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

[champu]

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]

... for Benitez to write an even more strongly worded decision in favor of Miller.

The problem here is that this was not remanded to Benitez (as I understand it, I could be wrong).

Given that, you're going to see the 9th go out of its way to prevent SCOTUS from ever deciding on something Benitez rules.

They're going to be madly copy/pasting all sorts of nonsense written by Bonta et al. Anything written by Benitez will be somehow made irrelevant.

[FreshTapCoke]

Well their other option is to admit they they're wrong and unlawful, so...

[rplaw]

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

"Nuanced approach..." over and over again. They're trying to redefine the 2-step and still use it despite being specifically told this is improper.

I especially liked the part about how the case needs sent back to the District Court to compile evidence on modern tech advances in firearms and the need by the State to keep people safe from these advances and that the laws they've crafted over the past few decades have stood the test of time toward this goal.

It's like they didn't even bother to read Bruen OR Caetano.

Prediction: This will be sent to the District court, which will issue an injunction which the State will appeal. The appeals court (via the panel or en banc) will play the "nuanced approach" game and Miller will have to request cert from the SCOTUS.

At that point what SCOTUS does is up to them but it would be obvious to ME that the 9th is never going to comply absent a specific instruction with fewer than 10 words.

[stag6.8]

I was expecting an opposition to lift the stay....but ...the final decision to either lift the stay or take it back to district or go the circus of appeals which was filed for September..has still yet to be decided...when will that be decided???..at the end of the week which was filed on 6/30/2022 (is that still in motion?)...or is now on hold due to an opposition being filed??...input is appreciated..

[IVC]

We knew they were going for "dangerous and unusual." There is nothing else they can try.

What's priceless is this admission by Bonta:

At the same time, any burden on Plaintiffs is minimized by the undeniable fact that they have access to a range of other legal firearms—including California-compliant AR-15 platform rifles—to possess for lawful purposes like self-defense

^^^ Let that sink in. One of our own Dear Leaders admits two things:

1. AR-15 is a good platform for *self defense*. Notice it's not an assault weapon here, it's a "platform suitable for self-defense."
2. The "ultra-dangerous AR-15 assault weapons" are essentially the same as "CA-compliant AR-15" because they serve the same purpose.

Let's see how this pans out. We are getting quite a few rulings from lower courts in light of Dobbs, where judges are enjoining the new laws. And there, the actual lives are at stake. We'll know soon enough whether these courts STILL want to treat 2A as a secondary right based on how they handle injunctions and stays.

[IVC]

Oh, and they are asking for a completely new trial at the district court, no expedited processing and the usual 3-5 year delay. It all hinges upon the decision of a judge whether their claim of "unusual and dangerous" is likely to prevail in the end. And spine. The judge must have the spine.

But no matter what, we'll soon know what the situation on the ground is, one way or another. They won't go quietly, it's just a matter of how much we'll have to drag them into compliance. And remember, the more we have to drag them, the sounder our final victory will be. If we resolve their tricks now, they won't have them for the next case. And the next. And the next.

[Roswell Saucer]

they are asking for a completely new trial at the district court

No more delays. I rather wish now that SCOTUS would have simply taken up one of these AWB cases instead of just kicking the can back down the road. Surely they must have realized how petulant these states would be.

[curtisfong]

We knew they were going for "dangerous and unusual." There is nothing else they can try.

What's priceless is this admission by Bonta:


^^^ Let that sink in. One of our own Dear Leaders admits two things:

1. AR-15 is a good platform for *self defense*. Notice it's not an assault weapon here, it's a "platform suitable for self-defense."
2. The "ultra-dangerous AR-15 assault weapons" are essentially the same as "CA-compliant AR-15" because they serve the same purpose.

Exactly this. See also https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...postcount=2521

[bruss01]

Speculating here...

Maybe they are looking to buy time in order for two things to happen:

A federal AW ban is passed by the congress and senate
A re-adjustment in the makeup of SCOTUS, either via death or "packing"

Maybe they are hoping that in the time it takes to go through this process all over again and wind up back at SCOTUS there will have been a sea-change that allows a state or federal AW ban to stand.

That is the only thing that I can think of, besides simply delaying the inevitable.

[IVC]

A federal AW ban is passed by the congress and senate

It would get an immediate injunction in federal court. Our side would pick the most 2A-friendly district in the most 2A-friendly circuit to file for injunction.

A re-adjustment in the makeup of SCOTUS, either via death or "packing"

They are still bound by Bruen. Should "realigned court" simply ignore the precedent, it would set stage for the court to do the same for any other case - simply rule contrary to the precedent and pretend it didn't happen.

Not quite that easy, it took an explicit ruling in Dobbs to overturn Roe. It wasn't a bunch of originalists ignoring Roe while it was in effect.

[Bolt_Action]

Speculating here...

Maybe they are looking to buy time in order for two things to happen:

A federal AW ban is passed by the congress and senate
A re-adjustment in the makeup of SCOTUS, either via death or "packing"

Maybe they are hoping that in the time it takes to go through this process all over again and wind up back at SCOTUS there will have been a sea-change that allows a state or federal AW ban to stand.

That is the only thing that I can think of, besides simply delaying the inevitable.

Definitely they think that with enough delays they might be able to leverage a new SCOTUS makeup when they case eventually winds its way back through the courts.

But even if they stand no chance of victory, the delay itself is its own reward. Like a defeated army that burns a city out of spite while it evacuates, they know that delays hurt us, and hurting us it their top priority.

[curtisfong]

They are still bound by Bruen. Should "realigned court" simply ignore the precedent, it would set stage for the court to do the same for any other case - simply rule contrary to the precedent and pretend it didn't happen.

Not quite that easy, it took an explicit ruling in Dobbs to overturn Roe. It wasn't a bunch of originalists ignoring Roe while it was in effect.

I don't think they care. If you think about it, realistically, realigning SCOTUS is their only out, and it costs them nothing to make part of their combined executive/litigation/adjudication(!!!) strategy.

The scary part is that *literally* this is all three branches of government colluding and working together as one.

Definitely they think that with enough delays they might be able to leverage a new SCOTUS makeup when they case eventually winds its way back through the courts.

But even if they stand no chance of victory, the delay itself is its own reward. Like a defeated army that burns a city out of spite while it evacuates, they know that delays hurt us, and hurting us it their top priority.

And this, of course.

[TheNinja]

Hopefully this is the right spot but what are the realistic odds or timing where you guys think we can get pistol grips on our ARs?

I know it's all tied to AWB and would be more "features" than just pistol grips but man...that would be sweet if that could at least get pushed through in early 2023.

[popeye4]

Hopefully this is the right spot but what are the realistic odds or timing where you guys think we can get pistol grips on our ARs?

I know it's all tied to AWB and would be more "features" than just pistol grips but man...that would be sweet if that could at least get pushed through in early 2023.

I think you're missing the point. We are past "asking for permission" stage and soon the whole AWB nonsense will be flushed down the proverbial toilet. Then we'll even be able to have those nefarious and extremely naughty bayonet lugs...