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

[RickD427]

I understand that the 13th amendment allows for stuff like prisons. I mean that actual slavery would be allowed, based on how the interpret the 2nd amendment.

The Thirteenth Amendment does allow for the continuation of actual "Slavery" under its singular exception......

[darkwater34]

I totally agrea I know this is off topic

This has been a miscarage of human rights since LBJ's EO on felon gun possession since then people in government have abused their offices to deny and oppress the people of their individual rights to search and seizure when it entails anything to do with firearm possession. Heaven forbid that you have $45,000.00 in a savings account or stuffed in a mattress whoops the amount is $1.00 to 4 $45,000.00 of available funds. Still dumb founded how easy it is for criminals to get their grubby little paws on a firearm and how little harm it does to take $45,000.00 from a drug cartel that has BILLIONS, and why they only do any of this with the assumption in most cases as criminal intent and not actual crimes being committed. EXAMPLE a person with in possession of an empty gas can and a 3 foot piece of garden hose might be convicted of intent to steal gas under certain circumstances after dark in unlighted parking area with plenty of cars to choose from yes I would say that this is a crime nipped in the bud, but what if the person was taking fuel from his car to help someone else?

[SWalt]

Progressives have all sorts of "dark money" flying around. Its been on display with the Progressive Marxist movements of late. Its always interesting when reading an article about some protest and there is some completely unknown group who gets mentioned. They have to have financial backing from somewhere. Too bad Conservatives or Libertarians do not have small "cells" as the Progressives do.

Notably, many of the decisions SCOTUS makes are either unanimous or more than the bare partisan majority. These cases rarely make the news and only the most controversial ones get headlines. That the recent ones are getting headlines, yet are unanimous, only shows how screwed up the leftist media is.

I can only go by what I read since I'm not a Court watcher. It is interesting to know there are more 9-0 rulings, that just makes Court packing more evil. Progressives always seem to move the goal posts or just plain out cheat when they do not get their way. When your opponent is winning change the rules? That is a very sad commentary and bodes ill for the Republic.

[CandG]

This has been a miscarage of human rights since LBJ's EO on felon gun possession since then people in government have abused their offices to deny and oppress the people of their individual rights to search and seizure when it entails anything to do with firearm possession. Heaven forbid that you have $45,000.00 in a savings account or stuffed in a mattress whoops the amount is $1.00 to 4 $45,000.00 of available funds. Still dumb founded how easy it is for criminals to get their grubby little paws on a firearm and how little harm it does to take $45,000.00 from a drug cartel that has BILLIONS, and why they only do any of this with the assumption in most cases as criminal intent and not actual crimes being committed. EXAMPLE a person with in possession of an empty gas can and a 3 foot piece of garden hose might be convicted of intent to steal gas under certain circumstances after dark in unlighted parking area with plenty of cars to choose from yes I would say that this is a crime nipped in the bud, but what if the person was taking fuel from his car to help someone else?

I think I might agree with the parts of that I could understand, but that made my brain hurt

[Mithrandir13]

From what I've read the SCOTUS have come out with numerous 9-0 votes recently, including 1 today. It seems to me that the SCOTUS are sending a shot across the bow of Congress that "court packing" isn't an option to a perceived Right or Left bent. I hope the SCOTUS has learned a valuable lesson, that the COTUS rules Supreme and inventing new Rights isn't a path they should take. Judicial Activism is a problem, I hope they see their err.

I hope you are correct!! After election 2020, I have little faith in the vast majority of those elected to represent us...

I welcome the prospect of being wrong.

[CAL.BAR]

Yep. LOTS of "long stanging traditions" in American history. Can't really claim that we can't change b/c its always been that way.

[BAJ475]

I hope you are correct!! After election 2020, I have little faith in the vast majority of those elected to represent us...

I welcome the prospect of being wrong.

"Little" is a lot more faith than I have.

[Rcjackrabbit]

Has the AG taken action yet? One scholar says they have 7 days to file? The clock is ticking.

Then, the panel that will judge this only meets on the 14th and 18th of June in Soddom Francisco.

