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

[JiuJitsu]

[curtisfong]

But upholding this crap would be shockingly stupid - even for the 9th.

How so? What consequences would the 9th suffer?

[JiuJitsu]

Well they would just get overturned - yet again - which is sort of the court equivalent of a public bitchslapping.

[DrewN]

Well they would just get overturned - yet again - which is sort of the court equivalent of a public bitchslapping.

Which is more than balanced out by the positive reinforcement they will get from their peers. It's plainly obvious they have decided to just not comply.

[bwiese]

Yup.

The state saying they're banning accessories - when the freestanding accessories can be purchased/possessed legally, separately [except for G/Ls] with no constructive possession - makes a lie of DOJ position

[homelessdude]

Nothing is plainly obvious until we see what the ninth actually does.

[Kokopelli]

How so? What consequences would the 9th suffer?

[RickD427]

Not quite.

The Miller case only challenges a California statute. In the event that Miller wins his case, and California does not appeal, the trial court decision has no effect outside of California.

If California elects to appeal, the Ninth Circuit cannot "reject" the appeal. Parties have a right to an appeal. The Ninth must accept the case on appeal. Once the Ninth issues their decision, they have the option of "Publishing" the decision or not. If they "Publish" the decision, then the issues they rule upon become binding on all states within the Ninth Circuit. But since the question in Miller is a California state statute, there is no immediate effect on similar laws in the other states. For those to fall, there must be litigation in the other states challenging those state statutes, and the involved courts will apply the guidance from the published Ninth Circuit decision. If the Ninth Circuit elects not to publish their decision, then it only applies to the parties in Miller.

If either party is dissatisfied with the Ninth Circuit's decision they have the right to petition the Supreme Court for a review. The Supreme Court is not required to grant a review, and they do so only in a small percentage of cases.

[jcwatchdog]

I think our best bet is something like what happened with freedom week, while waiting for the case to make it through the 9th. Can judge Benitez issue the ruling without an immediate stay, and then say 24-48 hours later, issue a stay on his ruling, but then protect people who convert their rifles to assault weapon configurations?

[DrewN]

Nothing is plainly obvious until we see what the ninth actually does.

The same thing they have done on every gun case? Just a guess.

[Bhobbs]

The 9th has been more reasonable lately. It’s the full en banc that’s the issue.

[SmallShark]

I think our best bet is something like what happened with freedom week, while waiting for the case to make it through the 9th. Can judge Benitez issue the ruling without an immediate stay, and then say 24-48 hours later, issue a stay on his ruling, but then protect people who convert their rifles to assault weapon configurations?

that is what im hoping for.

[EM2]

(6) erosion of respect for the judicial branch will continue...

[ar15barrels]

I think our best bet is something like what happened with freedom week, while waiting for the case to make it through the 9th. Can judge Benitez issue the ruling without an immediate stay, and then say 24-48 hours later, issue a stay on his ruling, but then protect people who convert their rifles to assault weapon configurations?

There's not really a legal means to do that with AW's because the mag law did not have an active possession restriction due to the possession part of the mag law already being held up in court while the possession part of the AW law returns the moment the decision is stayed.
Equal protection under the law means that everyone has to get the same protection from a decision and that means that the decision can't exempt some people of a possession law that applies to other people.

[Metal God]

Im still trying to work through the registration aspect of all this . Would there need to be a AW registration if they are not banned? My understanding is the registration was largely enacted because of the ban itself . If you are to grandfather in a banded item the state would need to know how many are in circulation at the time to know if any new ones have come into the state after implementation .

If the ban is found to be unconstitutional I don’t see a reason for a special AW registration on an item that is already registered at purchase . Yes that has already been discussed years ago but there is a difference if it’s legal to continue to purchase so-called assault weapons . I know if the registration continues I won’t be rushing out to change my fin grip or throwing a forward grip on my AR . So in general this case going in our favor would be a very good thing . I believe It would have very little impact on me personally I think .