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

[GetMeCoffee]

... Bruen, did away with 'interest balancing'. There's no 'balancing' of rights.

Just in:

LOL - Haha.

Seriously, though. Even if there is no interest balancing with the 2A, I believe interest balancing would still apply for a stay on appeal.

While the DC judge may see a slam dunk case that the state law violates the 2A, the fact that the law has been in place for decades does carry some weight. I believe that reasonable people would agree that the state needs to be given that one last shot and some time to deal with this earth shattering change.

Yes - even though they were wrong, they should have known it and they should have started fixing laws and regulations years ago. I'm seriously nashing my teeth while typing this, but I still think it's the right thing. Don't get me wrong - I'll be thrilled if they get their rear handed to them.

[taperxz]

Just in:


Seriously, though. Even if there is no interest balancing with the 2A, I believe interest balancing would still apply for a stay on appeal.

While the DC judge may see a slam dunk case that the state law violates the 2A, the fact that the law has been in place for decades does carry some weight. I believe that reasonable people would agree that the state needs to be given that one last shot and some time to deal with this earth shattering change.

Yes - even though they were wrong, they should have known it and they should have started fixing laws and regulations years ago. I'm seriously nashing my teeth while typing this, but I still think it's the right thing. Don't get me wrong - I'll be thrilled if they get their rear handed to them.

[GetMeCoffee]

You’re missing the legal point though. Plaintiff argued with text and history. The judges ruling was based on text and history. Defendant simply argued their case wrongly. No different than double jeopardy in a criminal case.

I probably am missing some nuance. I'm just thinking that by recognizing the state's interest in maintaining the status-quo on appeal, we end up with a much stronger position as this goes up the chain. The state's pleas will become even more irrational and desperate - not even being able to complain about not getting a stay - and it will become harder for any judge to rule for them. If it makes it to SCOTUS, the state and 9th CA will look like absolute clowns.

In my mind, I know that we are going to win this thing. I can wait a short time longer if it means (further) exposing the state and 9th as fools at the same time we're feeding suits regarding the roster, ammo, etc, etc. into the pipeline.

[BAJ475]

Just in:


Seriously, though. Even if there is no interest balancing with the 2A, I believe interest balancing would still apply for a stay on appeal.

While the DC judge may see a slam dunk case that the state law violates the 2A, the fact that the law has been in place for decades does carry some weight. I believe that reasonable people would agree that the state needs to be given that one last shot and some time to deal with this earth shattering change.

Yes - even though they were wrong, they should have known it and they should have started fixing laws and regulations years ago. I'm seriously nashing my teeth while typing this, but I still think it's the right thing. Don't get me wrong - I'll be thrilled if they get their rear handed to them.

I think that I am a reasonable person and I simply disagree. Instead of giving them one last shot they should have be shot a long time ago to provide an example to those who take an oath to support and defend the Constitution and then blatantly violate it by by imposing laws that violate the 2A. Prior to Heller they may have had an excuse but after Heller their actions were Treason!

[BAJ475]

I probably am missing some nuance. I'm just thinking that by recognizing the state's interest in maintaining the status-quo on appeal, we end up with a much stronger position as this goes up the chain. The state's pleas will become even more irrational and desperate - not even being able to complain about not getting a stay - and it will become harder for any judge to rule for them. If it makes it to SCOTUS, the state and 9th CA will look like absolute clowns.

In my mind, I know that we are going to win this thing. I can wait a short time longer if it means (further) exposing the state and 9th as fools at the same time we're feeding suits regarding the roster, ammo, etc, etc. into the pipeline.

The state has no legitimate interest in maintaining the status-quo. because after Heller and Bruen there is no question that the status-quo violates the Constitution. I am not saying that due process does not give the state the right to be heard, but for a stay they need to show a likelihood of success which after Heller and Bruen they cannot do.

[curtisfong]

for a stay they need to show a likelihood of success which after Heller and Bruen they cannot do.

And here we find out exactly how corrupt the 9th is. If the 9th outright declares that the state "need" not do any such thing or, more likely, they claim the state is likely to succeed, we know where the rest of the cases are going to go as well.

[ar15barrels]

And here we find out exactly how corrupt the 9th is.
If the 9th outright declares that the state "need" not do any such thing or, more likely, they claim the state is likely to succeed, we know where the rest of the cases are going to go as well.

Yep.
Back to the USSC for round 2.

[EM2]

Just in:


Seriously, though. Even if there is no interest balancing with the 2A, I believe interest balancing would still apply for a stay on appeal.

While the DC judge may see a slam dunk case that the state law violates the 2A, the fact that the law has been in place for decades does carry some weight. I believe that reasonable people would agree that the state needs to be given that one last shot and some time to deal with this earth shattering change.

