Teter et al v. Connors et al Hawaii Butterfly knife federal lawsuit filed

[abinsinia]

Filed (ECF) Appellees Anne E. Lopez and Darryl Ng citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 11/07/2023. [12820673] [20-15948] (Katyal, Neal) [Entered: 11/07/2023 07:13 AM]

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca9.322259/gov.uscourts.ca9.322259.149.1.pdf

They're using the 7th Circuit case to bolster their chances.

[AlmostHeaven]

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...2259.149.1.pdf

They're using the 7th Circuit case to bolster their chances.

Why would a Seventh Circuit decision on a motion for preliminary injunction have any bearing on this case in the Ninth Circuit?

[abinsinia]

Why would a Seventh Circuit decision on a motion for preliminary injunction have any bearing on this case in the Ninth Circuit?

The document details why they think it's related. I think it had to do with the methodology they used, i.e. interest balancing.

[AlmostHeaven]

F**king interest balancing just will not die.

[Sgt Raven]

F**king interest balancing just will not die.

SCOTUS needs to drive a stake thru its heart.

[SpudmanWP]

There are several things that affect multiple cases that need to be laid to rest without any chance of ambiguity and will save decades of litigation.

1. The Textual analysis in the Bruen THT test is only to look at the conduct involved. No analysis of the object component of the conduct is to be part of this step. For example, the state cannot claim that only arms in common use can pass the 1st part.

2. Any accessory, component, or attachment that changes the function of an arm in any way counts as an arm for the purposes of the THT test.

3. A better definition of "in common use" would be nice. Whether it's a fixed number or a percentage of viable population would be acceptable.

4. A better definition of the applicable timeframe and how weights are given to an analog is needed. Clarify what makes a "tradition" in the eyes of the THT test. Obviously, a city ordinance carries less weight than a State law.

5. The "In Common Use" defense is for "Legal Purposes" and is not restricted to "self-defense". What an arm looks like, is similar to, or how it may be misused does not matter.

6. Historical restrictions on the carriage of arms cannot be used as an analog for banning an arm now.

[AlmostHeaven]

Dozens of lawsuits challenging assault weapons bans and high-capacity magazine bans are endlessly stuck in lower courts, upheld using interest-balancing, and practically begging for Supreme Court intervention, yet help never arrives.

[TruOil]

It's BS.

30 days is more than enough time to research and get an expert to opine. If it wasn't then most trials couldn't be finished in the required timeframes.


Further, Bruen didn't "invent a new standard" by which to review 2A cases. Bruen explicitly said that the court wasn't doing that and that they were reiterating the standard from Heller. So, not only does this amicus brief exaggerate the claim that the briefing timeframes are too short, it also intentionally misstates Bruen.

And ignores that the Court of Appeals is NOT the place to submit new evidence (as opposed to case law, statutes, etc.), as appeals are limited to the record before the trial court.

[Bhobbs]

Dozens of lawsuits challenging assault weapons bans and high-capacity magazine bans are endlessly stuck in lower courts, upheld using interest-balancing, and practically begging for Supreme Court intervention, yet help never arrives.

SCOTUS is going to have to get over its dislike of interlocutory appeals, especially when it comes to issues they have already ruled on. Assault weapons and LCMs are not new topics. Lower courts are still rebelling, ignoring Heller and Bruen, denying injunctions and demanding all sorts of new information at the circuit level, instead of reviewing the district court ruling.

[curtisfong]

SCOTUS is going to have to get over its dislike of interlocutory appeals, especially when it comes to issues they have already ruled on. Assault weapons and LCMs are not new topics. Lower courts are still rebelling, ignoring Heller and Bruen, denying injunctions and demanding all sorts of new information at the circuit level, instead of reviewing the district court ruling.

This assumes that SCOTUS cares. It could just be they're satisfied with making judgements and then not enforcing them, for whatever political reason.

"We said x,y,z feel free to do whatever you want with it, including ignoring it entirely, we're done".

[AlmostHeaven]

SCOTUS is going to have to get over its dislike of interlocutory appeals, especially when it comes to issues they have already ruled on. Assault weapons and LCMs are not new topics. Lower courts are still rebelling, ignoring Heller and Bruen, denying injunctions and demanding all sorts of new information at the circuit level, instead of reviewing the district court ruling.

The Supreme Court needs more members like Justice Thomas, but alas, until the next Republican presidential victory, the current composition is the best that the Second Amendment community gets.

[abinsinia]

Looks like California Hawaii has 6 months from the day of En Banc request. I think the request was Sept. 20th , so we should expect a response March 20th or so , and the 9th circuit doesn't abide by it's own rules, so maybe after that.

[AlmostHeaven]

Looks like California has 6 months from the day of En Banc request. I think the request was Sept. 20th , so we should expect a response March 20th or so , and the 9th circuit doesn't abide by it's own rules, so maybe after that.

The State of California will take 6 months to regurgitate the exact same mountain of interest-balancing trash, racist historical analogues, and fraudulent misquotes of Supreme Court precedents, that has plagued every other Second Amendment challenge.

[Bhobbs]

The 9th circuit just vacated the 3 judge panel ruling and is taking the case en banc.

[ritter]

The 9th circuit just vacated the 3 judge panel ruling and is taking the case en banc.

Dear lord...