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

[ar15barrels]

4 Boxes actually says there were 175,977 in civilian hands in 2016. While this is less than 200,000 it is certainly not much, much less.

I think this is very good for our side. If 176,000 is "not commonly owned" and 200,000 is "commonly owned", then the magic number is somewhere in between. The Supremes have inadvertently nailed this down pretty exactly.

My guess is that 200,000 was chosen in Caetano BECAUSE it's more than the total number of machine guns in civilian hands which are not protected by the constitution because they are specifically excluded in Heller.

It's only Bonta that is being disingenuous by trying to include the 500,000+ govt and law enforcement machine guns to get to 700,000 to try to throw out the 200,000 number in Caetano.

[abinsinia]

I'm sure more than 200k civilians would own machine guns if they were not banned after 1986.

[ar15barrels]

It's listed as a "motion hearing" on the Judge's calendar and I figured that there would be a followup trial. I thought that the 9th had ordered a full trial, but could be wrong.

https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/Judges...tez_121222.pdf

The GVR'd cases do not get another full trial.
They get additional briefs before they are re-decided.
The additional briefs are provided so that each side can add in things that changed under Bruen.
Of course we know that nothing changed under Bruen because Bruen simply says to follow Heller which means history and tradition without interest balancing.
But even still, both sides must have the right to add additional briefs because of Bruen before the case can be redecided.
The final disposition has to account for whatever changes Bruen provides which basically just means that the state has to try a different angle as they can't use interest balancing anymore.

[eaglemike]

MetalGod did a great job above. It was nice to see others there interested in what is going on.
I was very impressed by the Judge. (capitalized for respect)
After introductions, he commented that the cases shared similarities. He also commented that intermediate scrutiny as previously used was over, and THT will be used going forward.
He came out with his proposal of a spreadsheet for all gun controls laws. Chronological order, then substance of the law (behavior or type of arm restricted), was it challenged/over-ruled/appealed. Ex: restriction on dirk, billy, metal knuckles/rifle, pistol, number of shots, or restriction on behavior.

State argued they want to have "experts" testify. Judge said he knew what they are going to say, and he's read all the previous material, no need for additional expert testimony. There were some questions from various counsel. Judge asked one of Plaintiff counsel (sorry no name) about the allegation that a homeowner had never needed more than 10 rounds, and after a little back and forth said it was easy to find on the internet that position isn't true.
After this the state started asking for 90 more days at least for discovery (I had the feeling they would ask for unlimited time if possible) and another 90 days after that IIRC for various briefs. Judge had not at this point given deadline. Lots of requests by the state for more time since "this is a new area of law." Judge explained that there is adequate history this isn't that new, noted some authors, and it came out the counsel for the state had only been on the case a few weeks. Judge indicated sympathy for his position, but indicated things need to get moving without delay. Schedule of 30 days for the spreadsheet came out, and state objected, wanted 90 days. Judge said no, state has almost unlimited resources. One quote from judge I found interesting "it's not that hard, it's not a quest for the missing link" or something very similar to that. I had the impression from the state they wanted to kick the can down the road forever. Judge also commented about the states creating restrictions on arms "once they found out they could do this they started creating a lot of restrictions." One comment from the state wanted to rebut some testimony that repeating rifles were common in a certain era, and the judge indicated that was incorrect and easy to show. (will be interesting to see how this goes since technology changed over the years). Judge indicated a lot of research has been done, thus no need for extended time. Judge stated THT "is what it is." He commented on Professor Cornell's work as being refutable. (I just did some look up, Cornell is a charlatan)
Bottom line:
30 days for the spreadsheet
30 days for supporting briefs
10 days for responding briefs
20 days for depositions (may not be needed)
It seemed to me the Judge really wants to do a solid job on these cases. Whatever he comes up with will be well supported and as objective as possible. It seemed like the state is desperate to delay.

Sorry to be slow, lots going on today.

I'm blanking a little on some stuff, will post more later. Took what notes I could.

[Metal God]

Thanks eaglemike , nice meeting you and a shout out to kingkong who was there as well .

[CGZ]

I'm sure more than 200k civilians would own machine guns if they were not banned after 1986.

Even then less than 200K is surprisingly low. Machine Guns have been around since the 1880's. The Maxim was first invented in 1884. So From 1884 - 1934 U.S. citizens had no restrictions on machine gun ownership. Admittedly they were expensive. IIRC the $200 NFA tax comes from the price of the Thompson submachine gun at the time. From then you have 1934 -1986 where you could purchase machine guns if you paid the NFA tax. Yes this was still expensive, (Inflation Calculator says $200 today is $723 in 1980) but to think only 175K were registered in all that time is surprising.

Even more so it the 700K if you include L/E and FFLs (is military included?). Even that seems low. Only 500K Machine Guns of all kinds between all the FFLs and L/E also seems low.

