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

[FirearmFino]

Dang. Don't know anything about the judge, but filing in San Diego seems like we were hoping to get Benitez again.

Because this case is similar to Duncan v Becerra, the plaintiffs may submit a motion to reassign the case to Benitez. However, the current judge will have to approve it.

[1911su16b870]

The court will hold plaintiff's request for injunctive relief and strike down the penal code definition of an AW that holds (capacity to accept) more than 10 rounds - thereby allowing plaintiffs use of their LCM in their non-AWs.

Of note is the MD case if given cert. and Duncan v. Bec. case...

[Uncivil Engineer]

Because this case is similar to Duncan v Becerra, the plaintiffs may submit a motion to reassign the case to Benitez. However, the current judge will have to approve it.

What are the chances of getting this to Benitez? I can't believe anyone would want to hold on to this case in the current news climate. Reading Benitez's ruling in Duncan sounded like he was itching for a 2A case and might be ready to go after assault weapons.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Ooooh, the "California Gun Rights Foundation (CGF)"...who is this new kid on the block? I wonder if they have a charismatic leader, a manager of litigation and experienced though unlicensed scholar of the law at the helm. I like how this new organization is "riffing" on the name of the old org. DONATE NOW!!!!!

[Mayor McRifle]

Why has no one gone after them on the grounds that the supposed logic behind the ban on "assault weapons" is not based on any empirical facts? There is zero bonafide evidence to support the presumption that the weapons covered are any more lethal or dangerous than any other rifle available that is lacking the so called evil features?

Everyone is waiting for you to step up and do it.

[champu]

[michigander]

[taperxz]

Ooooh, the "California Gun Rights Foundation (CGF)"...who is this new kid on the block? I wonder if they have a charismatic leader, a manager of litigation and experienced though unlicensed scholar of the law at the helm. I like how this new organization is "riffing" on the name of the old org. DONATE NOW!!!!!

[OleCuss]

if anyone ever took a look at any of the studies done they would find they are seriously flawed and written in a manner to prove the point the author or whoever is paying for it wants. I spent years shooting down state surveys and facts in the health field because nothing was honest especially in HIV. No survey done in california or stats in this state should ever be taken at face value if the state uses it to try and support a stance.

Yeah, I remember once looking at the statistics on those without health insurance here in California.

The headline was that it showed a worrisomely high number of Californians without health insurance.

I was able to drill down to the actual data on that one (it took a while) and it was classic lying with statistics.

IIRC the way they determined the percentage of uninsured people in California was:
1. Eliminate everyone who had Medicare.
2. Count as uninsured every single person who had even one day in the calendar year when they were uninsured. They may have had insurance for 364 days but if they didn't have it 365 days of that calendar year they went into the statistics as being "uninsured" for that year.

Then to calculate the number of uninsured people they took that percentage and multiplied it by the total number of people who were considered to be living in California.

So the percentage was cooked and then they put Medicare recipients back into the equation when it came time to calculate the number of uninsured.

It was blatant lying.

I do not doubt that they are playing similar games with just about everything they present to us as facts.

Reporters are generally too stupid to pick up on the lies, are part of the lies, or don't bother doing the research to discover they are lies.

[FirearmFino]

Looks like they're trying to have the case moved to Judge Benitez:

NOTICE OF RELATED CASE(S) by James Miller, Ryan Peterson, Patrick Russ, San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee of case(s) 17-cv-1017-BEN-JLB . (Dillon, John)

17-cv-1017-BEN-JLB refers to Duncan v Becerra.

[etwinam]

good luck, we can only hope this catches traction

[93chipper]

[bajajoaquin]

Can I get some clarification? is this going after the whole featureless, 10-round limit, enchilada, or just >10 round mags in the current regime of “must breaks down the action?”

[moleculo]

They're attempting to address the current situation where it's currently legal to possess and use magazines > 10 rounds except in fixed magazine semi-auto firearms with features. They're trying to get rid of that exception so that the magazines may be used in those specific type of firearms.

[bajajoaquin]

Got it, thank you.