Rupp v Becerra (AWCA): 6-28-22 9th Vacates and remands to TC/DC

[7.62mm_fmj]

Yes, it is apparent the disarmament crowd are trying to cut off part 2 of the THT test analysis before it starts, claiming a particular firearm in question must "qualify" as an arm in common use "for defense" at the first step...which is obviously a dishonest tactic by the politicians in black robes.

Example, if there were a lawsuit challenging the NFA by claiming that M-16s should be allowed to be borne by the citizenry, a proper Heller/Bruen analysis would get past the first step because an M-16 is a "bearable arm." After that, it would be the government's task to defend the NFA in part 2 with history and tradition, a fool's errand.

At least that would be the proper flow chart for such a case. I imagine a good argument could actually be made that, were it not for the NFA of 1934, well beyond the founding era, people could have obtained a sufficient number of (the original select-fire) AR-15s and/or M-16s in the 1950s and beyond to establish common use. How that sort of case would ultimately pan out is unknown, and almost certainly, it would not be taken up by SCOTUS at any time in the near future.

[Sgt Raven]

The only hope we have is to lose quickly and get one of these cases in front of SCOTUS. If it goes to the cartridge box, the USA as we know it is over. We don't have people of the caliber of the Founding Fathers left anymore.

[AlmostHeaven]

I think what we're seeing from these liberal judges (including the 1st, 2nd, 7th, and 9th circuits) is an attempt to short circuit the THT analysis mandated by Bruen. In the case of all the AW ban cases, they are attempting to bypass the THT test and pushing the burden of proof onto plaintiffs by saying the firearm (or activity) isn't within the umbrella of 2nd amendment protections in Step 1 of the Bruen test. Just as Judge Staton said that AR pattern rifles are "similar to M16s", which already aren't protected. She skipped over the fact that an AR15 is functionally far more similar to a Mini-14 than it is to a M16 - because that would expose the deceit of her argument. It's not ignorance at work. It's purposeful. Declare an AR15 as not covered by the 2A in Step 1 and you don't need to bother with Step 2 (THT) and the burden of proof is levied against Plaintiffs, not defendants.

This isn't the only deceit. They also try to transform "dangerous AND unusual" to mean "unusually dangerous". They try to change "for lawful purposes" to mean "self defense (only)" and then attempt to prove that an AR15 is inappropriate for self defense or that it is rarely used for self defense (I.e., "unusual" when used solely for that purpose, and thus "dangerous AND unusual"). ALL of these attempts are targeted at ending the legal argument at Step 1 - because they know if they get to Step 2 the burden of proof shifts to defendants AND the job of providing that proof on a THT basis is heavily stacked against them.

And these liberal judges don't even try to hide their strategy to undermine Bruen. It is a bold as it is flawed. They may as well hold up the middle finger to SCOTUS on national TV. Just as Bruen buried "interest balancing" abuses common to these circuit courts post-Heller, the Supreme Court needs to take one of these cases to bury all these attempts by the liberal circuits to find creative and dishonest ways to bypass the THT test in Bruen and shield governments from their burden of proof.

I think you have summarized the legal situation quite well. The entire "military arm" angle poses an unfathomable threat to the right to keep and bear arms in general, and I pray the Supreme Court grants certiorari to a hardware ban case and powerfully shuts down this approach. Practically any firearm more powerful than rimfire bolt-action rifles constitute military arms. I can see the eventual goal as clearly as the sun at noon in Arizona - progressive activist judges intend to erode the Second Amendment down to the level of coverage of United Kingdom gun laws, which allow their citizens to, with may-issue permits, possess shotguns with capacities up to 3 shells, rimfire rifles, and no handguns.

[ir0nclash86]

[SoCal Bob]

Another take on the decision:

[AlmostHeaven]

At this point, I think everyone, left, right, middle, pro-gun, and anti-gun, knows the game being played.

All that remains undetermined is who wins.

[Bhobbs]

At this point, I think everyone, left, right, middle, pro-gun, and anti-gun, knows the game being played.

All that remains undetermined is who wins.

That will become more clear in the next few months. The next 18 months or so will decide the future of the 2A.

[AlmostHeaven]

Time flies. I have been anxiously anticipating the November 2024 elections (Presidential, House of Representatives, and Senate) for years. Now, only 7.5 months remain.

[Sgt Raven]

[Bhobbs]

This disaster of a ruling is already spreading. It was referenced in the oral arguments in Bianchi today.

This is the objective. Make bad rulings and use those rulings to support more bad rulings.

[dawgcasa]

At this point, I think everyone, left, right, middle, pro-gun, and anti-gun, knows the game being played.

All that remains undetermined is who wins.

And we just saw the 9th Circuit use this deceptive strategy of stopping the legal analysis at step 1 in this week's oral arguments in Duncan. Several judges tried to steer the questions to indicate that magazines are 'accessories' and therefore not 'arms'. They conveniently ignored that the State mandates that all new handgun models sold in CA be designed to be functionally inoperable without a magazine inserted. Therefore even the State itself recognizes that magazines are a necessary operational component, not an optional accessory.

[Sgt Raven]

And we just saw the 9th Circuit use this deceptive strategy of stopping the legal analysts at step 1 in this week's oral arguments in Duncan. Several judges tried to steer the questions to indicate that magazines are 'accessories' and therefore not 'arms'. They conveniently ignored that the State mandates that all new Semi-Auto handgun models sold in CA be designed to be functionally inoperable without a magazine inserted. Therefore even the State itself recognizes that magazines are a necessary component, not an optional accessory.

FIFY

[AlmostHeaven]

Duplicate

[AlmostHeaven]

This disaster of a ruling is already spreading. It was referenced in the oral arguments in Bianchi today.

This is the objective. Make bad rulings and use those rulings to support more bad rulings.

I feel nothing but contempt for Democrat appointees, but unfortunately no recourse exists other than collectively voting for Republicans and hoping that the ideological balance of lower courts shifts in a favorable direction.

And we just saw the 9th Circuit use this deceptive strategy of stopping the legal analysis at step 1 in this week's oral arguments in Duncan. Several judges tried to steer the questions to indicate that magazines are 'accessories' and therefore not 'arms'. They conveniently ignored that the State mandates that all new handgun models sold in CA be designed to be functionally inoperable without a magazine inserted. Therefore even the State itself recognizes that magazines are a necessary operational component, not an optional accessory.

I concur with your point, but I would not personally feel too disappointed that the gun rights plaintiffs did not sufficiently hammer the point. The en banc panel never would have accepted the argument anyway.

[splithoof]

Time flies. I have been anxiously anticipating the November 2024 elections (Presidential, House of Representatives, and Senate) for years. Now, only 7.5 months remain.

I will not get too high of hopes for the election. The dildocrats must absolutely not allow Trump into the WH, at whatever cost.