Miller v. Bonta, SDCA - "assault weapons"

[morrcarr67]

Originally Posted by JWHuey

Another Friday arrives.

Another, ?

Originally Posted by 3rd_gear

Day's not over yet.

And, if you look at his past. He likes to release his rulings in the late afternoon.

[pythonfan]

March 31st. Heard it at a poker game.

[SpudmanWP]

Maybe he heard about his nickname and will do it on Sunday Morning.

[DrewN]

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.

It's obvious it's going to be heavily scrutinized, better to err on the side of caution.

[Foothills]

I suspect that every cool paragraph he comes up with he needs to copy to the other three cases.

[CurlyDave]

Originally Posted by Foothills

I suspect that every cool paragraph he comes up with he needs to copy to the other three cases.

Modern computers make that part easy. I wonder what happens if he gets Chat GPT to write the decision?

I would be willing to contribute to developing an Artificial Intelligence to research and write favorable 2A papers and decisions.

[tast101]

My Guess is, he’s getting all 3 decisions done to drop them at the same time. Strike 1, Strike 2, Strike 3 Bonta your outttttt!!!

[NorCalBusa]

Originally Posted by pythonfan

March 31st. Heard it at a poker game.

Side bet? How much is riding on it?

[Ned Ryerson]

Originally Posted by tast101

My Guess is, he?s getting all 3 decisions done to drop them at the same time. Strike 1, Strike 2, Strike 3 Bonta your outttttt!!!

I think you’re right. It’s going to be a serious pummeling!

[Dirk Tungsten]

Originally Posted by pythonfan

March 31st. Heard it at a poker game.

More likely the 30th, as the 31st is a state holiday (Cesar Chavez day)

[michigander]

Originally Posted by Dirk Tungsten

More likely the 30th, as the 31st is a state holiday (Cesar Chavez day)

Sounds like a great day to release the ruling since this is a federal case.

[homelessdude]

Another 17 minutes?

[CGZ]

There's no way to know what time (or date) Judge Benitez will release his decision. One would think it would be during business hours, but we've also seen the state submit it's briefs close to, or even after midnight of the deadline date. Unfortunately court listener doesn't list the time something was filed, only the date (AFAIK). Though IIRC, the original judgement for Duncan was released in the afternoon. Either way it's been over a month now since the parties filed their briefs, so I would expect something any day now.

[gobler]

Is it certain that Benitez will issue his opinion in March?

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

[ASD1]

Originally Posted by gobler

Is it certain that Benitez will issue his opinion in March?

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

NO!

He will do it when he thinks he has covered every angle and every scenario the state might try to work around it.

So it may take some time to get it prefect. An we want it to be because it's better he do it now rather than have to fight it later / again

[ASD1]

Originally Posted by CGZ

There's no way to know what time (or date) Judge Benitez will release his decision. One would think it would be during business hours, but we've also seen the state submit it's briefs close to, or even after midnight of the deadline date. Unfortunately court listener doesn't list the time something was filed, only the date (AFAIK). Though IIRC, the original judgement for Duncan was released in the afternoon. Either way it's been over a month now since the parties filed their briefs, so I would expect something any day now.

NO!

He will do it when he thinks he has covered every angle and every scenario the state might try to work around it.

So it may take some time to get it prefect. An we want it to be because it's better he do it now rather than have to fight it later / again

[pythonfan]

Originally Posted by ASD1

NO!

He will do it when he thinks he has covered every angle and every scenario the state might try to work around it.

So it may take some time to get it prefect. An we want it to be because it's better he do it now rather than have to fight it later / again

Agreed we don't want him publishing something that's prefect.

[pythonfan]

Originally Posted by NorCalBusa

Side bet? How much is riding on it?

I'm not a gambling man. I was just watching the poker game.

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by ASD1

NO!

He will do it when he thinks he has covered every angle and every scenario the state might try to work around it.

So it may take some time to get it prefect. An we want it to be because it's better he do it now rather than have to fight it later / again

He could do that, but that won't stop the Ninth from concluding, "Nah, we disagree." I mean really, all you have to look at is its ridiculous opinion in Young v. Ohio that concluded that notwithstanding the clear language of the Second Amendment, there was no right to bear arms off of one's own property. Speaking an an attorney, the decision was a travesty of logic, misapplied and misquoted applicable ancient laws, ignored the historical discussion in Heller, and ran roughshod over the rights of Americans. Despite the warnings of Bruen, I wold not put it past them to do it again when his decision reaches them, as the Second appears poised to do on its review of the preliminary injunctions in the NY CCW restrictions cases.

[LW6PPC]

Originally Posted by TruOil

He could do that, but that won't stop the Ninth from concluding, "Nah, we disagree." I mean really, all you have to look at is its ridiculous opinion in Young v. Ohio that concluded that notwithstanding the clear language of the Second Amendment, there was no right to bear arms off of one's own property. Speaking an an attorney, the decision was a travesty of logic, misapplied and misquoted applicable ancient laws, ignored the historical discussion in Heller, and ran roughshod over the rights of Americans. Despite the warnings of Bruen, I wold not put it past them to do it again when his decision reaches them, as the Second appears poised to do on its review of the preliminary injunctions in the NY CCW restrictions cases.

I don't think that he is writing it for the 9th, I think he is writing it for SCOTUS.

[BlessedHunter]

Originally Posted by TruOil

He could do that, but that won't stop the Ninth from concluding, "Nah, we disagree." I mean really, all you have to look at is its ridiculous opinion in Young v. Ohio that concluded that notwithstanding the clear language of the Second Amendment, there was no right to bear arms off of one's own property. Speaking an an attorney, the decision was a travesty of logic, misapplied and misquoted applicable ancient laws, ignored the historical discussion in Heller, and ran roughshod over the rights of Americans. Despite the warnings of Bruen, I wold not put it past them to do it again when his decision reaches them, as the Second appears poised to do on its review of the preliminary injunctions in the NY CCW restrictions cases.

Could you link the Young v. Ohio case? Google didn't do me any favors.

[WithinReason]

Originally Posted by LW6PPC

I don't think that he is writing it for the 9th, I think he is writing it for SCOTUS.

Agreed.

[chris]

Originally Posted by tast101

My Guess is, he?s getting all 3 decisions done to drop them at the same time. Strike 1, Strike 2, Strike 3 Bonta your outttttt!!!

Originally Posted by Ned Ryerson

I think you?re right. It?s going to be a serious pummeling!

That would be nice and make the crying even more fun to laugh at.

[ericw111]

Originally Posted by BlessedHunter

Could you link the Young v. Ohio case? Google didn't do me any favors.

Young v Hawaii

Sent from my Pixel 5a using Tapatalk

[cz74]

During the oral arguments for Duncan, watching the live stream of the 9th circus animals body language is very revealing. That female judge was shaking her head even before plaintiff started presenting. The liberal circus animals will not change their mind regardless what Thomas and Alito told them otherwise.

[Irvine]

Saint Benitez.
Maybe Good Friday, April 7th?

[champu]

Wednesday the 29th would be the four year anniversary of the original Duncan decision.