Duncan V Bonta - large cap mags: Benitez hearing 12-12 in SD

[RickD427]

Originally Posted by rplaw

Law is complex and not everyone agrees with what's been decided. That you're of a different opinion is of no consequence to me especially when the California State Constitution expressly says that the US Constitution is "the supreme law of the land."

If the SCOTUS has said that under the US Constitution an information isn't equal to a presentment, then under the applicable clauses in the State Constitution, that practice is forbidden regardless of whether there's a State level case, or a Federal incorporation of that clause in the 5th Amendment to the States. The reason that I believe the entire Bill of Rights are applicable against the State is because the State voluntarily chose to incorporate the US Constitution and Bill of Rights in full. They didn't do that with just the ones they agree with or decide to pick and choose amongst, the language is explicit and unqualified.

Or do you somehow believe that the State can opt out of it's own Constitution?

I'm still of the opinion that an information is equal to a presentment. By your own analysis, you feel it must be as well. Otherwise, the State couldn't use that process without being in violation of both US Constitutional law as well as California's State Constitution.

So, please explain the inconsistency in your position without attempting to restate that the 5th Amendment hasn't been fully incorporated since California voluntarily did just that when enacting it's State Constitution. I'm not sure you can but I'm willing to read your response and try to understand where you're coming from on this.

In short; either California voluntarily incorporated the entire Bill of Rights or it didn't. If it didn't then explain how the reference to "the supreme law of the land" doesn't include all of the "supreme law of the land." And if it did incorporate the entire Bill of Rights, but State prosecutors legally use an information when levying Felony charges, then an information must be equal to a presentment under both State and Federal law. Otherwise, the State is doing a whole buncha illegal stuff.

It may be wise for you to "Stop Digging" as the popular saying goes, but please let me directly respond to your points:

1) Yup, you're right there is a lot of disagreement in the body of law. Some things are pretty clear, and others are not. That's why we have a ton of lawyers.

2) Let's be clear about who is in disagreement. You and I are the parties who disagree here. There is no larger audience that I am in a state of disagreement with. You seem to claim a number of authorities that support your position, but aside from your reference to the California State Constitution (which I will deal with below) you have not been good enough to cite your authorities.

3) As to the California Constitution, you claim that it "expressly says that the US Constitution is "the supreme law of the land."" That's pure hogwash. No such text is contained in the California State Constitution. If you really believe that such language exists in the California Constitution, then please cite the Article and Section where it is contained. Here is a searchable copy of the original document: http://www.dircost.unito.it/cs/pdf/1...fornia_eng.pdf and here is a copy in it's current form: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...itution+-+CONS

4) Even if there were such language contained within the California Constitution, nothing would change. The U.S. Constitution only requires the federal government to charge felonies through a grand jury. If the California were to adopt the U.S. Constitution, the requirement would be the same - federal prosecutors would be required to charge felonies through a grand jury. The U.S Constitution has no requirement for state prosecutors to use a grand jury.

5) As to your direct question: "Do you somehow believe that the State can opt out of it's own Constitution?" No, I believe that the state is required to follow its own Constitution. And I should point out that there is nothing in the state Constitution that requires indictments in felony cases, actually, and much to the contrary, the California Constitution specifically permits the filing of felony charges by information (refer to Article I, Section 14).

6) There is no "inconsistency" in my position. The only appearance of an inconsistency is that my position does not reconcile with your view that the state is bound by the grand jury clause of the Fifth Amendment.

7) To respond to final direct question: "Either California voluntarily incorporated the entire Bill of Rights or it didn't. If it didn't then explain how the reference to "the supreme law of the land" doesn't include all of the "supreme law of the land." And if it did incorporate the entire Bill of Rights, but State prosecutors legally use an information when levying Felony charges, then an information must be equal to a presentment under both State and Federal law." California DID NOT voluntarily incorporate the U.S. Constitution, which includes the first ten amendments ("Bill of Rights").

So much of your argument relies upon the mistaken assertion that California has adopted the U.S. Constitution within the state Constitution as the "Supreme law of the land." That may be a reasonable interpretation of the objectives of the state, and I have little doubt that you will find such statements in secondary sources discussing the state Constitution (I just found one in the popular "Wikipedia" website), but secondary sources are rarely exact, they often are written to communicate the opinion(s) of their authors, and they have little, if any, meaning to the law.

