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

[librarian72]

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?

Two words. Bump. Stocks.

[meanspartan]

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


https://youtu.be/ZAuh90LpVu4

God I need to lose weight. And this is after dropping about 20 pounds lmao.

[JiuJitsu]

You and your team did great today, Meanspartan. Your good work is greatly appreciated by all of us.

[Metal God]

^^^^^^^That^^^^^^^

[RANGER295]

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.

You make a very good point. Looking just at my collection, if automatic and select fire weapons were readily available and therefore comparably priced to semi-auto even if they still required a $200 tax stamp, off the top of my head 13 would be either full auto or select fire. This does not just apply AR pattern firearms. This also does not just apply to NFA type weapons. The same could be said about the California AWB. If I could have purchased weapons with California banned features back in 2000 or 2001 when I started my collection, I would have a much higher percentage of this type weapon. The same is true of the roster, if it did not exist my handgun collection would be much different.

[Libertarian777]

The Federal District Judge immergut in her ruling on the TRO for Oregon's Measure 114 made similar statements regarding machine guns and basically endorsed this view point that common use is dead etc.

page 21 footnote 13,

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...70381.39.0.pdf

[abinsinia]

The state just makes up their own wording.
Heller stated “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”[such as] self defense.
They keep trying to argue ARs are not commonly used for self defense, that isn't the test.

I can understand a lawyer making arguments for the state might say things which is best for their clients.. The quote above is the judge , and she isn't suppose to have clients. I think she must have a bat phone to the anti-gun lobby.

[michigander]

[Lanejsl]

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.

God bless you folks for attending today.

[CowboyRob]

Thank you to everyone who fights this fight and to those that pass along information. My children will hopefully see one day the country we were supposed to live in and not the one the elites fight to control.

Thank you for everything from Gridley, ca.

[Metal God]

My pleasure truly . I’ve gotten so much from this community it’s the least I can do . Plus I like going down there so it’s a win win ;-)

Today was especially interesting with all the cases being lumped together. I was literally on the edge of my seat a few times . When the state wanted to include the 20th century in the spreadsheet and the judge just sat there leaned back in his chair head pressed back against the head rest thinking about it for what seemed like several minutes but really maybe 30sec . The court room was dead silent with all eyes on him . What a moment because his answer could sink them in a second and yet he let them submit a separate brief on the 20th century. That may be the first time I realized how much power a judge has as we all sat there in anticipation of what he will say next . I’m guessing although some feel we had a good day . I bet dollars to donuts the state felt they got a big win on that one . At least now they will have the 20th century on record with ALL it’s still standing gun laws and restrictions .

[Rickrock1]

A bigs thanks to all the California freedom fighters, MeanSpartan and all that pitched in and participated.

Another reason to support CPRA, NRA and Calguns.

Stay in the fight




LetsGoBrandon!

[eaglemike]

Agree. I thought the Judge was doing his best to be fair to the state, even though according to THT a lot of stuff should be tossed. I had the feeling the state was quite desperate to delay, to keep looking for the golden nugget that would justify "we can do anything we want to restrict arms."

[TheNinja]

Thank you to the people who went to the hearings and for posting online here with information. REALLY appreciate it!

[Mute]

May not necessarily be a bad thing. This could be the opportunity for Benitez to put a stake through the heart of this particular monster.