was tied to a dissenting opinion and not from the Holding or Dicta. Heller mentioned "common use for self-defense" because that is what the case was about. Heller also said that "all bearable arms" were covered but gun grabbers seemed to have forgotten that one.



Anyone with kids understands how children will twist your words to say whatever they want and SCOTUS will have to treat some Circuits the same way until they get a clue. SCOTUS's quick response to the 2nd Circuit's terse stay gives me hope that they will not let the post-Heller bastardization of the ruling repeat after Bruen.

Heller said (as quoted in Caetano) [of a type] ?typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,?

The "commonly used for self defense" is a test that was made up by the state.

The test is common possession. And lawful use.

Sent from my Moto Z3 Play using Tapatalk

[Sgt Raven]

Originally Posted by TFA777

Heller said (as quoted in Caetano) [of a type] ?typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,?

The "commonly used for self defense" is a test that was made up by the state.

The test is common possession. And lawful use.

Sent from my Moto Z3 Play using Tapatalk

Mark Smith in multiple videos, has quoted one of the decisions from SCOTUS, I'm paraphrasing. "for lawful purposes, such as for self defense". It was used as an example, not the only reason.

[SpudmanWP]

Heller often used "self-defense" often in the Dictum

Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

...

Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.

They even mentioned it in the Holding:

In sum, we hold that the District?s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.

The Dictum is critical because it told us WHY it was unconstitutional and gave us quotes like:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35?36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

They also went on to sink all of the BS that people tweet like "it only applies to the militia", "It does not cover armor", etc.

Finally, Caetano put a nail in the coffin of AWBs if properly applied. Caetano, citing Heller, answered the 3 challenges:
1. All bearable arms are covered, even modern ones.
2. Heller said "dangerous and unusual" and since stunguns (as a whole class) were not unusual (ie in common use), they could not be banned.
3. Again citing Heller saying that an arm does not have to be "readily adaptable to use in the military" to be covered.

The court offered three explanations to support its holding that the Second Amendment does not extend to stun guns. First, the court explained that stun guns are not protected because they ?were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment?s enactment.? Id., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. This is inconsistent with Heller?s clear statement that the Second Amendment ?extends . . . to . . . arms . . . that were not in existence at the time of the founding.? 554 U. S., at 582.

The court next asked whether stun guns are ?dangerous per se at common law and unusual,? 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 694, in an attempt to apply one ?important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms,? Heller, 554 U. S., at 627; see ibid. (referring to ?the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ?dangerous and unusual weapons??). In so doing, the court concluded that stun guns are ?unusual? because they are ?a thoroughly modern invention.? 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693?694. By equating ?unusual? with ?in common use at the time of the Second Amendment?s enactment,? the court?s second explanation is the same as the first; it is inconsistent with Heller for the same reason.

Finally, the court used ?a contemporary lens? and found ?nothing in the record to suggest that [stun guns] are readily adaptable to use in the military.? 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 694. But Heller rejected the proposition ?that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.? 554 U. S., at 624?625.

[Bhobbs]

Originally Posted by rational_behavior

To be clear the judge himself enumerates self-defense as one of any number of lawful purposes, and then later on says that since standard capacity magazines have a higher capacity than what is normally used for self defense, the constitution isn't implicated in bans of them. He also says that public interest balancing is forbidden by Bruen, but in the same paragraph approves of a judge saying that "considering public safety" is good.

Presumably these people aren't all mentally deficient. If so, it must be the case that logic and principles are not the means for deciding firearms rulings. It follows then that it doesn't matter how carefully crafted the pro 2A arguments are, they are just going to do what they want.

I've always disliked Senator Turtle, but his strategy for judicial branch nominations seems like the only way out. Draw your own conclusions with respect to voting day.

They may have intended for self defense to be one of many uses that applies to in common use but they never said the other uses. They have to write their opinions with the knowledge that lower courts will not respect them. They have to be written to prevent as many loopholes or workarounds as possible, but they aren?t.

Heller had many examples, such as saying the right isn?t unlimited but failed to establish the limits. Saying the right was primarily for self defense in the home, but failing to say it also extended beyond the the home. Saying the right did not cover dangerous and unusual weapons but failed establish what was dangerous and unusual.

The end result is that Heller is totally and completely useless as a ruling. It failed to move the bar forward and has been negated almost entirely in the 15 years since it was issued.

[Sgt Raven]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

Heller had many examples,...snip.... Saying the right did not cover dangerous and unusual weapons but failed establish what was dangerous and unusual.