If you wish to continue this discussion, then please cite the Article and Section of the California Constitution where it defines the U.S. Constitution as being the "Supreme law of the land."

If you cannot be so good as to do that much, then please put the shovel away.

[Odd_Ball]

Originally Posted by RickD427

It may be wise for you to "Stop Digging" as the popular saying goes, but please let me directly respond to your points:

6) There is no "inconsistency" in my position. The only appearance of an inconsistency is that my position does not reconcile with your view that the state is bound by the grand jury clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Fun fact ... the grand jury clause of the 5th Amendment is one of the few provisions of the Bill of Rights that the Supreme Court has not 'incorporated' against the States via the 14th Amendment.

The 3rd and 7th Amendment haven't been incorporated, nor part of the 6th Amendment dealing with the jury pool (see https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine).

Not aware if the 3rd Amendment (no quartering of troops in homes) has ever been litigated, but I do recall it being mentioned after the manhunt for the Boston bombers since police had commandeered some private homes to set up a perimeter (or something like that).

[cwnannwn]

Originally Posted by RickD427

If you wish to continue this discussion, then please cite the Article and Section of the California Constitution where it defines the U.S. Constitution as being the "Supreme law of the land."

Not to kick the beehive here.

"The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land." -ARTICLE III STATE OF CALIFORNIA SEC. 1


https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...r=&article=III

All states to be considered for statehood has to accept that the united states constitution is the supreme law of the land. All of them have some language as above.

[RickD427]

Originally Posted by cwnannwn

Not to kick the beehive here.

"The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land." -ARTICLE III STATE OF CALIFORNIA SEC. 1


https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...r=&article=III

All states to be considered for statehood has to accept that the united states constitution is the supreme law of the land. All of them have some language as above.

Excellent find and a great contribution to this discussion. I have to yield on the point of the exact verbiage not being contained in the California Constitution. My text search capabilities obviously failed me on this one.

However, as was discussed in my above posting, nothing really changes. That does not serve to incorporate all of the U.S. Constitution's objectives into the California Constitution. The U.S. Constitution was written to be respectful of the states rights to exercise powers differently from the federal government. If it did not, it would be impossible for California prosecutors to file felony charges.

[Bhobbs]

None of this is relevant to Duncan.

[cwnannwn]

Originally Posted by RickD427

The U.S. Constitution was written to be respectful of the states rights to exercise powers differently from the federal government. If it did not, it would be impossible for California prosecutors to file felony charges.

I sorry, I am not the brightest bulb in the box, but why would California need anything from federal government to file felonies? State level felonies are described at state level. Different states have different levels and punishments for felonies. For example, some drugs will get you 30 years in prison in one state and a 100 dollar fine in the other.

The constitution of the united states only states that felony that cross states lines, happen on federal property, or involve more then one person from another state needs to happen in federal court. The rest are state felonies.
Now most states have grand jury requirements, but about 20 of them don't need a grand jury to start prosecution. All of them can ask you to wave that right. Federal charges need a grand jury....unless... there are some unusual circumstances. Mostly terrorism and Gitmo stuff.

I am not arguing that the 9th and 10th don't exist. They do, and states have a lot of powers and rights, so do the people. But a state would have no problems with charging with felonies with out anything from the feds.

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

None of this is relevant to Duncan.

Well, it kind of does.

I live in Oregon, which is quickly becoming California. We have a right to firearms under Oregon constitution.

But California does not. Which means when it comes to things like firearms, the state laws and rules HAVE to default to federal government. Because the federal laws are the foundation on the subject and the US supreme court is the last word on it.

Which is the why under Bruen, the standard is historical tradition over all the states. That one can not lose its mind and creates laws that violate the constitution and bully the rest into it ideas.

[RickD427]

Originally Posted by cwnannwn

I sorry, I am not the brightest bulb in the box, but why would California need anything from federal government to file felonies? State level felonies are described at state level. Different states have different levels and punishments for felonies. For example, some drugs will get you 30 years in prison in one state and a 100 dollar fine in the other.

