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

[ar15barrels]

Even still, the USSC really doesn't like to change its opinion that quickly.
It took almost 50 years for abortion.
I'd expect this ruling to hold up for a few decades at least!

Liberals give no fuks for tradition.

[cleonard]

I think it's interesting that this order was originally dated 2 August and that Benitez hand crossed that out and changed it to the 8th when he signed it.

I think it means he is ready to go. I wonder if the TRO is ready to go like this document appears to have been.

[kcstott]

[rplaw]

Because it is the trial courts that make factual findings, so it needed to go back to Benitez to see if there are any facts that that might bear on the analysis required by Bruen. I think that we can reasonably assume that Miller's brief will state that there is no evidence that could come anywhere close to satisfying Bruen's THT requirement. And as SkyHawk posted we can hardly wait to see what Bonta pulls out of the B.S. drawer this time...

The State's only argument has been shot down by SCOTUS already but they've got no other choice except to go with it anyway and cite to pre-ratification English and antebellum period laws. They'll also dig up as many obscure regulations from pre-statehood territories as they can and throw them in there too.

Hopefully Benitez is prepared for the onslaught of lies, skullduggery, and obscuration/misdirection that's headed his way. I don't have time to do it right now, but someone should review the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildago to see if there's something in there that the State can use to justify its unconstitutional infringement.

[RickD427]

The case is no longer in the jurisdiction of the 9th. It’s in Benitez’s court he will make the final ruling. Enjoin or strike down the AWB all the way back to 1989.
Hopefully we get a PI and a TRO while the state attempts an appeal.
I just want it done and over with. All in good time though.

Maybe and Maybe Not.

Judge Benitez will issue a second decision upon the remand.

If neither party elects to appeal that decision, then it will become final.

But the losing party does have the right of appeal back to the Ninth Circuit. There is certainly the potential for another trip through the appeal circuit before we get to a final ruling.

I'm quite confident that Judge Benitez will craft an excellent decision, just as he did the first time (and noting that he clearly authored that decision for the Supreme Court rather than the parties). I'm equally confident that Mr. Bonta will exercise his right of appeal. The "Jury is Out" (pun intended) with the Ninth Circuit. There are a lot of "Constitutionalists" on that court (more so than in times past). There are "Activist" judges who understand the rule of law, specifically the direction of a higher court, and there are "Activist" judges who are not particularly respectful of such direction. We'll have to see how it plays out.

[curtisfong]

The "Jury is Out" (pun intended) with the Ninth Circuit. There are a lot of "Constitutionalists" on that court (more so than in times past). There are "Activist" judges who understand the rule of law, specifically the direction of a higher court, and there are "Activist" judges who are not particularly respectful of such direction. We'll have to see how it plays out.

My gut tells me the 9th feels that recent SCOTUS rulings have put them on a war footing, and they're more likely than ever to (continue to) follow partisan politics instead of the law.

I have no doubt they all think they are doing the "right" thing and "protecting" us, no matter how intellectually (and ethically) bankrupt.

Prediction:

The 9th will double down and continue to defy SCOTUS indefinitely (by rubberstamping anything the State wants them to, no matter how incompetent, flawed, dishonest, or faulty), or until SCOTUS actually makes a decision other than GVR.

[IVC]

The 9th will double down and continue to defy SCOTUS indefinitely (by rubberstamping anything the State wants them to, no matter how incompetent, flawed, dishonest, or faulty), or until SCOTUS actually makes a decision other than GVR.

That would be a fast track to SCOTUS, so my bet is they'll try to delay as much as possible, hoping for the change in the composition of the court. But the 9th also changed significantly under Trump and we've not only seen victories at district level, but we've seen victories with 3-judge panels that had to be reversed by the full en banc court.

The 9th is not this monolith of corruption that everyone believes it to be, not because some judges wouldn't stoop that low, but because they don't have the numbers they used to have.

[kcstott]

Maybe and Maybe Not.

Judge Benitez will issue a second decision upon the remand.

If neither party elects to appeal that decision, then it will become final.

But the losing party does have the right of appeal back to the Ninth Circuit. There is certainly the potential for another trip through the appeal circuit before we get to a final ruling.

I'm quite confident that Judge Benitez will craft an excellent decision, just as he did the first time (and noting that he clearly authored that decision for the Supreme Court rather than the parties). I'm equally confident that Mr. Bonta will exercise his right of appeal. The "Jury is Out" (pun intended) with the Ninth Circuit. There are a lot of "Constitutionalists" on that court (more so than in times past). There are "Activist" judges who understand the rule of law, specifically the direction of a higher court, and there are "Activist" judges who are not particularly respectful of such direction. We'll have to see how it plays out.

[curtisfong]

The problem with the state AG is he doesn’t know when he’s beat.

That's because he can probably still rely on most of the courts in the 9th to fix his mistakes and agree with his lies.

That is to say, he isn't actually beat.. yet.

I wonder if Bonta knows exactly how sloppy and lazy he can be, and to what lengths the courts will go to cover for him.

[1911su16b870]

Its all fun and games for the CA AG until...

Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

[curtisfong]

Its all fun and games for the CA AG until...

[RickD427]

And on that point, I fully agree.

[RickD427]

Its all fun and games for the CA AG until...

Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Gents,

Both points are pretty much irrelevant to this discussion.

As for 18 USC 242, please keep in mind that is a criminal statute. One of the required elements is that the violator "willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege."

In the case of California officials enforcing California statutes, you gotta show that those statutes deprived a person of a right or privilege. As of this moment no California statute has been shown to meet that criteria. Duncan is getting close, but it ain't there yet.

As for 42 USC 1983, you have to defeat "Qualified Immunity." Under Saucier v Katz, this would require you to show that the official's actions violated a "Clearly Established" right. That's gonna be pretty much impossible when they act in accordance with facially valid statutes.

You gotta be careful not to declare victory in the third quarter of the game.

[kcstott]

Its all fun and games for the CA AG until...

you might what to tell that to 127,000 us citizens that were imprisoned against their will. No charges, no due process, just labeled a risk to national security.

[kcstott]

That's because he can probably still rely on most of the courts in the 9th to fix his mistakes and agree with his lies.

That is to say, he isn't actually beat.. yet.

I wonder if Bonta knows exactly how sloppy and lazy he can be, and to what lengths the courts will go to cover for him.

Bonta is in fact beat. He’s done, this is going to be a slow but steady flood of laws being removed. It’s only a matter of time. Even the 9th can only back pedal so far, they will eventually abide by the opinion of the Supreme Court. They will not like it, they may do everything in there power to not fall in line with Bruen, but they will in the end. They will follow rule of law or there could be an impeachment. Even the left wing news would carry the story showing how brave th e9th is for standing their ground on what they believe to be a great risk to the general public and children. All it will take is a little CNN MSNBC running their mouths, the view picking up the story and flapping their clackers. that would be enough to draw attention to the case and get the supreme court to issue and order or congrees to hold an impeachment. Remember this is not a good time for democrats. they are loosing seats all the time. Mid terms are three months away. wait for the big flush.