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

[Bhobbs]

SCOTUS has already taken a gun case recently, so doom and gloom is an illogical position at this time.

SCOTUS took a carry case on permitting. Nowhere near the same magnitude as assault weapons bans. And they haven't ruled on it, so who knows what they will do. Likely, it will be an incredibly narrow ruling.

[cz74]

Bonta will seek appeal within the 30-day period and seek En Banc

[IVC]

Suppose Benitez’s ruling holds, how would this affect BBRAWs? Would it be possible to remove the BBs? Thanks.

*IF* it did, then the whole concept of RAW is gone - registered or not, the AW statute cannot be enforced. We would be just another free state.

HOWEVER, THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN!

Don't do stupid things, this is just the beginning of the battle and we won the first round. Unlike many past cases, the SCOTUS is clearly on our side this time, so CA-9 will be playing with fire.

[ir0nclash86]

[jok5tr]

*IF* it did, then the whole concept of RAW is gone - registered or not, the AW statute cannot be enforced. We would just another free state.

HOWEVER, THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN!

Don't do stupid things, this is just the beginning of the battle and we won the first round. Unlike many past cases, the SCOTUS is clearly on our side this time, so CA-9 will be playing with fire.

Of course, the BB stays on

[IVC]

SCOTUS took a carry case on permitting. Nowhere near the same magnitude as assault weapons bans. And they haven't ruled on it, so who knows what they will do. Likely, it will be an incredibly narrow ruling.

We actually know how the few new justices see AWB. Separately, I would argue that "carry" is much more frightening to the antis than the AW-s because it normalizes gun culture in large urban centers much more than anything rifle-related could.

[IVC]

Does this mean that we at least 30 days to have standard rifles without ugly featureless things? Freedom month starts today?

!! NO !!

Just making sure that casual readers don't get the wrong idea. It's not yet time to pop the champagne, but we are slowly approaching Berlin.

[M60A1Rise]

Only thing I REALLY hate about all this is how the system works. 9th circus will take anywhere from 2-5 years to decide how they feel , i'll be really old by then. This **** should be done in a timely manner imho and that's part of the game they play.

[Bhobbs]

We actually know how the few new justices see AWB. Separately, I would argue that "carry" is much more frightening to the antis than the AW-s because it normalizes gun culture in large urban centers much more than anything rifle-related could.

We know how they may think on lower courts. Will they cave on SCOTUS for fear of court stacking?

I think antis would take permitted carry over no assault weapons any day of the week. Everyone assumes it will result in shall issue but I doubt the justices will go that far.

[IVC]

It is extremely likely that the appeal for this will be held until there is decision in the NY case recently granted cert. They are expecting some guidance from SCOTUS on appropriate levels of scrutiny. If they get that guidance it is likely we win at appeal and no enbanc. Lacking any guidance from SCOTUS any win on appeal will go enbanc like every other win.

^^^ This.

I would just argue that they are waiting to figure out ways to AVOID any guidance coming from SCOTUS, like they did with all the guidance from Heller. Also, the usual pace of cases in CA-9 would hardly allow them to come up with a ruling before the NY case anyways, so a good bet is that they literally issue a stay pending the NY case and nothing even moves, let alone changes until we hear from SCOTUS.

A more interesting speculation is what happens AFTER the SCOTUS ruling and how long before this case starts moving. Nordyke took, what, 10+ years? But, we need all the cases we can get to move to the appellate level and get ripe for cert, so that no matter what happens to any single one, there are others ready and waiting.

[IVC]

I think antis would take permitted carry over no assault weapons any day of the week. Everyone assumes it will result in shall issue but I doubt the justices will go that far.

The smart antis looking long-term understand that their primary fight is against "gun culture" and there is nothing more potent to expand gun culture than urban dwellers learning about guns through being able to carry for self defense.

Assault Weapons are maybe the most visible and talked about, but the true battle is for the hearts and souls. Carry wins here, hands down.

[SkyHawk]

The order in the ruling has no force right now. The order was stayed for 30 days, and will give the state plenty of time to get a longer stay.

So right now, tonight, the order means exactly diddly squat. Read the words immediately before the order:

"After 30 days, the following Order will take full force and effect:"

[Cylarz]

So question, there's a 30 day stay but the court ruled that they can't enforce the laws below? So if someone has an "assault weapon", that person can't be arrested and the assault weapon can't be confiscated?

The stay is ON that prohibition of enforcement. The original California assault weapon ban - as I understand this - still CAN be enforced while this process plays out in the courts.

[hawg09]

94 Page Decision

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.642089/gov.uscourts.casd.642089.115.0.pdf

[stix213]

Imagine my surprise seeing the name "Benitez".