The constitution of the united states only states that felony that cross states lines, happen on federal property, or involve more then one person from another state needs to happen in federal court. The rest are state felonies.
Now most states have grand jury requirements, but about 20 of them don't need a grand jury to start prosecution. All of them can ask you to wave that right. Federal charges need a grand jury....unless... there are some unusual circumstances. Mostly terrorism and Gitmo stuff.

I am not arguing that the 9th and 10th don't exist. They do, and states have a lot of powers and rights, so do the people. But a state would have no problems with charging with felonies with out anything from the feds.

Well, it kind of does.

I live in Oregon, which is quickly becoming California. We have a right to firearms under Oregon constitution.

But California does not. Which means when it comes to things like firearms, the state laws and rules HAVE to default to federal government. Because the federal laws are the foundation on the subject and the US supreme court is the last word on it.

Which is the why under Bruen, the standard is historical tradition over all the states. That one can not lose its mind and creates laws that violate the constitution and bully the rest into it ideas.

No apologies needed. This legal stuff is kinda confusing, which is probably why we rarely see unanimous decisions from the Supreme Court.

We may have gone into the proverbial "Rabbit Hole" with this line of discussion, but it does relate to Duncan, and you've given a good summary as to why.

This "side track" started with a comment that the United States Constitution would "back up" the California Constitution. My response was that they were different documents, and directed toward different purposes, and that while a large part of the U.S. Constitution has been made binding on the states through "selective incorporation", not all of it has been. I gave the example of the federal right to an indictment as one that has not yet been so incorporated. So long as that doesn't change, California prosecutors don't need anything to keep their present ability to file charges via information. But if the day ever comes that the right to an indictment does become incorporated, then California prosecutors would need to use Grand Juries, and the California Constitution would also then be in conflict with the U.S. Constitution because the California Constitution specifically permits filing by information.

However, it is important to note that while the California Constitution provides no express right to bear arms, that right was incorporated to the states by the McDonald decision.

[Bhobbs]

I disagree with the concept of incorporation through the 14th amendment. I've looked into it before and my understanding is the court case Barron v Baltimore stripped all citizens of our constitutional rights. The idea that our rights don't actually apply to us is absurd.

What basis is there for the idea that the states can do whatever they want to us, pre 14th amendment?

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

I disagree with the concept of incorporation through the 14th amendment. I've looked into it before and my understanding is the court case Barron v Baltimore stripped all citizens of our constitutional rights. The idea that our rights don't actually apply to us is absurd.

Nobody is saying or claiming that our rights don't actually apply. The question is not even where such rights come from but what documents, laws or rules protect those rights.

What basis is there for the idea that the states can do whatever they want to us, pre 14th amendment?

Again, no one is making such a claim. The issue is the doctrine of incorporation, that arose because of the ratification of the 14th Amendment. Barron v Baltimore predates the 14th Amendment so how does it support your disagreement with the concept of incorporation? Barron v. Baltimore merely held that the federal constitution was a limit on the powers of the federal government, thus the Bill of Rights was not a limit on the power of the states. As such, it did not take away anything. The 14th Amendment then changed that by precluding the states from abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law or denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. But, by itself, it does not describe just what are the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States. It is through the concept of incorporation, a piecemeal process, that those questions are being answered.

[Bhobbs]

Of course that’s the claim. If the states were limited by our constitutional rights, then the the Bill of Rights wouldn’t have had to be incorporated against the states.

The concept of incorporation implies the idea that pre 14th amendment, our rights only limited the power of the federal government. State governments wouod he free to violate each and every right we had.

[bwiese]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

Of course that’s the claim. If the states were limited by our constitutional rights, then the the Bill of Rights wouldn’t have had to be incorporated against the states.

The concept of incorporation implies the idea that pre 14th amendment, our rights only limited the power of the federal government. State governments wouod he free to violate each and every right we had.

Please remember that back in 'Olden Times' and at/past the Founding,
most people in US actually viewed themselves as a STATE resident, and
being a US citizen was a relatively minor thing. People would say "I'm
a Virginia boy" or "I'm from New York" even when questioned by a
foreigner.

