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

[champu]

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.

[spectralhunter]

Miller v. Bonta, SDCA - "assault weapons"

Is it just me, or does this read like the "wrong kind of people" are moving in (aka "There goes the neighborhood").

I think we're seeing the facade crumble as we watch. First Nury Martlinez (former LA City Council president) and two other councilmen went off on Blacks, Jews, Native Americans, Gays and Armenians. Actually it's worse than that -they didn't "go off" but they casually discussed how inferior, despicable, primitive and undesirable those people are. Now Bonta uses a coded message worthy of a cracker-jack box to insinuate that because "those people" have moved in, the state needs to suspend parts of the constitution.

I won't disparage registered Democrats because I know many and they are good caring people, but their party is an f'ing mess and they need to purge these elitist racist fools from their midst. But - they can wait till after 2024, so the rest of us can clean up the mess they made and get the country fixed

[Ocdlaw]

To be honest, I don't think Bonta was writing the brief for Benitez. He was writing it for the 9th Cir. en banc panel after he loses in front of Benitez and the 3 judge panel.

[Blue]

So what’s the timeline now?

[CurlyDave]

Thanks btw to all those who have quoted interesting bits from CAs brief, I find myself unable to read more than a page or two of such BS.

I keep hoping that there is a severe legal penalty for stating such BS in a brief. But, alas, lawyers are seldom penalized for making frivolous arguments.

[Tiny63]

[AKSOG]

I saw in a FPC post that the state changed a citation from Heller to "Dangerous [or] Unusual".

[abinsinia]

I saw in a FPC post that the state changed a citation from Heller to "Dangerous [or] Unusual".

On page 41 it has a foot note with this,

It easier to argue for dangerous or unusual, the "and" is just too hard.

[kcstott]

The states argues:



They also state that AWs are military weapons - an error in fact.

They are military weapons. That was the intent. The intent of the 2A was to insure that the general public had access to the same arms carried by the standing army. To argue anything else is ridiculous. The 2A is not about sport, sporting use or hunting. it's about the prevention of tyranny, it is about putting the same weapons in the hands of the general public that are in the hands of the standing army. Just because it doesn't have a fun switch does not make it some how a sporting arm. We've been on the defensive over this word all the while we should have embraced it and owned it and educated them on why the 2A was written.

[rewireroy]

And this time its not just sarcasm!

[CurlyDave]

They are military weapons. That was the intent. The intent of the 2A was to insure that the general public had access to the same arms carried by the standing army. To argue anything else is ridiculous. The 2A is not about sport, sporting use or hunting. it's about the prevention of tyranny, it is about putting the same weapons in the hands of the general public that are in the hands of the standing army. Just because it doesn't have a fun switch does not make it some how a sporting arm. We've been on the defensive over this word all the while we should have embraced it and owned it and educated them on why the 2A was written.

One of the purposes of the 2A is to have a militia ready and armed. The text says so.

The original Miller case from the 1930s was all about whether a short barreled shotgun was a military weapon. If it had been, it would have been OK to keep. WWI trench guns never came up because Miller had died by the time the case got to the SC and there was no real presentation for his side.

[jcwatchdog]

They are military weapons. That was the intent. The intent of the 2A was to insure that the general public had access to the same arms carried by the standing army. To argue anything else is ridiculous. The 2A is not about sport, sporting use or hunting. it's about the prevention of tyranny, it is about putting the same weapons in the hands of the general public that are in the hands of the standing army. Just because it doesn't have a fun switch does not make it some how a sporting arm. We've been on the defensive over this word all the while we should have embraced it and owned it and educated them on why the 2A was written.

[BAJ475]

One of the purposes of the 2A is to have a militia ready and armed. The text says so.

The original Miller case from the 1930s was all about whether a short barreled shotgun was a military weapon. If it had been, it would have been OK to keep. WWI trench guns never came up because Miller had died by the time the case got to the SC and there was no real presentation for his side.

I read that Miller's whereabouts was unknown. I have not seen a claim that he was deceased. I would think that such evidence would have made the case moot and the SC would have lacked jurisdiction, no case or controversy.

[EM2]

Ultimately, the militia needed to be armed. If individual ownership of guns were banned/restricted heavily, how would those individuals be able to be part of the militia without guns? It had to be considered an individual right for self defense and also defense of country. The two are intertwined and cannot be separated.

Because they are being intellectually dishonest, as a means to affect a desired outcome.
They know damn well ALL of the BORs are individual rights.

[Dorzak]

The Second Militia Act of 1792 should be enough to sink any claim of historical limitation. Essentially every adult white male was required to have essentially a basic infantry load out. If they could not afford it they were to work with their local officials. Musket or rifle, shot, means to carry them and appropriate supplies.

That every citizen so enrolled and
notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good
musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a
knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-
four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cart-
ridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good
rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the
bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear,
so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise