Miller v. Bonta, SDCA - "assault weapons"

[SpudmanWP]

Heller & McDonald did not give the legal teams the tools that Bruen did. The proof is the massive amount of decisions that we are already seeing, including ones from Obama & Biden appointees.

[1911su16b870]

Originally Posted by RoyBatty

Hear Newsom lament Benitez

https://www.kcra.com/article/califor...-guns/42735902

Just shows how disconnected and totally in to the cool-aid he is with anti-self protection 2A and hypocrisy with major CA cities homelessness now at criticality. It’s never been about safety or people.

[Sgt Raven]

Originally Posted by Drivedabizness

I see what you're saying - but it took WAY TOO LONG to get Heller, McDonald, Caetano and now Bruen.

Pre Bruen I bet the pro 2A Justices were counting noses.to see who was on their side. Neither side felt they had 5 sure votes. Plus they were looking for just the right case.

[homelessdude]

And you aren't going to change that on the internet.

[Bhobbs]

Originally Posted by SpudmanWP

Heller & McDonald did not give the legal teams the tools that Bruen did. The proof is the massive amount of decisions that we are already seeing, including ones from Obama & Biden appointees.

Well, if you listen to Mark from four boxes diner, he said that Heller already established the text as informed by history standard and did all the historical analysis. Lower courts just decided to use the two step analysis instead.

[SpudmanWP]

Heller was good, but left the door open that Bruen closed.

Pols will always try to "get around" any ruling they can. They will even directly violate a clear ruling as long as nobody catches it.
A good example of that is the spate of "safe storage" laws that directly violate Heller.

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.

[1911su16b870]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

Well, if you listen to Mark from four boxes diner, he said that Heller already established the text as informed by history standard and did all the historical analysis. Lower courts just decided to use the two step analysis instead.

Mark's opinion on our goober in chief:

[Drivedabizness]

Originally Posted by SpudmanWP

Heller was good, but left the door open that Bruen closed.

Pols will always try to "get around" any ruling they can. They will even directly violate a clear ruling as long as nobody catches it.
A good example of that is the spate of "safe storage" laws that directly violate Heller.

^^^this^^^

Just the other day, Gov. Brillcream was giving an interview and said openly that they are trying to exploit "every loophole we can" to curtail gun rights.

[Blue]

So what happens when the CaAWB goes away? Do SB23 registrations and the like get flushed?

[SpudmanWP]

Since SB23 only covers registration which is allowed, I think it stays.

[Bhobbs]

The real test isn’t Benitez. The real test is the circuit court. Everyone knows Benitez will rule against the state. It’s only matter of time. Will the 9th accept Bruen and the GVR of Duncan as an indication that its behavior is no longer acceptable? That is the real issue.

We’re about two weeks from the end date of his order. I don’t expect him to wait too long to get his opinion out. I’m just waiting to see how the 9th responds.

[SpudmanWP]

According to our hairdo-in-chief, Benitez has already written his order.

As we saw in the original 3-Judge panel, the ruling may be heard by a panel that respects the 2nd Amendment. The hardest time it will have is at the En Banc level.

The Miller issue may be moot if the 4th Circuit does its job right.

[eaglemike]

Originally Posted by SpudmanWP

Since SB23 only covers registration which is allowed, I think it stays.

I'm hoping it doesn't, or at least can be taken down later. It's registering a particular subset of arms, with no truly logical reason. The registration is closed and limits the alteration of the arms also according to DOJ. Makes zero sense, but all of us here know that.

[RickD427]

Originally Posted by SpudmanWP

According to our hairdo-in-chief, Benitez has already written his order.

As we saw in the original 3-Judge panel, the ruling may be heard by a panel that respects the 2nd Amendment. The hardest time it will have is at the En Banc level.

The Miller issue may be moot if the 4th Circuit does its job right.

I would not be too sure that the second version of the decision will ever reach an en banc panel.

There is no right of the parties to an en banc rehearing. Such a hearing is only granted upon a majority vote of the non-recused judges of the circuit.

If those judges were only voting upon their own views of the law, I'd expect such a request to be granted (like it was the first time around). But federal appellate judges understand the rule of law, and if only a few of them apply the guidance of NYSRPA, then there ain't gonna be enough votes for a rehearing.

[SpudmanWP]

Originally Posted by RickD427

I would not be too sure that the second version of the decision will ever reach an en banc panel.

That just means that it get's to SCOTUS sooner

[RickD427]

Originally Posted by SpudmanWP

That just means that it get's to SCOTUS sooner

I would not even be too sure of that. If Bonta fails to prevail at the Ninth, he's gotta consider the political liabilities of failing again at the Supreme Court.

Even if he does request certiorari from the Supreme Court, it's a virtual certainty that he's not gonna get it on the issues currently raised.

Additionally, a request for certiorari isn't gonna stop the Ninth from issuing a mandate on a favorable panel ruling.

[SpudmanWP]

Oh well, at least our brothers & sisters in OR and WA will get a break.

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by RickD427

I would not even be too sure of that. If Bonta fails to prevail at the Ninth, he's gotta consider the political liabilities of failing again at the Supreme Court.