We did transition from a Confederation of states to USA, but the whole
worldview was state level. Travel was slow, distances long, and Wash DC
was mostly for certain key national issues (defense etc). Most everything
else controlling Joe Average's life was at the state/local level.

And yes civil rights were obviously violated regularly before 14th Amend. -
slavery, freedom of speech (sedition acts) etc. Hell, we didn't have
guaranteed jury trials for feloniest til late 1960s (6th Amend, Duncan v. Louisiana)

There are still quite a few unincorporated areas of BoR ....3rd, 7th, 9th,
and 10th amendments. (10th would be hard to, given its interplay with
state law.) Plus the 5th and 6th amendments are only partially incorporated.

As time goes by, it's likely that other unincorporated areas/amends will
get incorporated.

[rplaw]

Originally Posted by RickD427

No apologies needed. This legal stuff is kinda confusing, which is probably why we rarely see unanimous decisions from the Supreme Court.

We may have gone into the proverbial "Rabbit Hole" with this line of discussion, but it does relate to Duncan, and you've given a good summary as to why.

This "side track" started with a comment that the United States Constitution would "back up" the California Constitution. My response was that they were different documents, and directed toward different purposes, and that while a large part of the U.S. Constitution has been made binding on the states through "selective incorporation", not all of it has been. I gave the example of the federal right to an indictment as one that has not yet been so incorporated. So long as that doesn't change, California prosecutors don't need anything to keep their present ability to file charges via information. But if the day ever comes that the right to an indictment does become incorporated, then California prosecutors would need to use Grand Juries, and the California Constitution would also then be in conflict with the U.S. Constitution because the California Constitution specifically permits filing by information.

However, it is important to note that while the California Constitution provides no express right to bear arms, that right was incorporated to the states by the McDonald decision.

Please consider that the rule against surplusage defeats your position here. The State Constitution expressly incorporates the US Constitution. It also lists various State level Rights as well as asserting that we retain other rights not necessarily listed specifically.

The rule against surplusage says that when considering statutory construction; words which appear to restate other words cannot be interpreted to merely have the exact same meaning because the legislature did not intend to say the exact same thing multiple times.

Thus, under this rule, one must consider why the State enumerated specific rights via a list, then it asserts that those aren't the only rights held by the people, then it states that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Those are 3 things which appear on the surface to repeat the same thing. Yet when examined individually and together prove that they aren't saying the same thing at all. There is a great deal of overlap but each of those provisions include Rights that the others do not. Thus, when considering all of the Rights available here in California, one must consider the entirety of the Constitutional scope with the understanding that the language used cannot be said to have merely repeated itself 3 times.

Thus:
1. We have the enumerated Rights listed in the State Constitution.
2. We have some unenumerated Rights which aren't included in the list of enumerated Rights.
3. We have the Rights in the US Constitution.

Put all of those into a list, overlapping where necessary, and see what enumerated Rights you end up with. Betcha that if you're honest about your list, you find that there is indeed a 2A Right here in California. It's just not recognized because of judicial activism and politics. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, only that it's a Right being denied to the people.

[Dorzak]

Originally Posted by BobB35

Also interesting to see even 150 years ago they were setting up a two tier system for Govt agents vs regular people.

The Second Militia Act of 1792 setup a two tier system of sorts. Government agents were exempted from the Militia. I would like to think it was to avoid divided loyalties.

[RickD427]

Originally Posted by rplaw

Please consider that the rule against surplusage defeats your position here. The State Constitution expressly incorporates the US Constitution. It also lists various State level Rights as well as asserting that we retain other rights not necessarily listed specifically.

The rule against surplusage says that when considering statutory construction; words which appear to restate other words cannot be interpreted to merely have the exact same meaning because the legislature did not intend to say the exact same thing multiple times.

Thus, under this rule, one must consider why the State enumerated specific rights via a list, then it asserts that those aren't the only rights held by the people, then it states that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Those are 3 things which appear on the surface to repeat the same thing. Yet when examined individually and together prove that they aren't saying the same thing at all. There is a great deal of overlap but each of those provisions include Rights that the others do not. Thus, when considering all of the Rights available here in California, one must consider the entirety of the Constitutional scope with the understanding that the language used cannot be said to have merely repeated itself 3 times.

