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

[FreemanG]

Are you mistaking this for magazines? Nothing has changed with LEO enforcing assault weapons ban.

I am referring to the removal of the injunction during yesterdays "Spreading the Mandate" hearing.

[abinsinia]

Aug 30, 2022 Request For Amici Curiae In The Miller V. Bonita Action By David Edward Martin In Pro Se. (ddf) (Entered: 08/30/2022)

Another entry in the docket. spelling issue ?

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.642089/gov.uscourts.casd.642089.132.0.pdf

[BucDan]

Any chance that this challenge, if successful, stops Biden from trying to renew an AW ban? Whether challenged in the 9th, or better yet SCOTUS?

[jcwatchdog]

Any chance that this challenge, if successful, stops Biden from trying to renew an AW ban? Whether challenged in the 9th, or better yet SCOTUS?

No this case would have no effect directly. Let him do the national ban ASAP though. It helps everyone more if it goes to the Supreme Court and they rule AW bans are unconstitutional across the US. I dare them right now to do it with Bruen.

[gobler]

I know this is a Boulder CO case but the language used by the Biden appointed judge could be borrowed by Benitez..

https://youtu.be/9lRnzRIeUpk

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

[kuug]

I am referring to the removal of the injunction during yesterdays "Spreading the Mandate" hearing.

The first Miller opinion is vacated

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/5381/attachments/original/1659399440/Miller_v_Bonta_Order_Remanding_Case.pdf?1659399440

[abinsinia]

The first Miller opinion is vacated

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fir...pdf?1659399440

The docket has injunction language,

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Roger T. Benitez: Appeal Mandate Hearing held on 8/29/2022. Appeal Mandate ordered filed for USCA Case Number(s): 21-55608. Injunction dissolved. Both parties have 45 days to file simultaneous additional briefs and 15 days thereafter to file responsive briefs in light of Bruen. The Court will then decide whether to schedule any hearings or decide the case on the record.(Court Reporter Tricia Rosate). (Plaintiff Attorney John W. Dillon). (Defendant Attorney John Darrow Echeverria). (no document attached) (gxr) (Entered: 08/30/2022)

[kcstott]

Even though nothing has changed on our end of the argument, the state still needs it's due process. the state will be told they are still wrong very soon. what we do not want to give them is any reason or leverage to take this up the food chain to the 9th and have a valid argument that the state was not given a fair chance.

[abinsinia]

Here's the amicus brief request I mentioned above,

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.642089/gov.uscourts.casd.642089.132.0.pdf

someone who rolled the dice and lost.

[kcstott]

it's called rendering a law Moot. Once the AWCA goes away and enjoins all the way back to Roberti Roos 1989, it all must go away. The state will not like it but it will all eventually go away. I do not want to pretend like I know what I'm talking about legally, I would assume the court would list every penal code effected.

[kcstott]

Here's the amicus brief request I mentioned above,

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.642089/gov.uscourts.casd.642089.132.0.pdf

someone who rolled the dice and lost.

lets hope those suggestions are taken whole heartedly and Benitez lifts the stay and PI/TRO's this deal.
That would be awesome. but I bet nothing will happen till November.

[BlueOvalBandit]

Here's the amicus brief request I mentioned above,

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.642089/gov.uscourts.casd.642089.132.0.pdf

someone who rolled the dice and lost.

I had to look up some background on this just because I'm wondering why ATF is involving themselves in State laws....

For the curious, a little more info

https://www.chicoer.com/2019/03/01/judge-throws-out-weapons-case-against-ex-butte-county-sheriffs-deputy

The whole thing sounds shady like the recent batmobile raid.

Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk

[champu]

The first time around, here is what Benitez's order stated...

So these would all be toast, making registration largely (if not entirely) irrelevant:

30945.

30600.

(a) Any person who, within this state, manufactures or causes to be manufactured, distributes, transports, or imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives or lends any assault weapon or any .50 BMG rifle, except as provided by this chapter, is guilty of a felony, and upon conviction shall be punished by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for four, six, or eight years.

