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

[Bhobbs]

The dangerous and unusual exemption has to be clarified by SCOTUS. Given people owned cannons and grenades at the time of the founding, I’d expect dangerous and unusual to be things like nukes, chemical oe biological weapons. The AR15 is definitely not dangerous and unusual.

[abinsinia]

Obviously, Defendants cannot identify restrictions like the ones challenged here from 1791 or 1868, for the simple reason that neither semiautomatic centerfire rifles nor the regulated accessories existed at either time.

Gatling Gun was invented in 1861, and was used sparsely in the civil war. It was sold without a background check and without regulation.

That seem like a big leap in innovation.

[ritter]

But common ownership is not enough. The phrase “in common use” as used in Heller and McDonald does not simply refer to a weapon’s prevalence in society, or the quantities manufactured or sold. In addition to the prevalence of the weapon in society—which remains relevant, because in order to be commonly used, the weapon must also be commonly possessed—courts must consider the suitability of the weapon and the actual use of the weapon for self-defense. S

Accordingly, notwithstanding the AR-15’s purported popularity, AR-platform rifles are not commonly owned in the United States, even among law-abiding gun owners

[abinsinia]

The AWCA does not prohibit anyone from
“keep[ing]” or “bear[ing]” any “Arm[].” Instead, it merely regulates the use of
certain accessories that can be attached to a semiautomatic centerfire rifle, such as an AR-platform rifle.

Like ritter pointed out, this thing is loaded with contraditions.

[Dirk Tungsten]

Ok, that first statement from Ritter's post above comes across as word salad and the second one is outright wrong. Not commonly owned, LMAO. I think I have at least 6 of 'em and I assume most calgunners probably have a similar number of ARs.

[ritter]

Ok, that first statement from Ritter's post above comes across as word salad and the second one is outright wrong. Not commonly owned, LMAO. I think I have at least 6 of 'em and I assume most calgunners probably have a similar number of ARs.

State is arguing the "common use" means it must be used, not just owned. And, more specifically, it must be used for self defense. I guess they missed "like" in "like self defense." As in, self defense is central, but it is not exclusive.

Yeah, there are probably as many AR15s as Honda Accords. I'd like to see the state argue Accords aren't common.

[pr143]

https://motorandwheels.com/honda-accord-statistics/

The number of Accord units sold in the U.S. from 1976 to 2020 totals 14,078,066.

[ritter]

https://motorandwheels.com/honda-accord-statistics/

The number of Accord units sold in the U.S. from 1976 to 2020 totals 14,078,066.

Roughly 20 million AR15s in the US. So, more common than the Accord.

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-20-million-ar-15-style-rifles-in-circulation-2022-5#:~:text=There%20are%2020%20million%20AR,more%20than%20the%20American%20population.

[abinsinia]

State is arguing the "common use" means it must be used, not just owned. And, more specifically, it must be used for self defense. I guess they missed "like" in "like self defense." As in, self defense is central, but it is not exclusive.

Yeah, there are probably as many AR15s as Honda Accords. I'd like to see the state argue Accords aren't common.

They also miss the word "keep" in the plain text of the second amendment. I don't think "keep" means you can keep only those arm used for self defense.

[ritter]

They also miss the word "keep" in the plain text of the second amendment. I don't think "keep" means you can keep only those arm used for self defense.

Agreed. They've made quite a mess of the spirit of the law, not that such has any bearing on reality anymore. Better to pic nits for posterity than function in "common sense" reality. The ****s is, CA9 will absolutely buy the BS they are pushing. Maybe we'll get a freedom hour out of Benitez, maybe we won't. But this will have to go all the way up to SCOTUS for resolution based on the simple fact that CA will do anything and everything to stall it out. Again.

[abinsinia]

Moreover, none of the accessories or configurations listed in section 30515(a)
is necessary to operate any of the underlying firearms as intended, and they are not necessary to use a firearm effectively for self-defense or other sporting purpose, such as hunting.

The gun was designed with these features, how is it that removing those features doesn't remove parts of the design. The gun without these features was never intended to exist.

[ritter]

The gun was designed with these features, how is it that removing those features doesn't remove parts of the design. The gun without these features was never intended to exist.

Yes, but in this instance, the regulatory loophole must be upheld! It is shocking how dishonest the state is being.

[abinsinia]

Agreed. They've made quite a mess of the spirit of the law, not that such has any bearing on reality anymore. Better to pic nits for posterity than function in "common sense" reality. The ****s is, CA9 will absolutely buy the BS they are pushing. Maybe we'll get a freedom hour out of Benitez, maybe we won't. But this will have to go all the way up to SCOTUS for resolution based on the simple fact that CA will do anything and everything to stall it out. Again.

Once we get to that point when the corrupt judges write the opinion to continue to allow this law, the ruling will look a lot like this brief. This brief is a screw ball brief ..

I hope screw ball ruling from CA9 don't happen, but if/when they do happen I'm hoping I get some laughs out of it.

[ritter]

Once we get to that point when the corrupt judges write the opinion to continue to allow this law, the ruling will look a lot like this brief. This brief is a screw ball brief ..

I hope screw ball ruling from CA9 don't happen, but if/when they do happen I'm hoping I get some laughs out of it.

If the highest law bodies in the state/region do not follow the laws... It's a dangerous game CA and the lower courts are playing. Distort SCOTUS rulings to the opposite of their plain text. Utilize blatantly unconstitutional laws to support a challenge to a questionably unconstitutional law. All to ban "accessories." Seems like shooting ones self in the foot if the goal is to further lawfulness. But what do I know.

[FreemanG]

If the highest law bodies in the state/region do not follow the laws... It's a dangerous game CA and the lower courts are playing. Distort SCOTUS rulings to the opposite of their plain text. Utilize blatantly unconstitutional laws to support a challenge to a questionably unconstitutional law. All to ban "accessories." Seems like shooting ones self in the foot if the goal is to further lawfulness. But what do I know.

Im pretty sure the purpose is to stick it to gun owners and figure out a way (at least in CA) to start a mass confiscation. Clearly the state is not interested in lawfulness or honor.