Duncan V Bonta - large cap mags: OLD THREAD

[ritter]

Seeing that statement pop up again and again makes me wonder how anti-2A judges research their decisions. I know in the past there were volumes upon volumes of actual case law books that had to be gone through and read by judicial assistants. But now I'm sure it's all electronic and searchable.

Perhaps these ridiculous and objectively wrong statements proliferate due to laziness. It seems like they just query "second amendment", "Bruen", "in favor of defendants", then scroll through the decisions and crib out whatever BS they find in there. No need to study Heller, Caetano, Bruen, etc. and try to apply it faithfully.

I think it's plain old dishonesty. They excerpt a portion of a sentence that is explicitly contrary to the spirit of the ruling and run with it. I mean, it's in quotes, right? It's then up to the judge/justice to either call them on it (by taking the time to read the context of said quote) or use it for cover and swallow it as "truth."

[Bhobbs]

Seeing that statement pop up again and again makes me wonder how anti-2A judges research their decisions. I know in the past there were volumes upon volumes of actual case law books that had to be gone through and read by judicial assistants. But now I'm sure it's all electronic and searchable.

Perhaps these ridiculous and objectively wrong statements proliferate due to laziness. It seems like they just query "second amendment", "Bruen", "in favor of defendants", then scroll through the decisions and crib out whatever BS they find in there. No need to study Heller, Caetano, Bruen, etc. and try to apply it faithfully.

It?s not laziness. They aren?t lazy or dumb. They are anti gun. By modifying the wording, they can narrow the standard and get more wiggle room. They also know that it will take years for their games to be challenged, and by that time, multiple more opinions will use that modified language. Each opinion referencing the others to make the modified standard stick and seem more legitimate.

[ritter]

It?s not laziness. They aren?t lazy or dumb. They are anti gun. By modifying the wording, they can narrow the standard and get more wiggle room. They also know that it will take years for their games to be challenged, and by that time, multiple more opinions will use that modified language. Each opinion referencing the others to make the modified standard stick and seem more legitimate.

Exactly this. Get an appeals court to swallow the misquote and you have precedent to cite. Get several and you have jurisprudence. Courts and defendants are still quoting "two-step" interest balancing 2A opinions in defense even though they were based entirely on a now unusable legal standard of defense.

This BS of using slave code and Jim Crow laws as support for control of arms is insane. To follow that logic, we will have created precedent to use same to erode all sorts of hard earned civil rights. No rights are secure whatsoever under that framework. You might be a danger in wanting to vote, own property, speak freely, go to the wrong church? No rights for you because we just used those very laws to gut the 2A and now have the precedent to apply elsewhere.

[cline]

It?s not laziness. They aren?t lazy or dumb. They are anti gun. By modifying the wording, they can narrow the standard and get more wiggle room. They also know that it will take years for their games to be challenged, and by that time, multiple more opinions will use that modified language. Each opinion referencing the others to make the modified standard stick and seem more legitimate.

so they are dumb. what do they think is achievable with total worldwide ban of guns, that people will go back to using melee weapons? that technological progress will just be ignored and everyone will just promise to avoid using anything deadlier than a club?

[ritter]

so they are dumb. what do they think is achievable with total worldwide ban of guns, that people will go back to using melee weapons? that technological progress will just be ignored and everyone will just promise to avoid using anything deadlier than a club?

Every one except the military, the police and, most importantly, their security.

[BobB35]

For your reading pleasure or displeasure

A trump appointed judge just ruled that Mag bans are constitutional

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23877421-immergutrulingoffmeasure114case

Pay attention to the Finding of Fact...which are not facts at all

A lot of it is the judge opinionating on the credibility of the witnesses and then stuff like this:



