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

[M60A1Rise]

Posted on the twitter at 6pm tonight.

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-files-preliminary-opposition-to-california-motion-to-stay-injunction-in-miller

[FirearmFino]

APPELLEES’ PRELIMINARY OPPOSITION TO APPELLANTS’ EMERGENCY MOTION UNDER CIRCUIT RULE 27-3 TO STAY JUDGMENT PENDING APPEAL

Filed clerk order: The court has received appellants’ emergency motion for a stay pending appeal. The response to that motion is due by 9:00 a.m. Pacific Time on Tuesday, June 15, 2021. The optional reply in support of the motion is due by 9:00 a.m. Pacific Time on Wednesday, June 16, 2021. The existing briefing schedule remains in effect.

[curtisfong]

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.

No discussion is needed. Thomas knows exactly what he is expected to do and what is expected of him. There isn't a single time he hasn't given the State exactly what they want with respect to the 2A. He's a rubber stamp. All he (and the rest of the 9th) does is copy/paste the State's reasoning directly into a judgement. If needed, he'll actually fill in the blanks for the State or manufacture anything they need, such as standing. Like he did for them in Peruta.

[MountainLion]

It's not semantics. Anything that falls under the definition of "assault weapon" is banned, by every definition of the word, and very clearly spelled out in the Penal Code, leaving no room for interpretation.

I'm going to have to go to the gun safe and tell my registered assault weapons that they are banned. They won't be happy. I'll bring them some ammo to make them feel better afterwards.

By the way, it's interesting that you admit that there is a "definition of assault weapon". Usually gun people claim that the term is meaningless, was made up by evil politicians, and can't be defined.

[curtisfong]

Usually gun people claim that the term is meaningless, was made up by evil politicians, and can't be defined.

You again?



Spare us. Total nonsense.

[MountainLion]

Yup, I have some of those in my gun safe too.

Here is a picture of a real assault weapon:
300px-Sturmgewehr44_noBG.jpg

You again?
...

So, what you are probably trying to say with that picture is: There can not be a logically coherent definition of assault weapon, because both guns in that picture are identical, yet one of them is considered an assault weapon. On the other hand, above CandG said that there is a definition of assault weapon, even multiple definitions. So which is correct? Please figure that out among the two of you, then get back to me. Thank you.

[curtisfong]

I know I'm speaking to a lawyer when they think the law determines reality.

If the court made a definition for 1/0 it would not make it reality other than that is what they can force on me on threat of violence.

Bottom line, the definition is nonsense, because it attempts to define something that doesn't have a useful definition, like 1/0

BTW, neither of the firearms in my picture are assault weapons.

I stand by my statement. There is no rational definition for "assault weapon". It is a made up term that only has meaning in the language of law, and that language only cosmetically appears to be English. I don't care what lawyers tell me the courts say. I reject their delusional notion that their laws define reality.

"There are 4 lights".

[curtisfong]

Also, those are "assault rifles" not "assault weapons".

An "assault weapon", in English, means "a weapon used to assault", which doesn't even have to be a firearm.

[HibikiR]

Yup, I have some of those in my gun safe too.

Here is a picture of a real assault weapon rifle:
[ATTACH]1021447[/ATTACH]


So, what you are probably trying to say with that picture is: There can not be a logically coherent definition of assault weapon, because both guns in that picture are identical, yet one of them is considered an assault weapon. On the other hand, above CandG said that there is a definition of assault weapon, even multiple definitions. So which is correct? Please figure that out among the two of you, then get back to me. Thank you.

That's an assault rifle, a real term with real meaning.

Assault weapon is a term used by leftists to scare the masses because they can't notice the difference in the second word of that term.

[curtisfong]

That's an assault rifle, a real term with real meaning.

Assault weapon is a term used by leftists to scare the masses because they can't notice the difference in the second word of that term.

Next thing you know he'll claim that if the courts say a "well regulated militia" is one "subject to firearms regulations", then that's what it meant at the time of the writing of the 2A.

And who are we to argue, if the courts can throw us in jail if we disagree? After all, anyone who can imprison has the power to *literally* define reality (and even modify history), do they not?

No, there are *four* lights.

Lawyers: stick to being hired guns and doing what you're paid to do. People hate you when you fail to stay in your lane. Leave describing the laws of nature to mathematicians and physicists.

[splithoof]

This is going back a few years, but it may be a source for the term:

https://images.app.goo.gl/Y65QKmFmyXRVgdPz8

[sonofeugene]

I prefer to not use the word "assault" at all. It's simply an AR15 or AK47 or.....if asked what AR means, I say Armalite Rifle.

[Supersapper]

Also, those are "assault rifles" not "assault weapons".

An "assault weapon", in English, means "a weapon used to assault", which doesn't even have to be a firearm.

I don't even like the term "assault rifle" because even that is inaccurate. That term, broken down, is a rifle used in an assault, with no clarification on the rifle or the assault. If I buttstroke someone with a BB gun, does that make it an "assault rifle"?

The M4, M16, AK47, AKM, AK74, FN-FAL, G36, etc etc are examples of "battle rifles", which is a term that has been used in the past by linguistically inclined folks and is far more accurately descriptive without the friggin' drama. These rifles are not allowed in the hands of civilians without the proper paperwork.

I know people like to equate the term "battle rifle" with things like M1 Garands, K98, M1903, etc etc, but the days of such weapons, lamentably for sure, is long past. The short carbine type rifles are what's used now, and they are used in actual military engagements, hence the appropriate application of the term "battle rifle".

[cyphr02]

I don't even like the term "assault rifle" because even that is inaccurate. That term, broken down, is a rifle used in an assault, with no clarification on the rifle or the assault. If I buttstroke someone with a BB gun, does that make it an "assault rifle"?

The M4, M16, AK47, AKM, AK74, FN-FAL, G36, etc etc are examples of "battle rifles", which is a term that has been used in the past by linguistically inclined folks and is far more accurately descriptive without the friggin' drama. These rifles are not allowed in the hands of civilians without the proper paperwork.

I know people like to equate the term "battle rifle" with things like M1 Garands, K98, M1903, etc etc, but the days of such weapons, lamentably for sure, is long past. The short carbine type rifles are what's used now, and they are used in actual military engagements, hence the appropriate application of the term "battle rifle".

Battle rifle doesn't work for M4/16, AKx, m1 carbine etc. because they use intermediate cartridges. M1, M1A, M14, M1903, FAL, G3 are considered battle rifles because they fire full power cartridges(7.62x51, .30-06, .303, 7mm, 8mm, etc.).

[curtisfong]

Battle rifle doesn't work for M4/16, AKx, m1 carbine etc. because they use intermediate cartridges. M1, M1A, M14, M1903, FAL, G3 are considered battle rifles because they fire full power cartridges(7.62x51, .30-06, .303, 7mm, 8mm, etc.).

But "Assault Weapons" are, by definition, "high powered", so clearly the 5.56 is more powerful than all of those.

The legislature (with a guaranteed court rubber stamp if challenged) could make that true by simply making it a law. You know, as objectively true as a law of physics, no matter what physics says about kinetic energy. Anyone who says otherwise risks being told they're ignorant by FGG.