Duncan V Bonta - large cap mags: OLD THREAD

[randomBytes]

I bet $300 doesn't come close to covering costs ;-)

[curtisfong]

Question: if the 9th CA vacates and remands the decision back to Heller

This is nonsensical, unfortunately.

does that eliminate the stay of the original summary judgement that stopped enforcement of the magazine ban and gave us Freedom Week, thus opening us to prosecution?

Not sure how to respond to this.

[Lanejsl]

Based on today's Miller decision by the 9th I think we can pretty much guarantee what will happen to Duncan. Benitez will be busy.

[librarian72]

What are the odds Benitez holds 1 new hearing, hears nothing new and updates the old decision with the mildest of updates in record time?

[curtisfong]

Like in Miller, I suspect Bonta will be maneuvering for a new trial and a new judge.

[Scott Connors]

This is nonsensical, unfortunately.



Not sure how to respond to this.

Sorry, I meant back to Benitez.

[taperxz]

Like in Miller, I suspect Bonta will be maneuvering for a new trial and a new judge.

[ar15barrels]

The whole states argument against the injunction and accelerated trial was that they want to re-litigate under the new rules which we all know are the same as the old rules and that the old decision already fits the new rules perfectly of course.
I realize that does not matter here but i am guessing that Benitez gets to choose what they can re-litigate (if anything) and that nothing they are going to say is going to notably change the final decision.
Now let's see if we keep this to a shorter timeline since there will be so little to re-litigate.

[IVC]

The whole states argument against the injunction and accelerated trial was that they want to re-litigate under the new rules which we all know are the same as the old rules and that the old decision already fits the new rules perfectly of course.

Just a delay tactics, of course, but they are entitled to modify their defense and present different evidence because the legal framework technically changed with the new SCOTUS precedent, even though the original opinion is a dead ringer for the new framework.

It's not that they really have something to show, it's that they are entitled to provide their own historical analysis and any other reasoning for the court to review. At this point, they are just throwing anything they have to see what might stick. The judge will be the one to determine what, how and in what time frame must be completed, then he'll likely just reissue his current opinion, which Bonta will certainly appeal again to the 9th. More delay tactics, but it's just that - tactics, not strategy.

[kuug]

Just a delay tactics, of course, but they are entitled to modify their defense and present different evidence because the legal framework technically changed with the new SCOTUS precedent, even though the original opinion is a dead ringer for the new framework.

It's not that they really have something to show, it's that they are entitled to provide their own historical analysis and any other reasoning for the court to review. At this point, they are just throwing anything they have to see what might stick. The judge will be the one to determine what, how and in what time frame must be completed, then he'll likely just reissue his current opinion, which Bonta will certainly appeal again to the 9th. More delay tactics, but it's just that - tactics, not strategy.

[NorthBay Shooter]

Is there nothing to stop a wash, rinse and repeat? It goes back to the lower court, they rule in our favor, it then goes to the 9th, they uphold in our favor, it goes en banc, they overturn, it goes to the supreme court. Another 5-10 years of this bs while it works its way again.

[taperxz]

Just a delay tactics, of course, but they are entitled to modify their defense and present different evidence because the legal framework technically changed with the new SCOTUS precedent, even though the original opinion is a dead ringer for the new framework.

It's not that they really have something to show, it's that they are entitled to provide their own historical analysis and any other reasoning for the court to review. At this point, they are just throwing anything they have to see what might stick. The judge will be the one to determine what, how and in what time frame must be completed, then he'll likely just reissue his current opinion, which Bonta will certainly appeal again to the 9th. More delay tactics, but it's just that - tactics, not strategy.

[Kokopelli]

Is there nothing to stop a wash, rinse and repeat? It goes back to the lower court, they rule in our favor, it then goes to the 9th, they uphold in our favor, it goes en banc, they overturn, it goes to the supreme court. Another 5-10 years of this bs while it works its way again.

[IVC]

As soon as it hits the judges desk, Duncan is entitled to relief from the law while this is being re litigated. They are likely to have this granted. If there’s anymore interference from the 9th, look for the SCOTUS to grant relief as a shot across the bow of the 9th for shenanigans.

Yup, this is true. The preliminary injunction is what brings relief during Bonta's games and it's essentially a death sentence to the state's games because the delays now work against them.

The whole idea of post-Bruen litigation is that we should start to get preliminary injunctions WHILE the cases are being litigated, so the strategy of the anti-liberty legislatures to drag us through the courts ends up backfiring on them. Fingers crossed.

[IVC]

Doesn't work that way. Bonta says it did change and he wants to present new evidence. The judge has to decide whether it changed and whether to allow new evidence, so one way or another it goes back to the judge to hear both sides before he issues his ruling. I don't claim that Bonta will get a new trial (I highly doubt he'll get much more than an opportunity to submit an updated briefing), only that he will get his word in before we see the updated opinion.