[meanspartan]

From an FPC lawyer:

https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1602393272697393153

No freedom week today, but besides that it went great.

For all four cases, Benitez made clear experts are irrelevant. State has 30 days to present just enacted laws or regulations on a spreadsheet then we can rebut. He also made clear his upper end year limit is 1888.

I'm actually a CRPA lawyer! But thanks for following my Twitter haha.

This is Kostas Moros of Michel & Associates.

As I said in the Twitter thread, I think today's hearing went very well. Obviously, we would have loved to have had another freedom week kick off today, but that wasn't really a realistic expectation. Judge Benitez set up a quick timeline for the remaining briefing and sided with us on important methodology questions.

[Offwidth]

4/15 would be rather funny...

4/20

[command_liner]

I'm sure more than 200k civilians would own machine guns if they were not banned after 1986.

I keep playing this over in my head.... what about "Rock Island" machine guns per US v. Rock Island Armory. See https://www.pagunblog.com/2012/09/13...ophole-in-nfa/

As I mentioned elsewhere, the NFA provisions on machine guns have effectively self-terminated. There is no more NFA concern, just GCA concerns. But what about the wild and varied declarations of the ATF? If the ATF declared shoe laces to be machine guns (again), would the number of machine guns held by non-government actors be greater than 200K?

What about if I was to make a stamping die to make "auto key cards", buy a few old junk semi trailers for sheet metal and stamp out 100,000 "cards"? The ATF declares these to be "machine guns", so does a pile of metal stampings invalidate the IRS code by virtual of the Caetano rule?

The whole irrational and tenuous structure of full-auto rules and is so fragile that a well placed kick is going to cause it all to collapse.

[ProfChaos]

Even then less than 200K is surprisingly low. Machine Guns have been around since the 1880's. The Maxim was first invented in 1884. So From 1884 - 1934 U.S. citizens had no restrictions on machine gun ownership. Admittedly they were expensive. IIRC the $200 NFA tax comes from the price of the Thompson submachine gun at the time. From then you have 1934 -1986 where you could purchase machine guns if you paid the NFA tax. Yes this was still expensive, (Inflation Calculator says $200 today is $723 in 1980) but to think only 175K were registered in all that time is surprising.

Even more so it the 700K if you include L/E and FFLs (is military included?). Even that seems low. Only 500K Machine Guns of all kinds between all the FFLs and L/E also seems low.

I'm thinking of it this way. The MSM and FUDDs spread the news that machine guns were illegal to purchase. This, in addition to the "tax" levied on them, turned many off from even attempting to purchase. I'm sure if people knew they were still available, albeit at $200 extra, I'm sure many would have purchased some. Couple that with many states out right banning them made the number of potential owners even lower. My 2 cents.

[Chosen_1]

I keep playing this over in my head.... what about "Rock Island" machine guns per US v. Rock Island Armory. See https://www.pagunblog.com/2012/09/13...ophole-in-nfa/

As I mentioned elsewhere, the NFA provisions on machine guns have effectively self-terminated. There is no more NFA concern, just GCA concerns. But what about the wild and varied declarations of the ATF? If the ATF declared shoe laces to be machine guns (again), would the number of machine guns held by non-government actors be greater than 200K?

What about if I was to make a stamping die to make "auto key cards", buy a few old junk semi trailers for sheet metal and stamp out 100,000 "cards"? The ATF declares these to be "machine guns", so does a pile of metal stampings invalidate the IRS code by virtual of the Caetano rule?

The whole irrational and tenuous structure of full-auto rules and is so fragile that a well placed kick is going to cause it all to collapse.

If not for the Hughes Amendment, privately held MGs would number in the millions. You would have to assume that a significant percentage of the estimated 20-40 million ARs would be NFA registered with select fire capability.

[pratchett]

I disagree with the upper limit, but good news just the same.

I think I know why St. Benitez upped the limit to allow the State to include a couple of decades of post-14th Amendment laws. He has them boxed in and the fallout is going to be hilarious.

[Mongo68]

I want to know what the Judges screen name is... hahahahaha

[Sgt Raven]

CRPA after action report video on their legal team from today. This put a face to the names.

https://youtu.be/ZAuh90LpVu4

[Bill_in_SD]

I think I know why St. Benitez upped the limit to allow the State to include a couple of decades of post-14th Amendment laws. He has them boxed in and the fallout is going to be hilarious.

That is what I took from it. He even stated it was "an arbitrary and capricious number". Remember this was receiving input from both sides. He originally said adoption of the 14th Amendment and the state wanted more.

This list of references will be a body of work used everywhere and may become "the" list of gun laws in the History and Tradition test. I look forward to seeing it. IANAL so who knows LOL