Thus:
1. We have the enumerated Rights listed in the State Constitution.
2. We have some unenumerated Rights which aren't included in the list of enumerated Rights.
3. We have the Rights in the US Constitution.

Put all of those into a list, overlapping where necessary, and see what enumerated Rights you end up with. Betcha that if you're honest about your list, you find that there is indeed a 2A Right here in California. It's just not recognized because of judicial activism and politics. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, only that it's a Right being denied to the people.

If what you say above is true, and I don't believe that it is, then please explain how a California prosecutor can file felony charges without having to go to a Grand Jury?

The Supreme Court shot down your previous argument that a "Presentation" (as used in the Fifth Amendment) was the same as an "Information."

Additionally, if the two terms were synonymous, then why does the California Constitution specifically provide for the filing of felony charges by information (refer to Article 1, Section 14)?

[bwiese]

Originally Posted by RickD427

Excellent find and a great contribution to this discussion. I have to yield on the point of the exact verbiage not being contained in the California Constitution. My text search capabilities obviously failed me on this one.

However, as was discussed in my above posting, nothing really changes. That does not serve to incorporate all of the U.S. Constitution's objectives into the California Constitution. The U.S. Constitution was written to be respectful of the states rights to exercise powers differently from the federal government. If it did not, it would be impossible for California prosecutors to file felony charges.

Yup. In addition at the time that was written, the relevant BoR rights were not 'incorporated'.

This begins to ask the question about a form of 'reverse incorporation'!

[rplaw]

Originally Posted by RickD427

If what you say above is true, and I don't believe that it is, then please explain how a California prosecutor can file felony charges without having to go to a Grand Jury?

The Supreme Court shot down your previous argument that a "Presentation" (as used in the Fifth Amendment) was the same as an "Information."

Additionally, if the two terms were synonymous, then why does the California Constitution specifically provide for the filing of felony charges by information (refer to Article 1, Section 14)?

Your last is the obvious answer to your question.

However, my position on this is just my opinion based on a personal review of the applicable laws and statutes combined with some extensive deliberation on what I found. You don't have to agree with it if you don't want to. All I'm pointing out is the inconsistency inherent in your legal argument. Reminder, it's not my opinion which is in conflict, it's yours. You say the 2 aren't equal and yet the law requires that California not do what they're doing. The requirement to balance the inconsistency is yours not mine because my position is that they are equal. Otherwise the SCOTUS would enjoin California from the use of an information for felony charges. It's not like convicted appellees haven't asked for Cert on the issue. Or that SCOTUS couldn't easily incorporate the clause.

I'm sure that you're as aware as I am of instances where judicial opinions differ from one jurisdiction to another and judges/justices ignore what those foreign jurisdiction opinions teach us with impunity because they usually arrive at a different outcome than the one the court desires. That their judicial rules allow them to do this doesn't make it right because it sets up a conflict of laws, one which occasionally exists even within one jurisdiction.

What has happened is that rather than being deliberative men before the law, we've turned into lazy bookworms who parse the law and sacrifice logic in the name of achieving a "win." A "win" in which no one is actually a "winner" and society in general, as well as justice itself, is always the loser.

[wchutt]

Maybe move the legal discussion to its own thread? A little frustrating to have the long load time combined with what seems to be a long discussion that is out in the weeds.
Sorry if I just don't get its importance to Duncan and am too focused on looking for case updates....

[homelessdude]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I agree ^^^^^^^^

[nickster]

Yes!

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by wchutt

Maybe move the legal discussion to its own thread? A little frustrating to have the long load time combined with what seems to be a long discussion that is out in the weeds.
Sorry if I just don't get its importance to Duncan and am too focused on looking for case updates....

I have long wished for the two-thread approach. Turns out it's essentially impossible to keep two such threads synchronized.

Best I have found is to update the first post in the thread, newest info on top. It takes a moderator, frequently me, or the original poster (in this case, also me) to update that post. Since I am by no means a morning person, if the court might issue some document in the morning, I won't know about it for several hours.

In the long view, that few hours is not a problem, given how long the court process is. Short-term, every new positive-for-us snippet or opinion gets posted in six different forums - 'This happened, I didn't see it here, so ...'

