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

[HibikiR]

Since the existing stay is only good for 30 days, that justifies an "emergency", (at least from their viewpoint). A standard motion for a stay could take months.

Granted, I agree that it absolutely is not an emergency in the traditional sense of the word, but from a legal process standpoint, it qualifies as one.

I think from a legal process standpoint, the 9th's own rules set an emergency as 21 days or less, making the 30 days not an emergency.

[Bolt_Action]

I think from a legal process standpoint, the 9th's own rules set an emergency as 21 days or less, making the 30 days not an emergency.

[IVC]

I love the highlighted phrase as well... with the word "authorized" negating the word "respecting".

A right to own something authorized is a permission. It's a bill of rights, not a bill of needs of a bill of permissions. A point that escapes the overlords...

[swift]

One could use the argument the Judge Benitez made in reference to tazers. If SCOTUS found 200,000 is "in common use" find out how many. 50 bmgs are in the wild..

[????? ????]

Miller v. Bonta, CA9 - "assault weapons" - 6-10-21 Appeal Filed


According to ATF, the proposed rule would affect 8 manufacturers of braces, 3,881 manufacturers of firearms, 13,210 dealers, and 1.4 million firearm owners who have firearms with braces, with an estimate of between 3 million and 7 million braces in use.

[dawgcasa]

Once again, they are talking in circles. As the plaintiffs explained, what CA defines as an AW is not an "exceptionally lethal weapon of war". And they continue to assert that without any evidence.

[HibikiR]

Yeah right. Since when has it mattered what their “rules” say?

That'd be the difference between a legal process standpoint and a hyper-partisan activist standpoint and highlights what Trump was trying to correct when he started filling vacancies in the 9th.

[CandG]

.50 BMG seems not to have been challenged.

The referenced code distinguishes between 'assault weapon' and '.50 BMG rifle', so the answer to your question seems to be NO.

Probably for the best, I think the two statutes are different enough that they should be challenged separately. Although I'm honestly not sure there will ever be a .50 BMG ban challenge, directly. It's just not really a lowest hanging fruit. Although there's a chance that a different case in the future might impact it indirectly.

[Bolt_Action]

Probably for the best, I think the two statutes are different enough that they should be challenged separately. Although I'm honestly not sure there will ever be a .50 BMG ban challenge, directly. It's just not really a lowest hanging fruit. Although there's a chance that a different case in the future might impact it indirectly.

[CandG]

That's the way I understand it, as well.

[gobler]

According to ATF, the proposed rule would affect 8 manufacturers of braces, 3,881 manufacturers of firearms, 13,210 dealers, and 1.4 million firearm owners who have firearms with braces, with an estimate of between 3 million and 7 million braces in use.

According to SB Tactical, they alone have sold more then 30 million braces. Their estimates are 40+ million braces have been sold if you combine all companies.

[The Tiger]

According to SB Tactical, they alone have sold more then 30 million braces. Their estimates are 40+ million braces have been sold if you combine all companies.

That's a lot of braces. Assume that is a fraction of the total MSR's in use

[BeAuMaN]

Since the existing stay is only good for 30 days, that justifies an "emergency", (at least from their viewpoint). A standard motion for a stay could take months.

Granted, I agree that it absolutely is not an emergency in the traditional sense of the word, but from a legal process standpoint, it qualifies as one.

Mmmm... Months? Not according to Chapter 6 of the CA9 General Orders.

The Motions Panel is selected and meets a minimum of 3 days (or however much time is adequate) every month to dispose of those motions for that month.

Even if the Panel decides it doesn't have enough time to decide the stay on the merits, it can still grant (as the State would most certainly request, and did so in their emergency stay request) an administrative stay pending the resolution of their stay request (which only needs two judges), which would put the judgement on hold even past 7/4 if necessary.

Even further, the state can request (and they did in their emergency motion) that an administrative/temporary stay be given on the off chance the motions panel doesn't rule in their favor, so that they can appeal the motions panel en banc without there being any sale/manufacturing/transfer of assault weapons.

And keep in mind the further we proceed up this ladder, the less likely the state is going to be denied. The fact that they filed an emergency motion is ridiculous, and the FPC is right (as many of us have said before they filed) that June 18th is an arbitrary date for relief. The state is operating on the highly unlikely belief that the Motions Panel might deny their stay request AND deny an administrative/temporary stay while seeking en banc appeal request.

Especially considering the timing: Benitez issued his order on 6/4, and 30 days means we're looking at 7/4 until his own temporary stay ends. The motions panel likely isn't going to meet at the beginning of the month; likely they're going to meet during the second or third week, based off of CA9 GO 6.2.d. as the staff attorneys need a "sufficient period of time to prepare an adequate calendar".

Going back to Rhode v Becerra... while the administrative stay was granted next day (by 2 judges, on 4/24), the motions panel granted the stay pending appeal on 5/14. For those reasons it's likely their regular motion would be heard in a timely manner.

I mean, again, I'm not a lawyer, and I certainly don't know all the minutiae of the court system at the appellate level, but based off of the rules posted, how it happened last time, and the lack of convincing argument made by Bonta (They don't explain the 6/18 date at al!), I see no reason for why the motion couldn't have just been a regular one, especially since they were afforded time to file, and especially since it's likely the Motions Panel would grant them every courtesy.

That's why I think the need for an emergency motion is bunk, and basically every motion can be filed as an emergency motion by Bonta's logic. It makes me ask why Bonta pushed for the emergency motion. What does Bonta know that we don't.

[Offwidth]

What does Bonta know that we don't.

Who is on the panel.

[abinsinia]

Who is on the panel.

It was made secret by the 9th circuit.