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

[Drivedabizness]

It's a horsesh*t argument. No matter the linguistics and (supposedly) legal gymnastics/symantics one engages in the "regulation" is DESIGNED to infringe upon the right - just like the wide swath of so-called "gun control" laws here in CA. It is only recently (since the Founding) that the mandarins that seek to rule over us even imagined telling a free people how they could arm themselves or that they could not, or that they could only select from models THEY approve of.

I think we'd all be a lot better off if we corrected our erstwhile masters consistently and often.

Because we're a one-party State and the fix is in deeper than just about anywhere else, it will take a lot more effort.

[Sgt Raven]

I do it often to better understand my position and Sheer up my argument .

I think the term you're looking for is, "Steel Man". Where you present the strongest argument for their side.

[1911su16b870]

We are here now:

[champu]

New category of firearm may be more accurate.

[Metal God]

I think the term you're looking for is, "Steel Man". Where you present the strongest argument for their side.

Thanks , yes .

[bwiese]

.... that there was no significant difference between bullet buttons and standard releases and that was why the bill was needed in the first place.

And it didn't help the BB's status with the punks at gun shows sellng "Mag-Magnet" override devices receovering the operational status of the BBs - and trying to call them a tool.

These punk sellers didn't talk to anyone competent, got lotsa people in trouble, and at least 2 (IIRC - absolutely sure of 1) were convicted on felony AW charges.
[There was a reason some of these sellers were demonstrating on bare receivers or unmilled "80percenters" or blue gun receivers.]

[BAJ475]

And it didn't help the BB's status with the punks at gun shows sellng "Mag-Magnet" override devices receovering the operational status of the BBs - and trying to call them a tool.

These punk sellers didn't talk to anyone competent, got lotsa people in trouble, and at least 2 (IIRC - absolutely sure of 1) were convicted on felony AW charges.
[There was a reason some of these sellers were demonstrating on bare receivers or unmilled "80percenters" or blue gun receivers.]

Wonder if they will be able to get their convictions reversed on Habeas after the AW ban is declared unconstitutional?

[bwiese]

Wonder if they will be able to get their convictions reversed on Habeas after the AW ban is declared unconstitutional?

Sadly, I'm very unclear that someone convicted of X - then X deactivated by courts a significant time afterward - would be able to 'cancel' that without significant legal efforts.

[Sputnik]

Sadly, I'm very unclear that someone convicted of X - then X deactivated by courts a significant time afterward - would be able to 'cancel' that without significant legal efforts.

And that just sucks. It seems that if the law is determined to be unconstitutional then it would follow that it was unconstitutional before as well. That should count for something.

[EM2]

And that just sucks. It seems that if the law is determined to be unconstitutional then it would follow that it was unconstitutional before as well. That should count for something.

That should count for everything.
An unconstitutional law is null and void, from the moment it is enacted..

[rrr70]

That should count for everything.
An unconstitutional law is null and void, from the moment it is enacted..

[BAJ475]

Sadly, I'm very unclear that someone convicted of X - then X deactivated by courts a significant time afterward - would be able to 'cancel' that without significant legal efforts.

No question that it would take significant legal efforts. I had a client who, when he was represented by another attorney, was convicted of possession of stolen property and given a 3 strikes life sentence where one of the strikes was a conviction for hit and run. After he had been in prison for 5+ years the Third District Court of Appeal held in a different case that hit and run was not a strike. I challenged his sentence as unauthorized in a Habeas petition. The trial court agreed and my client was freed.

[stag6.8]

Yeah it says that on the doc

Miller is on a 141 MOTION for Reconsideration , Duncan is for a Status Conference , not sure what Rhodes is for but would guess status conference

I'm going to to presume that saint benitez will deny the notion for reconsideration and come up with a decision soon regarding this case.

[Sir Stunna Lot]

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/s8ue1_DdtJ8

[SmallShark]

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/s8ue1_DdtJ8

old video