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

[Roswell Saucer]

The 9th is in a weird place here knowing that if they remand it back to Benitez he's going to quickly go through the motions with briefs, etc., and then reach the same conclusion.

[jcwatchdog]

The 9th is in a weird place here knowing that if they remand it back to Benitez he's going to quickly go through the motions with briefs, etc., and then reach the same conclusion.

[newbieLA]

[mshill]

It makes sense that even Benitez will keep the status quo while writing a decision much stronger than his original backed up by both Heller and NYSRPA v Bruen. It's great that they filed the motion to lift the stay, but I think it is a long shot at least until Benitez writes a new decision.

[curtisfong]

There's a comment in there where they claim that "assault weapons" will flood into California if the stay was lifted, but at the same time arguing they are "dangerous and unusual" ..

If they are really dangerous an unusual how is it that everyone wants on ?

Not to mention

[Dano2467]

There's a comment in there where they claim that "assault weapons" will flood into California if the stay was lifted, but at the same time arguing they are "dangerous and unusual" ..

If they are really dangerous an unusual how is it that everyone wants on ?

The claim about the flood of assault weapons into California is stupid considering how many are actually already here just not configured as such!

[ShadowGuy]

There's a comment in there where they claim that "assault weapons" will flood into California if the stay was lifted, but at the same time arguing they are "dangerous and unusual" ..

If they are really dangerous an unusual how is it that everyone wants on ?

Doublespeak!

How are these "assault weapons" both unusual, yet widely available?

[randomBytes]

I tried to read Bonta's drivel, but it was too much...

The ruling at DC was exactly in line with Heller and Bruen - nothing to revisit.

[tactic101]

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND MOTION TO VACATE AND REMAND FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS (PDF)

Bonta reply includes:

the AWCA was consistent with
regulations adopted by various States and the federal government in the
early twentieth century.

Didnt Thomas specify that the historically relevant period was that of the drafting of the second amendment? 20th century is not the relevant period, correct?

[Roswell Saucer]

Bonta reply includes:


Didnt Thomas specify that the historically relevant period was that of the drafting of the second amendment? 20th century is not the relevant period, correct?

Yes. Bonta's people either didn't even read NYSRPA or just don't care what it says. Probably both.

[zouaveherb]

Bonta reply includes:


Didnt Thomas specify that the historically relevant period was that of the drafting of the second amendment? 20th century is not the relevant period, correct?

If that's all you have to argue your side, you argue it, I guess....

[kuug]

If that's all you have to argue your side, you argue it, I guess....

That's really all there is to it. CA will fight lifting AWBs to the death and they're currently flatlining. They will argue "dangerous and unusual" to the bitter end, and even if they know what the result will be they will delay, delay, delay. The purpose for the remand request back to Benitez is a stall tactic, they don't want that to be the first case that essentially resets all of the post-Heller work the 9th has done. If Benitez and the 9th circuit panel affirm the language from Miller then gun control is sunk in the 9th circuit without allowing them much room to weasel around any vague language in Bruen.

[Libertarian777]

Bonta reply includes:


Didnt Thomas specify that the historically relevant period was that of the drafting of the second amendment? 20th century is not the relevant period, correct?

It was ACBs concurrence. She actually said 19th century laws don't count as historical

[Roswell Saucer]

It was ACBs concurrence. She actually said 19th century laws don't count as historical

The Sullivan Act provision at issue in NYSRPA was enacted in either 1911 or 1913 (I think it was amended which causes confusion in the dates) which is hilarious given Bonta's statement about the "early 20th Century."

[curtisfong]

Yes. Bonta's people either didn't even read NYSRPA or just don't care what it says. Probably both.

I'd say they definitely read it. They just think they're unbeatable; that the 9th will continue to copy/paste their nonsense, SCOTUS will again GVR, rinse, repeat, until one or two SCOTUS justices can be replaced with more compliant ones.

Bonta et al seem to believe they can outlast SCOTUS, as long as they can depend on the 9th to do their erstwhile rubber stamping (see Staton in Rupp - no really, read what she wrote. It's a hoot, especially given Bruen).

I hate to say it, but they may not be wrong.