Yes - even though they were wrong, they should have known it and they should have started fixing laws and regulations years ago. I'm seriously nashing my teeth while typing this, but I still think it's the right thing. Don't get me wrong - I'll be thrilled if they get their rear handed to them.

I am a reasonable person, , and do not think the state should be given a stay on appeal, regardless of longevity for the law in question.
There should not be any deference other than deference to individual rights, and if, as you say, "the DC judge may see a slam dunk case that the state law violates the 2A" there should not be a stay while awaiting the state's appeal.
In other words, the courts should always err on the side of individual rights while a case worms its way through the courts, anything less is NOT reasonable.

[curtisfong]

In other words, the courts should always err on the side of individual rights while a case worms its way through the courts, anything less is NOT reasonable.

The 9th thinks in terms of "public safety" and "public interest" not "rights" when it comes to the 2A.

In fact, it is probable that to most of them, the 2A "infringes" on an individuals "right" to "public safety", because they do not believe the 2A enumerates an individual right at all. They believe SCOTUS erred in both Heller/MacDonald and NSRPA/bruen, and that the 2A enumerates a collective right. See also: the ACLU.

They are unwilling, ideologically, to budge. Remember, they think they are the "good" guys.

[EM2]

I probably am missing some nuance. I'm just thinking that by recognizing the state's interest in maintaining the status-quo on appeal, we end up with a much stronger position as this goes up the chain. The state's pleas will become even more irrational and desperate - not even being able to complain about not getting a stay - and it will become harder for any judge to rule for them. If it makes it to SCOTUS, the state and 9th CA will look like absolute clowns.

In my mind, I know that we are going to win this thing. I can wait a short time longer if it means (further) exposing the state and 9th as fools at the same time we're feeding suits regarding the roster, ammo, etc, etc. into the pipeline.

This sounds to me that you are saying that if we play the nice guy we somehow get cred with the upper courts as we progress through the system.
We look like the reasonable team and somehow this will get the courts to look more favorably upon us?
So, how's that been working so far?
What if the courts see this as a team not really all that interested in their own case?
How does this kind of position work for a legal team that is supposed to advocate with passion for their client?

Also, you may be able to wait a little longer, but you are not the only person affected, there are millions of people with many thousands of different conditions in life who may or may not be able to, or willing to, wait any longer.
We have no right to require or expect others to wait a second longer than absolutely necessary where government infringements on our rights are at stake.

And a last thought, in my feeble attempt to elicit some passion in this regard.
Your position seems to me to be the opposite of this now famous quote.

[EM2]

The 9th thinks in terms of "public safety" and "public interest" not "rights" when it comes to the 2A.

In fact, it is probable that to most of them, the 2A "infringes" on an individuals "right" to "public safety", because they do not believe the 2A enumerates a right at all.

They are unwilling, ideologically, to budge. Remember, they think they are the "good" guys.

Understood, but my response was not for the 9th, but rather for those on those forum in regard to GetMeCoffee weak responses to this mess.
I expect a rabid dog to bite, I do not expect my neighbor to invite the dog into my yard.

[curtisfong]

Understood, but my response was not for the 9th, but rather for those on those forum in regard to GetMeCoffee weak responses to this mess.
I expect a rabid dog to bite, I do not expect my neighbor to invite the dog into my yard.

I think the question boils down to does appeasing the court work? Is there a reasonable risk/reward calculus that makes it worthwhile?

Does being careful and conservative now in the hopes there is some long term benefit make sense?

It reminds me of several lawyers here chastising folks for throwing shade at judges and "disrespecting" them, with the warning that "disrespecting" a judge will make it a sure loss.

My gut reaction is that if judges are that insistent that "respect" is more important than a solid case, something is very wrong with the system, especially if it looks like you're going to lose your case anyway because the judge is already known to be hostile (Josephine Staton, Sidney Thomas et al - I'm just calling them by their names. They do not deserve the "Judge" or "Justice" appelation). Does my own disrespect there make our loss more likely?

[Bhobbs]

Being nice and playing their game has led to us being 0-50 at the 9th en banc. I say do whatever it takes to get this thing back to SCOTUS as soon as possible.

[Loiterer]

I could be way off here but my understanding is any Hearing Officer/Judge/Justice is to work with what is presented before them. Any available information to do with the case is to be presented plainly including mistakes if any.

If the incorrect/wrong information/decision needs to be corrected pointing it out plainly is not to be taken personal but as part of the process of getting it tight and being corrected without delay.

May be part of the problem.

[ar15barrels]

I could be way off here but my understanding is any Hearing Officer/Judge/Justice is to work with what is presented before them. Any available information to do with the case is to be presented plainly including mistakes if any.

If the incorrect/wrong information/decision needs to be corrected pointing it out plainly is not to be taken personal but as part of the process of getting it tight and being corrected without delay.

May be part of the problem.

The problem is that the 9th circuit generally does not believe that anything that CA state argues is ever incorrect.