If someone might like to be helpful, one could post the updates and links to documents since my Nov changes, and I'll update that first post. I also try to make meaningful changes to the thread title to reflect new 'status' if I can find one that fits and makes sense.

[rplaw]

Originally Posted by wchutt

Maybe move the legal discussion to its own thread? A little frustrating to have the long load time combined with what seems to be a long discussion that is out in the weeds.
Sorry if I just don't get its importance to Duncan and am too focused on looking for case updates....

I will try to refrain from being long winded in the future.


As for importance, not everyone is looking for a simple answer to the question of; "Did we win yet?" The discussions of law and rules enhance the understanding of those who aren't as familiar with the process and why things are done the way they're done.

This makes all of us more aware of what's happening even outside of the gun politics arena.

[/end discussion]

[cleonard]

Originally Posted by rplaw

I will try to refrain from being long winded in the future.


As for importance, not everyone is looking for a simple answer to the question of; "Did we win yet?" The discussions of law and rules enhance the understanding of those who aren't as familiar with the process and why things are done the way they're done.

This makes all of us more aware of what's happening even outside of the gun politics arena.

[/end discussion]

It's not being long winded when talking about the topic of the thread that is the issue. It's when the post is the question or answer to "How can a California file felony charges." That needs a different thread in a different subforum. It has very little to do with the rest of the thread.

Just ask yourself the question "Will my post contribute to the real topic?"

Oh, yes, I'm also guilty as charged with this post.

[wchutt]

Originally Posted by rplaw

I will try to refrain from being long winded in the future.


As for importance, not everyone is looking for a simple answer to the question of; "Did we win yet?" The discussions of law and rules enhance the understanding of those who aren't as familiar with the process and why things are done the way they're done.

This makes all of us more aware of what's happening even outside of the gun politics arena.

[/end discussion]

I enjoy much of the deeper discussions, especially from those that are involved in the litigation. I just think that when a subject comes up which requires a lot more discussion a new thread could be started and linked for those following that discussion to continue, and relieve the original thread from superfluous details to the main topic.

[bigstick61]

Originally Posted by Dorzak

The Second Militia Act of 1792 setup a two tier system of sorts. Government agents were exempted from the Militia. I would like to think it was to avoid divided loyalties.

It was to ensure that certain essential Federal positions were not done away with due to conscription into or mobilization of the militia, whether by the States (as the militia is a State institution that can sometimes be called into Federal service) or by the Feds. Other militia systems have tended to do the same (like the Swiss one).

It must be recalled that when the law was passed, all States still based their militias upon universal male obligation, i.e. all male citizens of fighting age (and sometimes outside of that range) were either conscripted or subject to conscription into the militia. That fact is why exceptions for positions like postmen or legislators needed to exist, otherwise they would be called away when their civil roles were still required to be performed.

South Carolina was the last State to both legally prescribe and fully practice universal male obligation in the militia. This practice was one of a number of things ended as part of readmission into the Union (another was its practice of choosing Electors via legislation, which it was the last State to do as a regular method for choosing Electors at the time that it seceded).

[M-Dog]

Originally Posted by Librarian

I have long wished for the two-thread approach. Turns out it's essentially impossible to keep two such threads synchronized.

Best I have found is to update the first post in the thread, newest info on top. It takes a moderator, frequently me, or the original poster (in this case, also me) to update that post. Since I am by no means a morning person, if the court might issue some document in the morning, I won't know about it for several hours.

In the long view, that few hours is not a problem, given how long the court process is. Short-term, every new positive-for-us snippet or opinion gets posted in six different forums - 'This happened, I didn't see it here, so ...'

If someone might like to be helpful, one could post the updates and links to documents since my Nov changes, and I'll update that first post. I also try to make meaningful changes to the thread title to reflect new 'status' if I can find one that fits and makes sense.

In that case.... should we re-name this "Duncan V Bonta - standard cap magazine case" to get us back on track?

[SteveinHNL]

Would it be appropriate to update the timelines on the first pages of the threads on Duncan, Rhode, Miller and Fouts to show that on 12/12/2022, Judge Benitez set a timeline for submission of analog statutes and briefing: Analog Statutes to be submitted by 1/11/2023; Position Briefs to be filed by 2/10/2023; Reply Briefs to be filed by 2/20/2023, following which the Bruen analysis is deemed submitted and in Judge Benitez's hands?

