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

[BeAuMaN]

It's bullcrap from Bonta. The time period cut-off for an emergency under 27-3 of the 9th's guidelines is 21 days, so the Temporary Stay extends beyond that making it not an emergency.

Pg 75:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datasto...cticeGuide.pdf

I mean, yeah, but Bonta has reframed what the emergency is. I'll just do some quotes. So, in the opening on page 2 and 3, there's stay requests that were to be expected had they filed a normal motion for stay:

The district court’s injunction is currently set to go into effect on July 4, 2021.
If this Court is not able to rule on this motion before that date, Defendants respectfully request that it grant an administrative stay to preserve the status quo while it considers the motion. In the event that a three-judge panel denies this motion, Defendants respectfully request that the panel grant an administrative stay to preserve the status quo until such time as Defendants have had an opportunity to seek further relief from the en banc Court or the Supreme Court.

So that's a multi-layered stay request with a bunch of contingencies to prevent the order from going live at all. This was to be expected, and could be filed in a normal motion. So why is it an emergency stay request? Justification is given that people might get assault weapons if they were denied, but here's the main part of it:

Defendants respectfully request that the Court act on this motion by June 18, 2021, so that, in the event that a three-judge panel denies any stay, there is time for Defendants to seek further relief from the en banc Court or the Supreme Court in advance of the July 4 effective date set by the district court.

So the reason they're filing an Emergency Motion to Stay is because the 3-Judge Motions Panel might deny ALL OF THEIR REQUESTS for stay, including administrative stay and regular stay pending appeal resolution, so they need a decision by July 18th so if that SLIM chance does happen they have extra time to appeal the Motions Panel's decision en banc.

I'd hope the court would tell them that there's no emergency there.

[abinsinia]

... the status quo could be irrevocably altered by the influx of new assault weapons—weapons that could be difficult to remove from the State if this Court ultimately upholds the AWCA

Benitez described in the decision how the states own evidence shows featureless AR-15 are no different in firing than free state versions. I hope they read the decision before ruling.

[lastinline]

I wonder how much time Bonta spends on the phone with Sidney Thomas. To think that they have no relationship of some sorts is denying the obvious. I bet that there is a lot more going on behind the scenes than most folks have a clue about. I bet those two socialist clowns wish the judge was still a prisoner in Cuba.

[rplaw]

Bonta's emergency stay request is babbling nonsense. Which tells you how much they're pissing their shorts right now.

[abinsinia]

The emergency stay comically rebuts that COVID-19 vaccines are associated with deaths.

[CandG]

[/B]

au contraire



Moving the goalpost as you stated, in relation to the "definition" of AW. By the state constantly "redefining the parameters" of WHAT CONSTITUTES an AW. Is the very definition of SEMANTICS.

[CandG]

Bonta's emergency stay request is babbling nonsense. Which tells you how much they're pissing their shorts right now.

And also his press conference with the governor, and the governor's press releases and social media posts... this is something they're clearly quite concerned about.

Now they know how we've been feeling for the last 30+ years.

[NorCalAthlete]

Benitez described in the decision how the states own evidence shows featureless AR-15 are no different in firing than free state versions. I hope they read the decision before ruling.

100% this. Every line of their stay statement has already been addressed and shot down as BS.

[live2suck]

From page 30 of the appeal,

But the AWCA does not prohibit all “modern rifles,” or even all “AR-15[s].” Under California law, law-abiding adults may purchase and possess “featureless AR-15[s]” and other semiautomatic weapons that do not qualify as assault weapons under the AWCA’s definition. If the court instead meant that the AWCA prohibits “an entire class of very popular hardware” because it bars the specific weapons that qualify as “assault weapons” under the statute’s definition, that kind of reasoning is “circular”—it would mean that whatever group of weapons a regulation prohibits may be deemed a ‘class,’”
automatically subjecting the regulation to strict scrutiny.

(citations removed and emphasis added)

That piece of the appeal made me snort in my coffee - most of the state's arguments for any of their gun laws are circular in nature.

[TanHat]

Respectfully, I think that line was a mistake. It is a charged subject that didn't need to be dragged into this discussion.

Additionally, it appears to be true, as the Attorney General pointed out in the Emergency Motion to Stay (page 15), that Benitez does not cite his evidence for that "fact". It was a bit of a throwaway line in the overall discussion that immediately preceded a long discussion rebutting the 2.2 shots-per-defensive-use argument. Regarding that statistic, Benitez says that "There is no way to check her analysis or her math or try to reproduce or falsify her results." (page 50) Yet, he appears to do the same thing with the vaccine argument. I tried to fact check that death rate this morning, and I not only came up empty, but I think he might have been intending to say "deaths from COVID by previously vaccinated people," not "More people have died from the Covid-19 vaccine..." as he did. Those are distinct from each other, but again, I can't check his source because he didn't cite it. He uses a good air bag analogy to make his point in the "2.2-shots" discussion...a similarly non-political non-controversial analogy might have been a better choice here.

I liked the Benitez opinion a lot, and although I'm far from a lawyer, I think this was an unnecessary gift to the AG.

Didn't realize until that video that Judge Benitez pulled the vaccine death equivalence thing.

You so crazy Beni

[FirearmFino]

The Ninth Circuit has added this case to its cases of interest page

[curtisfong]

I liked the Benitez opinion a lot, and although I'm far from a lawyer, I think this was an unnecessary gift to the AG.

Completely agree.

[CandG]

Respectfully, I think that line was a mistake. It is a charged subject that didn't need to be dragged into this discussion.

I agree, I'd have preferred if he left that part out, but in the end I don't think it makes any difference. His opinion hardly rested on that statement.

And if the "other side" heavily focuses on just that part, then it'll only become more obvious that they don't have anything relevant to add to their own arguments.

[TruOil]

From page 30 of the appeal,


(citations removed and emphasis added)

That piece of the appeal made me snort in my coffee - most of the state's arguments for any of their gun laws are circular in nature.

Because we can own featureless rifles, and because the AW definitions solely relate to features and not firepower or rate of power, how is that the AW laws are rational, much less constitutional?

It isn't. All Hail Benitez.

[TanHat]

I agree, I'd have preferred if he left that part out, but in the end I don't think it makes any difference. His opinion hardly rested on that statement.

And if the "other side" heavily focuses on just that part, then it'll only become more obvious that they don't have anything relevant to add to their own arguments.

I think you're right that it hardly rested on that statement. However, I can see a possible CA9 opinion highlighting that as an example of how Benitez erred (and ignoring all the good, solid stuff that supports his case). Many people on this forum will be able to tell that focusing on that point doesn't make a difference to Benitez's overall result, but it is possible that a CA9 majority, should they wish to write a ruling to overturn Benitez, would happily include that nugget to support their side.

I didn't have a problem with the swiss army knife analogy (two things can be alike in certain ways for the stated purposes of an analogy...they don't have to share all features), but if you were on the opposing (AG's) side, you'd certainly skim Benitez's opinion for the nail that sticks up. In this case, I just think the COVID/vaccine nail didn't have to be there in the first place.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed the weirdness of it, and I do hope that I'm being too pessimistic about it's presence. Hopefully most people (especially CA9 judges) notice that the other side doesn't have anything relevant to add at this point, as you suggest.