Yes, and NYSRPA v Bruen is the prime example! You have to wonder if Everytown and the Brady Campaign advised against seeking cert.

Even if he does request certiorari from the Supreme Court, it's a virtual certainty that he's not gonna get it on the issues currently raised.

Well, we can hope that SCOTUS would grant cert and then rule that so called AWs are protected the by 2A, taking down the AW bans in every state that has them along with any that Congress and Go Brandon may be pursuing.

Additionally, a request for certiorari isn't gonna stop the Ninth from issuing a mandate on a favorable panel ruling.

Yes, and such a ruling should take down Oregon's and Washington's anti 2A laws. For those 2A supporters in Oregon and Washington, Bonta may turn out to be a tremendous gift.

[dawgcasa]

Originally Posted by SpudmanWP

According to our hairdo-in-chief, Benitez has already written his order.

As we saw in the original 3-Judge panel, the ruling may be heard by a panel that respects the 2nd Amendment. The hardest time it will have is at the En Banc level.

The Miller issue may be moot if the 4th Circuit does its job right.

The question is when Benitez’ decision(s) go back up to the 9th circuit, will the 9th try to find some creative way of resurrecting Breyer’s interest balancing dissent to allow the state’s general interest in “public safety” to yet prevail again? Given how hard the 9th worked in YOUNG to distort history and dredge up historical restrictions from the UK in the 1600s, I wouldn’t put any drug-induced fabrication past that far left liberal think tank call the 9th circuit.

[Bhobbs]

Originally Posted by RickD427

I would not be too sure that the second version of the decision will ever reach an en banc panel.

There is no right of the parties to an en banc rehearing. Such a hearing is only granted upon a majority vote of the non-recused judges of the circuit.

If those judges were only voting upon their own views of the law, I'd expect such a request to be granted (like it was the first time around). But federal appellate judges understand the rule of law, and if only a few of them apply the guidance of NYSRPA, then there ain't gonna be enough votes for a rehearing.

Hasn’t every gun case in the 9th gone en banc? I can’t think of any that didn’t go en banc.

[BaronW]

I think the next couple Benitez rulings will be important tests of whether or not Bruen was written in bold enough crayon for them to treat the RKBA as a first class right or the 9th circuit is straight-up going renegade.

Their previous en banc rulings had the slightest veneer of legitimacy as they took their inch of wiggle room and ran with it. Now they have no latitude. The test to use has been dictated. Attempting to keep the AWB in place would require them to blatantly, flagrantly defy SCOTUS.

On the other hand, I think most of us thought the jig was up with Heller/McDonald, so I'm not going to pre-buy a featureless version of my post-AWB wish list just yet.

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

Hasn’t every gun case in the 9th gone en banc? I can’t think of any that didn’t go en banc.

Only when they get an anti-gun decision in the three judge panel.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

Only when they get an anti-gun decision in the three judge panel.

You mean Pro gun?

[Inoxmark]

Originally Posted by taperxz

You mean Pro gun?

I believe the post above meant when they get an anti-gun decision from the three judge panel, the case did not then go in front of en bank. You may have read that post wrong.

[Sputnik]

Yes, every single win for the 2A at the three judge circuit level resulted in the case being taken up en banc and reversed. The 9CA overall has done everything possible to shut down the rkba.
The question I have is can they read the writing on the wall and will they abide by the NYSRPA standard? Or will they find a way to weasel once more?

[SpudmanWP]

I am divided.

I want the 9th to respect 2A rights but I know that if they don't, SCOTUS will likely grant cert which would benefit the whole nation.

[DentonandSasquatchShow]

Originally Posted by SpudmanWP

Since SB23 only covers registration which is allowed, I think it stays.

This is why you NEVER register.

[ar15barrels]

Originally Posted by DentonandSasquatchShow

This is why you NEVER register.

Got it.
So you only buy firearms illegally in CA because it's not possible to obtain firearms in CA without registering them for almost 10 years now.

[Metal God]

He likely meant never voluntarily register. You know , the type of registration that requires photos that has all that digital meta data included with in the photo . One option is to go featureless so not to be required to register “again” . Another option is to disassemble so not to be required to register “again” . Some may not like those options but they are options none the less .

Then there must be some people that saw all this coming because they remember 92/93 and when the AW ban expired may have bought a stripped lower before 2014 .

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by Metal God

He likely meant never voluntarily register. You know , the type of registration that requires photos that has all that digital meta data included with in the photo .

You know you can scrub that, right?

Select an image file.
Use your mouse to right click and select “Properties” from the menu.
Select “Details.”
Select the option to create a copy of the file with all possible properties removed.
Select “OK”.

Originally Posted by Metal God

Then there must be some people that saw all this coming because they remember 92/93 and when the AW ban expired may have bought a stripped lower before 2014.

I heard somewhere that some folks might have purchased more than one.

[bigstick61]

Originally Posted by ar15barrels

Got it.
So you only buy firearms illegally in CA because it's not possible to obtain firearms in CA without registering them for almost 10 years now.

