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

[popeye4]

I think it is like a toddler who holds his breath until he turns blue. They have been painted into a corner, they don't like it, there is little they can do about it, but they can throw a tantrum before being sent to their room. I really don't believe the emotional maturity of these people exceeds that of a typical 4 year old.

[TheNinja]

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...

Oooh, nefarious indeed!

Obviously we are all hoping the AWB is completely gone, but also, legally and realistically, I would not want a lug or a pistol grip on my AR in California at the moment. It is still a state law as far as I know, even if deemed unconstitutional by the fed.

So realistically, when do people think we could safely (without fear of legal problems) install "features" on our ARs? I guess that's the $10,000 question?

[fudd]

So realistically, when do people think we could safely (without fear of legal problems) install "features" on our ARs? I guess that's the $10,000 question?

[curtisfong]

when

Stop using that word. If it is one thing you should learn when observing the courts in action, it is that time has no meaning to them.

[TheNinja]

Stop using that word. If it is one thing you should learn when observing the courts in action, it is that time has no meaning to them.

I understand that....that's why I was asking if people had a feeling or thoughts or discussion on timeframe.

Clearly 5 days is different than 5 years. I understand that nobody here has a crystal ball. But I also know there are some smart people who have good gut instincts about these sorts of things. If we can't speculate on timeframes what is the point of discussing it?

[jcwatchdog]

I thought there was supposed to be some type of resolution by the court this week one way or another, by Thursday/Friday. Not a complete resolution, but just a resolution on whether the stay would be lifted or if the case is expedited for arguments.

[Bhobbs]

This week is the end of the 10 business days they have to respond to FPC’s appeal to lift the stay.

[curtisfong]

If we can't speculate on timeframes what is the point of discussing it?

Discussing timeframes is almost always non productive because it really could be 5 days or 5 years. Or even several decades.

[stag6.8]

This week is the end of the 10 business days they have to respond to FPC’s appeal to lift the stay.

Exactly...so next Monday /Tuesday we will see if the 9th circus will abide by the new rules ..and it also will expose the rogue judges . To SCOTUS ..

[keedba65]

Exactly...so next Monday /Tuesday we will see if the 9th circus will abide by the new rules ..and it also will expose the rogue judges . To SCOTUS ..

I believe that according to CA9 FRAP 27. MOTIONS 27(a)(4) Reply to Response, Miller now has 7 days to reply to Bonta's response. After the reply, or 7 days, the court can rule on the motion.
When Bonta requested the stay a year ago, the decision came 5 days after Bonta's reply to Miller. I couldn't find any rule on how long the court can take to either grant or deny the motion but then I am not a lawyer. Maybe those better versed in the ways of the 9th circuit court of appeals can provide better guidance.

[stag6.8]

I believe that according to CA9 FRAP 27. MOTIONS 27(a)(4) Reply to Response, Miller now has 7 days to reply to Bonta's response. After the reply, or 7 days, the court can rule on the motion.
When Bonta requested the stay a year ago, the decision came 5 days after Bonta's reply to Miller. I couldn't find any rule on how long the court can take to either grant or deny the motion but then I am not a lawyer. Maybe those better versed in the ways of the 9th circuit court of appeals can provide better guidance.

So Bonta had 7 days to reply to argue Millers paperwork/relief..to lift the stay (which was done on 6/30/2022)...in which bonta submitted.....so both parties has now entered paperwork!!!..so now the 9th gives a decision ...whether to lift the stay...or ..go the 9th circuit 3 panel trial..thank you for posting this..

[abinsinia]

So Bonta had 7 days to reply to argue Millers paperwork/relief..to lift the stay (which was done on 6/30/2022)...in which bonta submitted.....so both parties has now entered paperwork!!!..so now the 9th gives a decision ...whether to lift the stay...or ..go the 9th circuit 3 panel trial..thank you for posting this..

Miller has 7 days to respond to Bonta. So we have one more brief coming.

[cleonard]

So Bonta had 7 days to reply to argue Millers paperwork/relief..to lift the stay (which was done on 6/30/2022)...in which bonta submitted.....so both parties has now entered paperwork!!!..so now the 9th gives a decision ...whether to lift the stay...or ..go the 9th circuit 3 panel trial..thank you for posting this..

or send it back to the district court with the stay in place.

My pessimistic view is that they will leave the stay and it will be reviewed by the 9th. It will take two or three years. Any other move will have the law enjoined in short order.

[stag6.8]

Miller has 7 days to respond to Bonta. So we have one more brief coming.

Got it....thank you for clarifying that..

[tiki]

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.

I think this is the strategy. Even a ban by Federal Law would have to survive a Supreme Court challenge and I don't think that is likely. What it think the strategy is, at least from the left, is to somehow change the makeup of the Supreme Court. There's is an article out today

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/democratic-reps-call-senate-declare-180207712.html

detailing the plan by democrats to have the Senate declare that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh lied during their confirmation hearings. That would set the stage for them to try to impeach them. If they succeed in impeaching them, then Biden can nominate replacements and with democrat control of the Senate they will confirm them. And, if that happens, you can bet that not only will Roe be reinstated, but Heller becomes a target.

I think any case that gets remanded will, at a minimum, be slow rolled until this strategy plays out. I think Republicans were in a great place for the midterms until Roe was overturned.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/poll-shows-tight-race-control-115709598.html

I hope I'm wrong, but, this is what I see.

The argument by the defendants in the recent Miller filing,

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fir..._Lift_Stay.pdf,

that in light of the ruling in Bruen, the state needs time to prepare their case and an expedited ruling should be rejected. That is all the 9th Circuit needs to drag this out for however long the games in the Senate play out. The minute I saw the draft decision reversing Roe come out, I knew there were going to be problems.