[WithinReason]

Thanks for the concise timeline!

[Drivedabizness]

So - best guess is some time in March - hopefully

[JiuJitsu]

“MINUTE ORDER issued by the Honorable Roger T. Benitez: The State defendants are directed to file a brief which identifies the best historical regulation that is a proper analogue and relevantly similar to a statewide prohibition on possession of an ammunition device or a limit on an amount of ammunition. The brief shall be limited to five pages and shall be filed with the brief currently due 30 days after the filing of the law list.”

Love it.

[CCWFacts]

Originally Posted by JiuJitsu

Love it.

Me too, that's great. Because I read the entire list, and there's nothing other than a very few state regulations on hunting, machine guns, and ammo capacity. And those hardly matter because hunting has tons of rules. Many states only allow shotguns, or straight wall cartridges, or whatever like that, which have no connection outside of hunting.

[EM2]

Originally Posted by CCWFacts

Me too, that's great. Because I read the entire list, and there's nothing other than a very few state regulations on hunting, machine guns, and ammo capacity. And those hardly matter because hunting has tons of rules. Many states only allow shotguns, or straight wall cartridges, or whatever like that, which have no connection outside of hunting.

More like, those hardly matter because hunting has nothing to do with the right to bear arms.
Hunting regs are about managing a renewable resource, nothing to do with rights.

[Foothills]

Say, that 1792 law exempting government agents from militia service…would that mean that anyone who works for the government would therefore never be part of a “well-regulated militia,” and therefore no government employees have a right to possess firearms? That would be a fun amicus brief to submit.

[homelessdude]

Anyone have an educated guess ( not 2 wks ) as to when we will be able to read the documents that are due today. Thanks

[CGZ]

Originally Posted by homelessdude

Anyone have an educated guess ( not 2 wks ) as to when we will be able to read the documents that are due today. Thanks

I would expect the plaintiffs to release their briefs by 6PM if not earlier. Based off previous release times, don't expect the state's briefs till around midnight, if not later.

[yacko]

Originally Posted by Foothills

Say, that 1792 law exempting government agents from militia service…would that mean that anyone who works for the government would therefore never be part of a “well-regulated militia,” and therefore no government employees have a right to possess firearms? That would be a fun amicus brief to submit.

Clearly, you have never read Heller. Heller specifically reads and defines what the 2A actually means in plain modern language.

They state the 2A is an individual right, and the militia part, was merely an example of why the right was so important.

[homelessdude]

The Miller Docs are posted on that thread. It is some interesting reading and I expect the others to be similar.

[CGZ]

The supplemental briefing has been filed

https://michellawyers.com/wp-content...rical-Laws.pdf

[Foothills]

Originally Posted by yacko

Clearly, you have never read Heller. Heller specifically reads and defines what the 2A actually means in plain modern language.

They state the 2A is an individual right, and the militia part, was merely an example of why the right was so important.

I was just having fun with the idea that the Left contradicts itself-and now they are doing so in court filings. For decades the claim was that only those in the militia aka National Guard should own firearms. By citing this law they undercut their own argument.

Here’s hoping the end of February has some entertaining court filings.

[CGZ]

The sate's briefs are available to read now. In their 5 page brief detailing the most analogous law, they use gunpowder storage laws. This is a bad analogy as there are still gunpowder storage regulations (for both smokeless and black powder) and they are fire code regulations.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...3515.143.0.pdf

[mshill]

Originally Posted by CGZ

The sate's briefs are available to read now. In their 5 page brief detailing the most analogous law, they use gunpowder storage laws. This is a bad analogy as there are still gunpowder storage regulations (for both smokeless and black powder) and they are fire code regulations.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...3515.143.0.pdf

That's hilarious. How many musket shots could be fired with seven pounds of black powder? I would love it if Benitez told them that they could limit magazines to the equivalent of 7 lbs of black powder. Even a conservatively large load for a 50 caliber ball would be in the range of 100 grains, that would be somewhere around 490 rounds for 7 pounds.

I think this is a real bad analogy, but if it is the best they have... bye, Felicia.