You might be surprised by how many otherwise law-abiding people in CA do exactly that. There are lots of gun owners in CA who are not like the typical Calgunner.

[bwiese]

Originally Posted by bigstick61

You might be surprised by how many otherwise law-abiding people in CA do exactly that. There are lots of gun owners in CA who are not like the typical Calgunner.

Yeah, and these are the ones that get into 'interesting' traffic stops and
want free lawyering.

[Joe Manco]

Hi guys,

I am new and this is my first post. The Supremes have said guns in common use cannot be banned. What is all this BS about referring it back to the original judge, then back to the 9th, and then back?. All they are doing is stalling and everyone knows it.

Why can't the 2nd Amendment Society or the NRA file a Writ of Mandamus or something similar with the Supreme Court and compel all courts in California to abide by their decision, making invalid all "evil" equipment designations?

A bit off topic, but why can't the same be done for standard capacity magazines?

[jcwatchdog]

Originally Posted by Joe Manco

Hi guys,

I am new and this is my first post. The Supremes have said guns in common use cannot be banned. What is all this BS about referring it back to the original judge, then back to the 9th, and then back?. All they are doing is stalling and everyone knows it.

Why can't the 2nd Amendment Society or the NRA file a Writ of Mandamus or something similar with the Supreme Court and compel all courts in California to abide by their decision, making invalid all "evil" equipment designations?

A bit off topic, but why can't the same be done for standard capacity magazines?

The situation would have to be pretty dire for that to be used by the Supreme Court. As long as the cases are moving through the courts, they won’t won’t use a writ of mandamus.

[Mongo68]

So can the 9th just "take it under advisement" and sit on any ruling forever and a day?

[golfish]

Originally Posted by Joe Manco

Hi guys,

I am new and this is my first post. The Supremes have said guns in common use cannot be banned. What is all this BS about referring it back to the original judge, then back to the 9th, and then back?. All they are doing is stalling and everyone knows it.

Why can't the 2nd Amendment Society or the NRA file a Writ of Mandamus or something similar with the Supreme Court and compel all courts in California to abide by their decision, making invalid all "evil" equipment designations?

A bit off topic, but why can't the same be done for standard capacity magazines?

Welcome to CALGUNS Joe...

Your off to a very good start.

[SpudmanWP]

Originally Posted by Joe Manco

I am new and this is my first post.

Bruen laid the foundation for all 2A cases going forward. There were too many and too nuanced gun cases in the pipeline so the only logical choice was to tell any other 2A cases waiting for SCOTUS review to "go back and review".

The process to do this is called a GVR (Grant cert, Vacate lower court ruling, and Remand back to the lower court to review). SCOTUS did apply a GVR to 4 cases, 2 carry cases, 1 AWB case out of the 4th circuit, and one mag case from CA (Duncan). The Miller case that this thread covers was not included in that GVR order.

The Miller case was being held at the 9th circuit pending the outcome of Bruen, but that was at the discretion of the 9th. The 9th had several cases on their plate and decided to Remand them back to the original courts for new discovery in relation to the new directions from Bruen.

That is how they all ended up back with Benitez, which is not a bad thing. MAny judges would have allowed them to bring in expert testimony & other BS to muddy the historical waters. Not so with Benitez as we now have a very clear spreadsheet of laws that CA is trying to use (Miller Plaintiff's notes not added yet).

https://airtable.com/shrVnkmENgDHNAR...GR?blocks=hide

Your original thought of "common guns can't be banned" still has to let the government "try" to show a historical traditional law for the bases of the restriction.

[RickD427]

Originally Posted by Joe Manco

Hi guys,

I am new and this is my first post. The Supremes have said guns in common use cannot be banned. What is all this BS about referring it back to the original judge, then back to the 9th, and then back?. All they are doing is stalling and everyone knows it.

Why can't the 2nd Amendment Society or the NRA file a Writ of Mandamus or something similar with the Supreme Court and compel all courts in California to abide by their decision, making invalid all "evil" equipment designations?

A bit off topic, but why can't the same be done for standard capacity magazines?

Because there is no Constitutional, Statutory, or Case Law basis for the Supreme Court to do so.

[WithinReason]

Welcome, Joe Manco! I find that reading these threads has increased my understanding of constitutional issues and historical perspective. We all share a common bond of supporting 2A rights, both in California and in our nation. Keep reading and keep asking questions. There are highly intelligent people who post in these forums. I learn something new every day.

[marcusrn]

Welcome JoeY! You got everyones attention, well played!

It's like the guy who went to prison and herd inmates yelling out numbers and other prisoners started cracking up. He asked his cellie, "what's the dang deal"
The cellmate prisonsplains that because they've all been there so long that they have numbered all the good jokes so they just memorize the best numbers and share jokes in that manner. So the new guy memorizes 50 of the best jokes over a couple weeks. He is excited about his debut Friday evening joke telling and hollars out 3-4 of the funniest numbers and gets little or no response. He asks his cellie "what am I doing wrong". The cellie tells him "some guys just can't tell a joke". You Mr Manco have the gift of commentary and I'd wager could tell a great joke. I wish you many years of frivolity and fun on this site!