The end result is that Heller is totally and completely useless as a ruling. It failed to move the bar forward and has been negated almost entirely in the 15 years since it was issued.

Heller said "in common use for lawful purposes". They can be dangerous, but they are not unusual, if in common use.


As for useless, without Heller, we wouldn't have Bruen.

[Bolt_Action]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

They may have intended for self defense to be one of many uses that applies to in common use but they never said the other uses. They have to write their opinions with the knowledge that lower courts will not respect them. They have to be written to prevent as many loopholes or workarounds as possible, but they aren?t.

Heller had many examples, such as saying the right isn?t unlimited but failed to establish the limits. Saying the right was primarily for self defense in the home, but failing to say it also extended beyond the the home. Saying the right did not cover dangerous and unusual weapons but failed establish what was dangerous and unusual.

The end result is that Heller is totally and completely useless as a ruling. It failed to move the bar forward and has been negated almost entirely in the 15 years since it was issued.

All rulings are totally and completely useless. This strategy of going through the courts has failed, surely you understand this now. If the courts were your last hope, you might as well just give up.

[mcbair]

Heller is not useless. It is law and the inferior courts are supposed to observe and follow that law. Dangerous and unusual is a fairly easy concept and it is defined partly by Caetano v Mass. All weapons are dangerous or they would not be weapons. Heller defined weapons covered by the Second Amendment as any bearable arm, “ in common use, for lawful purposes”. Not just for self defense!
Caetano in Alito’s concurrence mentioned that there were around 200,000 stun guns lawfully owned by Americans. If there are 200,000 of them lawfully possessed they cannot possibly be “unusual”. It is therefore impossible for a weapon, commonly owned for lawful purposes to be “unusual”. Yes you can own a machine gun! Ya just have to pay an illegal tax. You can own a tank, a fighter jet, or a tank. None of these are unusual.

The government house of cards is crumbling thanks to a very very few courageous judges. Let’s not whine and complain. Let’s get to work and help finish the Job of restoring our Liberty so our kids won’t have to fight some of these fights. My case will restore Constitutional open carry to California if I can manage to win it. This case would be a huge blow to the liars and crooks that own our state government. Contribute to the organizations that are bringing this case. Vote, and help get others to vote. If Conservatives and gun owners would get out and vote, we could take our state back…..just sayin.

[Bhobbs]

Originally Posted by Sgt Raven

Heller said "in common use for lawful purposes". They can be dangerous, but they are not unusual, if in common use.


As for useless, without Heller, we wouldn't have Bruen.

What?s a dangerous weapon? What?s an unusual weapon? What court case has defined those terms?

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

What?s a dangerous weapon? What?s an unusual weapon? What court case has defined those terms?

There is no need for a court to define all words. Words have their common meaning unless a statue or case provides a different meaning for a specific situation.

[Metal God]

What?s a dangerous weapon? What?s an unusual weapon? What court case has defined those terms?

Fouts ( billy club case ) will address that . The plaintiffs brought up the unusual aspect of weapons in court when I was there as well as in there brief . They are saying unusual has to do with how it used, and or displayed in a terrifying manner. . We touched on this a few pages back, and somebody brought up a good example of baring a chainsaw as your self-defense weapon . That would be considered dangerous and unusual. The mere presence of the weapon itself is unusual and terrifying, and I believe that will be their argument. Some may say that Firarms, some selves are menacing and terrifying, if seen or carried constituting the unusual aspect of the argument . The question is will the judge address that in his ruling .

[SpudmanWP]

I've always felt that "dangerous" played into how indiscriminate the weapon is.
Things like grenades to nukes fall under this.
Historically you could point to bans on "trap guns" because they could kill anyone who passed by.

[chris]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

What?s a dangerous weapon? What?s an unusual weapon? What court case has defined those terms?

Just a guess on my part. The NFA designated that in 1934. It has since been applied to any politically incorrect firearm the left designates it wants gone. We know it's all of them.

[Inoxmark]

Originally Posted by Metal God

Fouts ( billy club case ) will address that . The plaintiffs brought up the unusual aspect of weapons in court when I was there as well as in there brief . They are saying unusual has to do with how it used, and or displayed in a terrifying manner. . We touched on this a few pages back, and somebody brought up a good example of baring a chainsaw as your self-defense weapon . That would be considered dangerous and unusual. The mere presence of the weapon itself is unusual and terrifying, and I believe that will be their argument. Some may say that Firarms, some selves are menacing and terrifying, if seen or carried constituting the unusual aspect of the argument . The question is will the judge address that in his ruling .

