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

[busa]

what will happen to BB? I have RAW with BB.

[jcwatchdog]

what will happen to BB? I have RAW with BB.

You will be able to change it to a regular mag release. Technically some believe you can do that now.

[Frozenguy]

I'm trying to catch up, and I see a lot of people saying a lot of things.

It sounds like there is no decision yet but some people are saying they believe you can now go featureless and remove BB or fixed mag conditions?

What about someone who went featureless to avoid registration on AR-15?

Is it looking good? Is it done? What is April 2023?

[jcwatchdog]

I'm trying to catch up, and I see a lot of people saying a lot of things.

It sounds like there is no decision yet but some people are saying they believe you can now go featureless and remove BB or fixed mag conditions?

What about someone who went featureless to avoid registration on AR-15?

Is it looking good? Is it done? What is April 2023?

Nothing has changed just yet at all. Hopefully soon.

[kuug]

I'm trying to catch up, and I see a lot of people saying a lot of things.

It sounds like there is no decision yet but some people are saying they believe you can now go featureless and remove BB or fixed mag conditions?

What about someone who went featureless to avoid registration on AR-15?

Is it looking good? Is it done? What is April 2023?

The case is sent back to Benitez, but nothing has happened beyond that. He has currently ordered both parties to submit more supplemental briefs and responses that are due around Halloween. So CA gets even more time to ban common rifles, pump the breaks on any purchases that would violate the current law until you read anything issued by Judge Benitez.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CGZ]

Well, we have Duncan (Magazine case), currently at the 9th, with breifs discussing NYSRPA v Bruen haveing been filed. The state essentially begged for it to be remanded (it would go to Judge Benitez). We are waiting on the 9th's action now. That will be a tell on how they'd handle this case if (when) appealed. However the other case a that made it to SOCTUS from the 9th, Young v. Hawaii, was remanded back to the district courts in Hawaii. I would not be surprised if they did the same to Duncan

[CurlyDave]

Just as speculation, what happens if Benitez declines to issue a stay and the 9th does issue one? Can the stay be appealed to SCOTUS? I suspect the stay would not stand and this could be the fastest track to freedom.

[rplaw]

Just as speculation, what happens if Benitez declines to issue a stay and the 9th does issue one? Can the stay be appealed to SCOTUS? I suspect the stay would not stand and this could be the fastest track to freedom.

IF, if, if, if... Benitez doesn't stay his decision, and it's to declare the AWCA unconstitutional, and the 9th issues an emergency stay; the stay can be appealed via a writ to the SCOTUS. I believe it's Kagan who will decide on whether to hear the writ or not - thus adding to the possibility that it won't be granted purely on ideological grounds.

Whether she does allow the writ depends a lot on how Benitez writes his decision and the methodology he follows. If his decision tracks with Bruen, and doesn't stray outside of the boundaries of Bruen, then Kagan might not have much choice except to grant the writ and pass it on to the rest of the court to decide.

On the other hand, if there's a widespread US based history - however vague - of gun control laws regarding certain types of weapons during or near in time to the the time of ratification, then there's an argument to be made on the facts whether Benitez faithfully applied all of the analysis Bruen requires.

So, if Benitez declares the AWCA illegal, doesn't stay his decision, and the 9th issues an emergency stay, whether that stay is lifted by the SCOTUS depends on how Benitez writes his decision and whether there's a legit question about the facts and the Bruen test.

How's that for an answer?

[walmart_ar15]

There seem to be a statue that if the State is the Appellant, the judgement is automatically stayed until resolution? Can someone speak legalese comment on this?

[GetMeCoffee]

IF, if, if, if... Benitez doesn't stay his decision, and it's to declare the AWCA unconstitutional, and the 9th issues an emergency stay; the stay can be appealed via a writ to the SCOTUS. I believe it's Kagan who will decide on whether to hear the writ or not - thus adding to the possibility that it won't be granted purely on ideological grounds.

Whether she does allow the writ depends a lot on how Benitez writes his decision and the methodology he follows. If his decision tracks with Bruen, and doesn't stray outside of the boundaries of Bruen, then Kagan might not have much choice except to grant the writ and pass it on to the rest of the court to decide.

