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

[Inoxmark]

There's a docket entry for a love letter to Saint Benitez.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.642089/gov.uscourts.casd.642089.128.0.pdf

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.642089/gov.uscourts.casd.642089.128.1.pdf

Appears related to SB 1327.

Well, it seems at least someone has standing now to challenge that new law. Since that law group, as plaintiff's representatives in ongoing case, asked to confirm the newly passed law is not going to apply to them, and were not reassured that it won't.

[abinsinia]

Well, it seems at least someone has standing now to challenge that new law. Since that law group, as plaintiff's representatives in ongoing case, asked to confirm the newly passed law is not going to apply to them, and were not reassured that it won't.

The Renna cases updated complaint also address this. I think basically every case now will have to included a challenge to that law.

[skeeter149]

So that's newscums scheme! Kick everything back to trial judge and pray that we can't "afford to lose". Wow this states shady. Texas is doing it with a law that isn't in the constitution. California said "hell we don't like it screw your old parchment." It's like lifetime bans on 2a. Do something dumb lose your rights rest of your life. But the privilege of driving (not a right) do whatever you want you'll almost never lose for life. Heck run over a family you'll get it back

[Lanejsl]

So that's newscums scheme! Kick everything back to trial judge and pray that we can't "afford to lose". Wow this states shady. Texas is doing it with a law that isn't in the constitution. California said "hell we don't like it screw your old parchment." It's like lifetime bans on 2a. Do something dumb lose your rights rest of your life. But the privilege of driving (not a right) do whatever you want you'll almost never lose for life. Heck run over a family you'll get it back

Kind of genius.

[Scott Connors]

How are changes to California's rules of civil procedure binding on federal court? What prevented Mississippi from doing this with challenges to their state's voting rights and segregation laws?

[abinsinia]

How are changes to California's rules of civil procedure binding on federal court? What prevented Mississippi from doing this with challenges to their state's voting rights and segregation laws?

I think the lawyers don't know if it applied to federal court or not. In the letter they said they asked the states attorneys and they refused to respond.

[taperxz]

So that's newscums scheme! Kick everything back to trial judge and pray that we can't "afford to lose". Wow this states shady. Texas is doing it with a law that isn't in the constitution. California said "hell we don't like it screw your old parchment." It's like lifetime bans on 2a. Do something dumb lose your rights rest of your life. But the privilege of driving (not a right) do whatever you want you'll almost never lose for life. Heck run over a family you'll get it back

Newsom? CA gun laws have been around much longer than Newsom.

[Metal God]

Can anyone give me the time and courtroom number for the hearing on Monday ? I'd like to go and sit in on the proceedings .

[ar15barrels]

How are changes to California's rules of civil procedure binding on federal court?

I don't think they are because the case is not in a state court.
I would expect that there are federal civil procedures that are followed in all the federal courts and that a single state can't change federal procedures.

That clarification should hopefully come out of any conference held on the matter.

[ar15barrels]

I think the lawyers don't know if it applied to federal court or not.
In the letter they said they asked the states attorneys and they refused to respond.

I would guess they don't want to or won't respond because they don't want to clarify that the state law can not be applied in federal cases.

[abinsinia]

Can anyone give me the time and courtroom number for the hearing on Monday ? I'd like to go and sit in on the proceedings .

It's in the docket entry below,

NOTICE of Spreading the Mandate: Appeal Mandate Hearing set for 8/29/2022 09:30 AM in Courtroom 5A before Judge Roger T. Benitez. (no document attached) (gxr) (Entered: 08/24/2022)

[abinsinia]

I would guess they don't want to or won't respond because they don't want to clarify that the state law can not be applied in federal cases.

They're just leaving their options open. Maybe it applies, maybe not.

[Metal God]

Thanks greatly appreciated , I’ll update when I get after or during if applicable.

[FreemanG]

I don't think they are because the case is not in a state court.
I would expect that there are federal civil procedures that are followed in all the federal courts and that a single state can't change federal procedures.

That clarification should hopefully come out of any conference held on the matter.

My impression of that law is that any 2A suit brought against the state by an entity under the states jurisdiction would be sued for those fees in state court after the fact.

[AKSOG]

I hope this backfires on Newsom and gets us a judgement before the end of the year.