Hypothetically, if one accepts that definition, what would then be a "usual" weapon? Would they be able to provide an example? Anything: stick, club, knife, sword, spear, bow and arrow, stone, cast iron pan, etc are all pretty terrifying when being used agains you.

[FreemanG]

The unusual part is more about the when/where/how that a weapon is used or brandished. Literally anything can function in some capacity as a weapon. What makes it unusual isnt the item itself but that a reasonable person would not expect to see someone brandishing it at that specific time or location or in a specific manner.

[WithinReason]

Originally Posted by Inoxmark

Hypothetically, if one accepts that definition, what would then be a "usual" weapon? Would they be able to provide an example? Anything: stick, club, knife, sword, spear, bow and arrow, stone, cast iron pan, etc are all pretty terrifying when being used agains you.

In my family heritage, it includes a shillelagh...

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by WithinReason

In my family heritage, it includes a shillelagh...

...which the British occupiers outlawed.

[WithinReason]

Originally Posted by TruOil

...which the British occupiers outlawed.

Imagine the outrage at outlawing a walking stick!

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by WithinReason

Imagine the outrage at outlawing a walking stick!

Not exactly. It is a "walking stick" that was used with some frequency for fighting, and was heavy enough at the knob end to break bones. Hence it was considered a deadly weapon.

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by TruOil

Not exactly. It is a "walking stick" that was used with some frequency for fighting, and was heavy enough at the knob end to break bones. Hence it was considered a deadly weapon.

Actually Center Target Sports, a local gun range in Post Falls, Idaho, sells such devices and provides training on their use!

[DrewN]

Originally Posted by TruOil

Not exactly. It is a "walking stick" that was used with some frequency for fighting, and was heavy enough at the knob end to break bones. Hence it was considered a deadly weapon.

Fire hardened as well I think.

[WithinReason]

Originally Posted by TruOil

Not exactly. It is a "walking stick" that was used with some frequency for fighting, and was heavy enough at the knob end to break bones. Hence it was considered a deadly weapon.

Hence the wink.

[JWHuey]

Friday again.

Another ?

Hope something happens.

[TempleKnight]

Originally Posted by BAJ475

There is no need for a court to define all words. Words have their common meaning unless a statue or case provides a different meaning for a specific situation.

The reason the court needs to clearly define words comes from the leftists continually trying to redefine them.

Clinton wanted to redefine ?is? and a Supreme Court judge can?t/won?t define ?women?.

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by TempleKnight

The reason the court needs to clearly define words comes from the leftists continually trying to redefine them.

Clinton wanted to redefine ?is? and a Supreme Court judge can?t/won?t define ?women?.

You got me.

[Bhobbs]

We’re over 5 weeks out from the last response. The first Miller opinion took 6 weeks. I hope the Tennessee shooting doesn’t cause Benitez to delay his rulings.

[lemonherb]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

We?re over 5 weeks out from the last response. The first Miller opinion took 6 weeks. I hope the Tennessee shooting doesn?t cause Benitez to delay his rulings.

Nashville has mostly fallen out of the news cycle already thanks to the Trump indictment.

[Ishooter]

Another week gone by without any exciting news.

[Metal God]

Defining words lol like mandate really means taxation

[sparky1979]

Come on St. Benitez we need a ruling or 3.

Sent from my SM-S908U1 using Tapatalk

[ShadowGuy]

Originally Posted by sparky1979

Come on St. Benitez we need a ruling or 3.

Sent from my SM-S908U1 using Tapatalk

We just got one in Renna, expecting one in Boland today. It would be a great day if we got Miller, Duncan and Rhode too!

[Bhobbs]

And we have our answer. The 9th stayed Boland. They don’t care what SCOTUS says. The 9th will do what it wants.

The 9th is going to drag this out as long as possible. Anything Benitez does will be immediately stayed. Get ready to wait for years and hope that none of the conservative justices on SCOTUS die.

[mcbair]

An interlocutory appeal of the P.I to USSC might be in order. The Article Three Supreme Court might just be angry enough at its inferior court to send a strong message that these types of Judicial misconduct will no longer be tolerated?

[Mongo68]

Originally Posted by mcbair

An interlocutory appeal of the P.I to USSC might be in order. The Article Three Supreme Court might just be angry enough at its inferior court to send a strong message that these types of Judicial misconduct will no longer be tolerated?

How fun would that be??!! SCJ Thomas smack down!