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

[kcstott]

I wonder if it would be possible, now that the judgment of the inferior court was vacated by SCOTUS, for another plaintiff to sue using the same argument and - presuming of course they get a friendly judge a la Saint Benitez - get the AWB enjoined sidestepping Miller entirely. I am not a lawyer but my first thought is that since SCOTUS obviously told the 9th to try again (while not necessarily saying find the AWB unconstitutional they definitely forced a reset) that the issue is once again a matter of first impression, right? Thus, there is no circuit law proscribing 2A challenges to AWBs and I see no reason why a new plaintiff couldn't bring action. Again, though, IANAL.

I'm just frustrated with how painfully long this is taking.

And if that did happen, the state would appeal, if the 9th then followed the current opinion the state would petition for En Banc. dragging it out for another five years.

No this is as close as we can get right now and anything other than waiting on the 9th to issue the order is just adding time.
The state has already asked for a full rehearing of the case. all that will do is delay the inevitable. I want the inevitable now. Not next year, now!

What we can hope for is Scotus issuing a writ of mandamus to the 9th and other courts dragging their feet.

[kuug]

I wonder if it would be possible, now that the judgment of the inferior court was vacated by SCOTUS, for another plaintiff to sue using the same argument and - presuming of course they get a friendly judge a la Saint Benitez - get the AWB enjoined sidestepping Miller entirely. I am not a lawyer but my first thought is that since SCOTUS obviously told the 9th to try again (while not necessarily saying find the AWB unconstitutional they definitely forced a reset) that the issue is once again a matter of first impression, right? Thus, there is no circuit law proscribing 2A challenges to AWBs and I see no reason why a new plaintiff couldn't bring action. Again, though, IANAL.

I'm just frustrated with how painfully long this is taking.

I wonder if it would be possible, now that the judgment of the inferior court was vacated by SCOTUS, for another plaintiff to sue using the same argument and - presuming of course they get a friendly judge a la Saint Benitez - get the AWB enjoined sidestepping Miller entirely. I am not a lawyer but my first thought is that since SCOTUS obviously told the 9th to try again (while not necessarily saying find the AWB unconstitutional they definitely forced a reset) that the issue is once again a matter of first impression, right? Thus, there is no circuit law proscribing 2A challenges to AWBs and I see no reason why a new plaintiff couldn't bring action. Again, though, IANAL.

I'm just frustrated with how painfully long this is taking.

[curtisfong]

CA gun owners: the color of the sky is blue!
9th: the color is black. We looked at it at night and it was black
SCOTUS: the color of the sky must be evaluated at daytime
CA gunowners: Yay!!!
9th: the color of the sky is gray. We just looked during daytime and it was gray
CA gunowners: wtf

Nailed it

[Drivedabizness]

Bad behavior is whatever Congress deems it to be as a "non-justiciable political question."

Name one time - quickly - Congress has done so.

Quickly.

I thought not.

Now go back and read my response and say - "yep - you were right"

[ar15barrels]

Not quite. Cases are not retried in a court of appeal. That court instead reviews the record from the trial court for prejudicial errors in law or an abuse of discretion in determining questions of fact.

That came across wrong.
What I meant was to re-try an en-banc review with a full panel.
Their problem there of course is that the court is not AS full of liberals as it was in the past so there's no guarantee they get a good panel.

[Sputnik]

I'm just kinda hoping they (at the 9th) take the big ol hint from SCOTUS and give the right ruling like that Obama judge in Colorado (RMGO v Superior)...
yeah, I know... its the 9th

But it doesn't mean it can't happen.

[Sgt Raven]

That came across wrong.
What I meant was to re-try an en-banc review with a full panel.
Their problem there of course is that the court is not AS full of liberals as it was in the past so there's no guarantee they get a good panel.

I understood what you were saying. Saint Benitez used "Text + History", so this should be back in the 9th with additional briefing under the Bruen standard.

[Roswell Saucer]

Oh, damn, you're right. The AWB case was out of Maryland, yeah.

[CommieforniaResident]

Name one time - quickly - Congress has done so.

Quickly.

I thought not.

Now go back and read my response and say - "yep - you were right"

See Nixon v. U.S. if you really dont believe me https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._United_States

[taperxz]

I understood what you were saying. Saint Benitez used "Text + History", so this should be back in the 9th with additional briefing under the Bruen standard.

[rplaw]

The State and the 9th won't care. They'll send it back to the trial court for briefing.

I'm hoping that Benitez just does a cut & paste from his prior decision to save time.

[abinsinia]

The State and the 9th won't care. They'll send it back to the trial court for briefing.

I'm hoping that Benitez just does a cut & paste from his prior decision to save time.

I was thinking this may not be bad, because for Heller the 2 step test was defined in Chovan which I think was the first 2A case in the 9th after Heller. If Benitez does the re-do fast Miller could be the first 2A case after NYSPRA v. Bruen and he could more specifically define how the test works in the 9th. Then again maybe the 9th just ignores Benitez.

[taperxz]

The State and the 9th won't care. They'll send it back to the trial court for briefing.

I'm hoping that Benitez just does a cut & paste from his prior decision to save time.

Maybe im mistaken but isn't the stay being lifted up to the appeals court who actually gave Miller a win to the plaintiffs? All they have to do is lift the stay for 15 minutes to make matters moot other than future sales IF an En Banc court re issues a stay pending a rehearing?

[timdps]

Acquittals would do nothing because all that means is that the prosecutor failed to prove his or her case. Now if a trial court granted a demurrer based on the unconstitutionality of the AWCA and the people appealed the appellate court opinion would have precedential effect. There may even be a possibility that the deputy could file a writ of Habeas Corpus to challenge his conviction.

Perhaps something like this?

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=1809810

T

[BBot12]

Maybe im mistaken but isn't the stay being lifted up to the appeals court who actually gave Miller a win to the plaintiffs? All they have to do is lift the stay for 15 minutes to make matters moot other than future sales IF an En Banc court re issues a stay pending a rehearing?