On the other hand, if there's a widespread US based history - however vague - of gun control laws regarding certain types of weapons during or near in time to the the time of ratification, then there's an argument to be made on the facts whether Benitez faithfully applied all of the analysis Bruen requires.

So, if Benitez declares the AWCA illegal, doesn't stay his decision, and the 9th issues an emergency stay, whether that stay is lifted by the SCOTUS depends on how Benitez writes his decision and whether there's a legit question about the facts and the Bruen test.

How's that for an answer?

Thank you for the thoughtful analysis

[taperxz]

IF, if, if, if... Benitez doesn't stay his decision, and it's to declare the AWCA unconstitutional, and the 9th issues an emergency stay; the stay can be appealed via a writ to the SCOTUS. I believe it's Kagan who will decide on whether to hear the writ or not - thus adding to the possibility that it won't be granted purely on ideological grounds.

Whether she does allow the writ depends a lot on how Benitez writes his decision and the methodology he follows. If his decision tracks with Bruen, and doesn't stray outside of the boundaries of Bruen, then Kagan might not have much choice except to grant the writ and pass it on to the rest of the court to decide.

On the other hand, if there's a widespread US based history - however vague - of gun control laws regarding certain types of weapons during or near in time to the the time of ratification, then there's an argument to be made on the facts whether Benitez faithfully applied all of the analysis Bruen requires.

So, if Benitez declares the AWCA illegal, doesn't stay his decision, and the 9th issues an emergency stay, whether that stay is lifted by the SCOTUS depends on how Benitez writes his decision and whether there's a legit question about the facts and the Bruen test.

How's that for an answer?

[Libertarian777]

IF, if, if, if... Benitez doesn't stay his decision, and it's to declare the AWCA unconstitutional, and the 9th issues an emergency stay; the stay can be appealed via a writ to the SCOTUS. I believe it's Kagan who will decide on whether to hear the writ or not - thus adding to the possibility that it won't be granted purely on ideological grounds.

Whether she does allow the writ depends a lot on how Benitez writes his decision and the methodology he follows. If his decision tracks with Bruen, and doesn't stray outside of the boundaries of Bruen, then Kagan might not have much choice except to grant the writ and pass it on to the rest of the court to decide.

On the other hand, if there's a widespread US based history - however vague - of gun control laws regarding certain types of weapons during or near in time to the the time of ratification, then there's an argument to be made on the facts whether Benitez faithfully applied all of the analysis Bruen requires.

So, if Benitez declares the AWCA illegal, doesn't stay his decision, and the 9th issues an emergency stay, whether that stay is lifted by the SCOTUS depends on how Benitez writes his decision and whether there's a legit question about the facts and the Bruen test.

How's that for an answer?

I find it's the biggest load of BS about Bruen changing things. Heller already defined the test. Benetiz correctly applied Heller in both Miller and Duncan. Bruen adds nothing to his prior judgements.

All Bruen does is basically slap the circuit courts and to say apply Heller like this.

[GetMeCoffee]

There seem to be a statue that if the State is the Appellant, the judgement is automatically stayed until resolution? Can someone speak legalese comment on this?

I'm pretty sure that is not a statute or even a rule. It comes down to interest balancing between the State and the Plaintiff. If the subject is a brand new law that clearly violates a right, then the state might not get a stay (unless 2A, then always...). Usually it isn't quite that clear and the State usually gets the benefit of the doubt.

[bigdaddyz1776]

New York would probably want to overturn the 1776 revolution at this point as illegitimate, if they going that far.

[Libertarian777]

I'm pretty sure that is not a statute or even a rule. It comes down to interest balancing between the State and the Plaintiff. If the subject is a brand new law that clearly violates a right, then the state might not get a stay (unless 2A, then always...). Usually it isn't quite that clear and the State usually gets the benefit of the doubt.

Probably has roots in Chevron deference. Whatever the legislature passes is 'presumptively lawful', whatever rule government agencies impose is also assumed lawful.

EPA v W Virginia put that assumption into question (although it has more to do with rulemaking (major questions)than lawmaking).
Heller, reaffirmed by Bruen, did away with 'interest balancing'. There's no 'balancing' of rights.