39 – FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Tr. 6/7/2023 647:2–3. An eighteenth-century pistol was reloaded like a musket, except that the pistol’s size allowed the user to load slightly faster, such that it could be fired three to four times per minute. Tr. 6/7/2023 647:11–20. Given these technological limits on firearms, interpersonal gun violence was not widespread in society prior to the middle of the nineteenth century. Tr. 6/7/2023 587:23–588:4. Between 1776 and 1860, only ten to fifteen percent of homicides between family members involved a firearm. Tr. 6/7/2023 587:7–9. Because most firearms were muzzleloading powder firearms, they were difficult to keep loaded and at the ready for self-defense or spontaneous violence due to the powder’s corrosive properties. Tr. 6/7/2023 588:5–10. Accordingly, based on the credible evidence presented at trial, this Court finds as follows: Repeating firearms were not commonly owned by civilians at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification in 1791. Repeating firearms that could fire more than ten rounds without reloading did not exist in America prior to 1791. Interpersonal gun violence was not a general societal concern in 1791. 2. Firearms and Weapons Regulations Because Bruen instructs courts to consider how and why historical weapons regulations burdened the right to self-defense, this Court received evidence at trial regarding historical weapons regulations and the justifications underlying those regulations. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2133. Before 1791, firearms could not fire without gunpowder. Tr. 6/5/2023 227:9–22. Gunpowder in the eighteenth century was unstable and could lead to explosions and fires if Case 2:22-cv-01815-IM Document

I will let you opine on the accuracy of these statements the court says are facts.

She bases a lot her opinion on the fact that in defensive shooting there is rarely more than 10 rounds fired...oh goody.

This is why Benetiz taking so long is painful.

This will go to the 9th before Duncan

[Squatch]

This has NOTHING to do with "interpersonal shootings"! Let me check my second amendment really quick. Yes here it is: [The Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed....unless of course there's lots of interpersonal shootings in the future.]

So by this dinks rationale we didn't have computers in 1791 so you have no free speech on line today.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[ritter]

And there's that "in common use for self defense" that is relied on to take 2A protection of magazines off the table. Yes, the courts are saying we need to actually shoot people in self defense, commonly, for the arm to be protected. What a warped reading. That would render all arms unprotected. There are obviously far less than 200,000 (stun gun bar) self defense shooting every year. I guess the court wants citizens to bump those numbers... Pathetic.

[Bhobbs]

So now Duncan will be buried under the case from Oregon. What Benitez does is even less relevant.

[SpudmanWP]

Duncan is a GVR from SCOTUS and already has their attention.
Given that his ruling will actually be a correct one based on a proper reading of Bruen & Heller, it has a MUCH better chance of getting a Cert from SCOTUS or more likely a per curium decision.

One extra bonus is that he can add language:
1. Destroying her BS arguments like "in common use for self-defense"
2. Showing her the proper way to apply the THT test.
3. Reiterating that the regulation comes AFTER the "plain text" test.
4. Regulating and Banning are two separate tests types with their own rules.

[homelessdude]

That " for self defense " crap is really getting old. How many times is that lie going to be used. The quote is " for lawful purposes ".

[Bhobbs]

Duncan is a GVR from SCOTUS and already has their attention.
Given that his ruling will actually be a correct one based on a proper reading of Bruen & Heller, it has a MUCH better chance of getting a Cert from SCOTUS or more likely a per curium decision.

One extra bonus is that he can add language:
1. Destroying her BS arguments like "in common use for self-defense"
2. Showing her the proper way to apply the THT test.
3. Reiterating that the regulation comes AFTER the "plain text" test.
4. Regulating and Banning are two separate tests types with their own rules.

I?m not talking about SCOTUS. I?m talking about the 9th. What?s to stop them from staying Duncan pending this Oregon lawsuit? We could still be months away from Duncan and the Oregon case will be at the 9th by then.

[SpudmanWP]

They are more likely to combine them.
In either case, given Duncan's GVR status, SCOTUS will pay more attention to it.

[Sgt Raven]

For your reading pleasure or displeasure

A trump appointed judge just ruled that Mag bans are constitutional

You have to understand the general traditon in the US Senate for appointing Federal Judges. Oregon's two Democratic Senators had a big say or veto, in that Judge being confirmed...

[AlmostHeaven]

so they are dumb. what do they think is achievable with total worldwide ban of guns, that people will go back to using melee weapons? that technological progress will just be ignored and everyone will just promise to avoid using anything deadlier than a club?

The ultimate goal of civilian disarmament is not to solve crime. Banning guns facilitates the objective of returning the people to serfdom and feudalism, with all resources gated to powerful elites under the justification of environmental justice.

You will own nothing and be happy. You will exclusively transact using digital currencies monitored by the government. You will live in mega-towers located in 15-minute cities. You will ride public transportation which runs when and if the state wishes. You will give up your wealth and career to the oppressed minorities. Eventually, you will even eat the bugs.