Miller v. Bonta 9th Ckt "assault weapons": Held for Duncan result 1-26-24

[FirearmFino]

Miller v. Bonta
Southern District of California
Judge: Roger Benitez
3:19-cv-01537

Second Amendment Lawsuit Challenging California ?Assault Weapon? Ban Filed in San Diego Federal Court

SAN DIEGO (AUGUST 15, 2019) ? Attorneys for three San Diego residents and one San Diego-based advocacy organization filed a federal lawsuit challenging California?s ban on so-called ?assault weapons?. A copy of the complaint can be viewed or downloaded at www.firearmspolicy.org/legal.

?This District Court already ruled the state?s prohibition on the possession of large-capacity magazines is unconstitutional, and enjoined and prohibited enforcement of those provisions of the Code that would have prohibited their possession,? the plaintiffs say in their complaint. ?Both implicit and explicit in this District Court?s ruling was the ability to use such magazines if otherwise lawfully possessed? in legally-possessed firearms. ?Thus,? it goes on, ?the prohibitions that attach to the possession and use of a certain legislatively-invented class of otherwise commonly used, constitutionally protected? firearms ?are likewise invalid and should be stricken.?

?This is a straight-forward case to protect our clients' constitutional rights and property,? explained attorney John Dillon. ?The State of California?s ban on these firearms will fail constitutional scrutiny for the same reasons that its ban on firearm magazines did.?

?The government cannot ban the constitutionally-protected firearms at issue in this case,? said attorney George M. Lee. ?We look forward to proving that the State?s statutes, policies, and practices at issue in this case are both unconstitutional and irrational.?

The case is supported by Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and the California Gun Rights Foundation (CGF).

District Court 2019:

8/15/19: Complaint

9/27/19: Amended Complaint

6/4/21: Decision

6/4/21: Judgment

6/10/21: Notice of appeal

Circuit Court 2021:

6/10/21: Motion to stay judgment pending appeal

6/11/21: Preliminary Opposition to Motion to Stay

6/15/21: Opposition to Motion to Stay

6/15/21: Brief of Arizona and 21 Other States in Support of Opposition to Emergency Motion Stay Judgment Pending Appeal

6/16/21: Reply in Support of Emergency Motion to Stay Judgment Pending Appeal

6/21/21: Order Granting Motion to Stay Judgment Pending Appeal

6/30/22: Motion to Lift Stay

7/11/22: Opposition to Motion to Lift Stay and Motion to Vacate and Remand for Further Proceedings

7/18/22: Plaintiffs-Appellees? Reply to Defendants-Appellants? Opposition to Lift Stay

7/21/22: Appellees? Opposition to Appellants? Motion to Vacate and Remand for Further Proceedings

7/28/22: Defendants-Appellants? Reply to Plaintiffs-appellees? Opposition to Motion to Vacate and Remand for Further Proceedings

8/1/22: Order Vacating Opinion and Remanding Case

District Court 2022:

8/29/22: Defendants? Brief in Response to the Court?s Order of August 8, 2022

8/29/22: Plaintiffs? Brief Re New York State Rifle & Pistol ***?n v. Bruen

10/13/22: Plaintiffs? Additional Brief Re New York State Rifle & Pistol ***?n v. Bruen

10/13/22: Defendants? Supplemental Brief in Response to the Court?s Order of August 29, 2022

10/28/22: Plaintiffs? Response to Defendants? Supplemental Brief Re New York State Rifle & Pistol ***?n v. Bruen

10/28/22: Defendants? Response to Plaintiffs? Additional Brief Re New York State Rifle & Pistol ***?n v. Bruen

1/11/23: Declaration of John D. Echeverria re Submission of Surveys in Response to the Court?s Order Entered on December 15, 2022; Defendants? Survey of Relevant Statutes (Pre-Founding ? 1888); Defendants? Survey of Relevant Statutes (1889 ? 1930s)

2/10/23: Plaintiffs? Response Brief Re: Defendants? Historical Surveys Ordered by the Court

2/10/23: Defendants? Brief in Response to the Court?s Order Entered on December 15, 2022

2/10/23: Defendants? Brief in Response to the Court?s Order Entered on February 7, 2023

2/20/23: Plaintiffs' Response Brief re: Defendants' Brief

2/21/23: Defendants? Brief in Response to Plaintiffs? Brief Filed on February 10, 2023

10/19/23: Benitez decision - AW ban is unconstitutional, stayed for appeal


9th Circuit 2023:

11-8-23 Oral arguments week of 1-22-24

FPC Case Page - CourtListener Page

[DBA]

[Mesa Defense]

Tracking

[wolfwood]

San Diego County Gun Owners Challenge CA Assault Weapons Law.

Attorneys John Dillon and George Lee represent three San Diego residents and San Diego County Gun Owners which is led by Michael A. Schwartz. They filed a federal lawsuit challenging California’s ban on assault weapons today. Linked to is the complaint.

Please consider donating to and/or joining San Diego County Gun Owners today. A link to their membership page is here

https://sandiegocountygunowners.com/join/?fbclid=IwAR27jkrv2MPFw-fLrMnO-BVKcxxIixZQHwY0B-xmGBZaawzzMusSNLqh12c

Here is a copy of the complaint.

https://www.scribd.com/document/422027973/Miller-CA-Assault-Weapons-2a-Complaint

[asymmetricalwarfar3]

Good luck!

[C.G.]

Good angle, probably won't make it at the 9th, but should make it to Supreme Court.

[coryhenry]

I like the tactic, hopefully we can slowly unravel the rest.

[NorCalRT]

Whenever a crack emerges we need to ram it full of legal challenges. Hopefully we get a good judge on this one!

[A-J]

Why has no one gone after them on the grounds that the supposed logic behind the ban on "assault weapons" is not based on any empirical facts? There is zero bonafide evidence to support the presumption that the weapons covered are any more lethal or dangerous than any other rifle available that is lacking the so called evil features?

[big red]

if anyone ever took a look at any of the studies done they would find they are seriously flawed and written in a manner to prove the point the author or whoever is paying for it wants. I spent years shooting down state surveys and facts in the health field because nothing was honest especially in HIV. No survey done in california or stats in this state should ever be taken at face value if the state uses it to try and support a stance.

[morthrane]

Why has no one gone after them on the grounds that the supposed logic behind the ban on "assault weapons" is not based on any empirical facts? There is zero bonafide evidence to support the presumption that the weapons covered are any more lethal or dangerous than any other rifle available that is lacking the so called evil features?

Because logic has nothing to do with intentions and the Law. Look at the decision handed down by the judge in the Highland Park AWB case for a prime example of emotions and a complete lack of reason.

[FirearmFino]

Judge John Houston has been assigned to this case.

[TruOil]

Why has no one gone after them on the grounds that the supposed logic behind the ban on "assault weapons" is not based on any empirical facts? There is zero bonafide evidence to support the presumption that the weapons covered are any more lethal or dangerous than any other rifle available that is lacking the so called evil features?

Because the "facts" are determined during Legislative hearings. They will accept "facts" that support their predetermined vote in favor of restrictions and ignore and/or denigrate the facts showing they are full of crap. And as you probably know, the democratic controlled Legislature in California and will pass laws, such as the CCW on campus ban, without any facts whatsoever of any issues with licensed carriers on school campuses.

[NorCalRT]

Judge John Houston has been assigned to this case.

Appointed by Bush, any track record for us to use?

[stix213]

Judge John Houston has been assigned to this case.

Dang. Don't know anything about the judge, but filing in San Diego seems like we were hoping to get Benitez again.