[Steve1968LS2]

Good explanation I just got:

Dear Client:

You probably heard about the ruling in Miller v. Bonta, where Judge Roger Benitez issued a 94-page opinion on June 4, 2021 that declared unconstitutional California’s laws banning common “assault weapons” (like the AR-15). Judge Benitez’s ruling in Miller is a much-publicized federal court decision, and it may have left you wondering where your case stands now or how your Second Amendment rights are affected as a result.

Significantly, the ruling in Miller has no effect on your case whatsoever. It also has no immediate impact on any California law. For one, Judge Benitez’s ruling includes an automatic 30-day stay of his order. This gives the state time to appeal to the Ninth Circuit, which the Attorney General has already promised to do. And nothing will change as a result of Miller until the Ninth Circuit rules on that appeal.

Once the state appeals Miller to the Ninth Circuit, it is almost certain that Judge Benetiz’s ruling will be stayed until the case is resolved. It will then take at least a year for a final ruling if there are no extended delays (there will be). The Miller appeal will almost certainly be stayed at the Ninth Circuit because the court has pending rulings in other important Second Amendment cases—like Duncan (challenge to magazine capacity limits), Rhode (challenge to ammunition sales bans and background checks), and Rupp (challenge to California’s “assault weapon” ban)—that are already on appeal at the Ninth Circuit. So, an extended delay is likely. You can see the court filings in those cases here: Duncan, Rhode, Rupp.

Second Amendment law in the Ninth Circuit is facing a logjam right now due to cases like yours that are poised to have a profound impact on current and future firearms litigation. We know that the Duncan case will be heard by an en banc panel at the Ninth Circuit on June 22. Because Duncan could have a tremendous impact on Second Amendment law in the Ninth Circuit, other Second Amendment cases at the appeal stage have been “stayed” or “held in abeyance” pending the resolution of the Duncan en banc rehearing. That is the situation with Rupp, Rhode, and probably Miller too.

Also, Rupp is not only ahead of Miller in the Ninth Circuit, but it also challenges the same laws, involves the same legal issues, and has already been argued. So, while it is heartening to read Judge Benitez’s wonderful decision in Miller, Miller will likely have little impact and will be caught up in the bottleneck of cases already backed up at the Ninth Circuit.

Lastly, there is a good chance that the Ninth Circuit will stay Duncan after it conducts the en banc oral argument because it knows that the Supreme Court will hear New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Corlett this year, with a decision likely next June. In Corlett, the Supreme Court will likely reset the legal test that courts apply to Second Amendment questions. The current composition of the Supreme Court makes a pro-Second Amendment decision look very possible. CRPA is doing everything it can to make it happen.

If the Ninth Circuit stays Duncan, then all the cases that are being stayed pending Duncan will essentially remain stayed as well until the Supreme Court issues its Corlett decision. So, for now, we anticipate a fairly long stay. As we patiently await what unfolds in the Supreme Court, we can be cautiously optimistic about what’s in store on the horizon for firearm jurisprudence in California.

It is an exciting time to join in the fight for firearm rights, and all of us at Michel & Associates thank you for being a part of the effort that may finally change the course of Second Amendment law in California.

If you would like to know more about the effect that Miller has on other cases, please read the CRPA article here. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Thank you for getting involved!

[curtisfong]

Good explanation I just got:

As taperxz pointed out above, mostly correct but the assertion that Rupp is "ahead" of Miller is a bit misleading.

[ar15barrels]

Has the AG taken action yet? One scholar says they have 7 days to file? The clock is ticking.

The AG had 30 days to take action.
The AG will probably wait 21+ days because acting sooner than needed only speeds things up and their interest is to delay every part of the legal process as long as possible.

[HibikiR]

The AG has 7 days post-decision to apply for a stay with the 9th according to the 9th's guidelines, so that's the earliest bit of action we will probably see.

There's also talk of a limited window where the San Francisco panel will be able to meet to review the application before the Temporary Stay expires.

Motions for a stay If a district court stays an order
or judgment to permit application to the Court of
Appeals for a stay pending appeal, an application for
a stay must be filed in the Court of Appeals within 7
days after issuance of the district court’s stay. See
Ninth Cir. R. 27-2.

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/guides/AppellatePracticeGuide.pdf

[RobG]

Saint Benitez does it again. But, we all know where this will end up.

[Rcjackrabbit]

[Wherryj]

Segregation was as well, yet we ARE rushing back to that one again.