(b) In addition and consecutive to the punishment imposed under subdivision (a), any person who transfers, lends, sells, or gives any assault weapon or any .50 BMG rifle to a minor in violation of subdivision (a) shall receive an enhancement of imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of one year.

(c) Except in the case of a first violation involving not more than two firearms as provided in Sections 30605 and 30610, for purposes of this article, if more than one assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle is involved in any violation of this article, there shall be a distinct and separate offense for each.

30605

(a) Any person who, within this state, possesses any assault weapon, except as provided in this chapter, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for a period not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.

(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a first violation of these provisions is punishable by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500) if the person was found in possession of no more than two firearms in compliance with Section 30945 and the person meets all of the following conditions:

(1) The person proves that he or she lawfully possessed the assault weapon prior to the date it was defined as an assault weapon.

(2) The person has not previously been convicted of a violation of this article.

(3) The person was found to be in possession of the assault weapon within one year following the end of the one-year registration period established pursuant to Section 30900.

(4) The person relinquished the firearm pursuant to Section 31100, in which case the assault weapon shall be destroyed pursuant to Sections 18000 and 18005.

30800

(a) (1) Except as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 30600), possession of any assault weapon or of any .50 BMG rifle in violation of this chapter is a public nuisance, solely for purposes of this section and subdivision (c) of Section 18005.

(2) The Attorney General, any district attorney, or any city attorney, may, in lieu of criminal prosecution, bring a civil action or reach a civil compromise in any superior court to enjoin the manufacture of, importation of, keeping for sale of, offering or exposing for sale, giving, lending, or possession of an assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle that is a public nuisance.

(b) (1) Upon motion of the Attorney General, district attorney, or city attorney, a superior court may impose a civil fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500) for the manufacture of, importation of, keeping for sale of, offering or exposing for sale, giving, or lending of an assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle that is a public nuisance pursuant to subdivision (a) and up to two hundred dollars ($200) for each additional assault weapon or .50 BMG that is a public nuisance pursuant to subdivision (a).

(2) Upon motion of the Attorney General, district attorney, or city attorney, a superior court may impose a civil fine not to exceed three hundred dollars ($300) for the possession of an assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle that is a public nuisance pursuant to subdivision (a) and up to one hundred dollars ($100) for each additional assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle possessed, that is a public nuisance pursuant to subdivision (a).

(c) Any assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle deemed a public nuisance under subdivision (a) shall be destroyed in a manner so that it may no longer be used, except upon a finding by a court, or a declaration from the Department of Justice, district attorney, or city attorney stating that the preservation of the assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle is in the interest of justice.

(d) Upon conviction of any misdemeanor or felony involving the illegal possession or use of an assault weapon, the assault weapon shall be deemed a public nuisance and disposed of pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 18005.

[ar15barrels]

it's called rendering a law Moot.
Once the AWCA goes away and enjoins all the way back to Roberti Roos 1989, it all must go away.
The state will not like it but it will all eventually go away.
I do not want to pretend like I know what I'm talking about legally,
I would assume the court would list every penal code effected.

That would be a poor assumption.
The court only lists the specific statutes in the complaint.
The complaint needs to be amended to add new statutes as they appear before the case is argued.
Each time the complaint is amended, the trial gets longer and longer as both sides argue the specific additions.
That all has to be hashed out at the beginning of the process.
Once the complaint is finalized, then the trial moves to arguments and into a resolution.
There's generally no changing of the complaint at the last minute.

[rplaw]

That would be a poor assumption.
The court only lists the specific statutes in the complaint.
The complaint needs to be amended to add new statutes as they appear before the case is argued.
Each time the complaint is amended, the trial gets longer and longer as both sides argue the specific additions.
That all has to be hashed out at the beginning of the process.
Once the complaint is finalized, then the trial moves to arguments and into a resolution.
There's generally no changing of the complaint at the last minute.

On the whole, this is correct. Except the complaining party can make a motion to amend "according to proof at trial." If the judge grants the motion, then the complaint is amended to bring additional claims that arise as the evidence is presented during trial (or during briefing).

This is not uncommon. I've never been involved in a case where the motion is denied but it's not always made. Not even in limine where every possible motion that's even remotely conceivable is made.