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

[Oldjedi]

I, too, would like to add a note of thanks to everyone who went to the hearing or posted here. I was hoping for a big Christmas present, but it was not meant to happen.

[JiuJitsu]

I think Benitez forcing CA to lay all the gun laws out on the table for 1) the applicable and relevant time period (per the Bruen decision), and 2) the really not-applicable periods is excellent. It is pretty objective. It goes to the heart of text, history and tradition.

I think it will force an honest look at would have been considered an infringement or not when the 2nd amendment was ratified and a reasonable period afterwards.

[Metal God]

So I’ve been thinking about the 20th Century spreadsheet and the restrictions on it having to do with not conflicting with the earlier centuries precedents for lack of a better term and how that relates to the 25 page max briefs they are restricted to .

What happens when the states spreadsheet contains all kinds of conflicting data which we know it will because that’s what the anti’s do ?

1) because the judge clearly believes the 20th century has little relevance . How much should plaintiffs challenge said conflicts in such a limited 25 page brief.

2) If plaintiffs don’t dedicate a good amount of resources to discrediting the 20th century spreadsheet, how may that harm them later on appeal when the 9th puts a heavy emphasis on that same spreadsheet as to why they are striking down this judges ruling ?

If I were plaintiffs, I would ask the judge to allow a separate 25 page brief on the 20th century spreadsheet on the off chance it becomes relevant.

[1911su16b870]

So this spread sheet is brilliant...because the graph on gun laws/restrictions/bans over time will look like this:



...with 3 to 7 being from 1934 (NFA) to today...

[SpudmanWP]

I just checked and neither Miller nor Duncan Courtlistener pages have been updated with the order.

My guess is that the 25-page limit will apply to arguments and the spreadsheet (xlsx format is my guess) will be an attachment that does not count against the 25-page limit.

Given that it will likely be an attachment, Plaintiff's response can be made on the same spreadsheet.

[Metal God]

Right at the end both the plaintiffs and the state asked if the judge was going to give a formal written order . He turned to both with quite the annoyed look on his face and asked you did not take notes ? They all said that they summarized what he was asking at which point the judge lowered his head and shook it , looked up and said I’ll see what I can do . So who knows if he actually writes an order on this .

This whole spreadsheet ideas was on the fly and was nailed down over the 2hr hearing . My guess is that his staff needs to go through the transcript to be sure what was all agreed upon the write a draft for the judge to approve. There’s a lot of nuance to this order so it may take a couple days .

[SpudmanWP]

Well.. "something" has to be added to the official court records.
I think Courtlistener tracks these as a "MINUTE ORDER" or "TEXT ORDER".

I would rather see a formal order because it will give CA less to complain about and less to use in an appeal.

[gunuser17]

No actual written order is required to be issued by the judge at these types of conferences. There could simply be a one line entry of status conference held. There was a court reporter there I suspect since there always is at federal court proceedings. So the comment about notes was facetious I suspect. They could pay the fee and have the transcript the next day.

[SpudmanWP]

lol, I just saw a Courtlistener drop for an Order in Miller v Bonta...

It was the other Miller (fee shifting).

Damn

[SpudmanWP]

Given the nature (4-in-1 conference) and context (mags, AWB, ammo, etc), I'd be very surprised if someone does not order the transcript.

[Metal God]

Yes , court reporter was there needing to slow people down at times to get everything that was being said . Mostly names and cases they are representing because there were so many lawyers there and any could speak up and rarely did they start with there name and why they were there at first but got better at it as the hearing went on . My guess is during a normal hearing there are just one or two attorneys there for each side and not to hard for the court reporter to keep track . However in this hearing there were no fewer then 11 there all talking at one point or another and she could not keep track of who was who for which case or side .

[SpudmanWP]

Seems to me to be another reason to allow Livestreaming and record it like the Circuits do.

[eaglemike]

Judge B did say at the end he would write an order. Agree with MetalGod it will likely take a couple of days to be clear and concise, cover exactly what he wants.
I understood the spreadsheet to be separate from the 25 page limit. That part was pretty funny IMHO, as lawyers seem to always use 3 words when 1 might do. He was emphatic he didn't want to read the same stuff over and over. Reading the various briefs linked around the various cases I can see why he would say that.

[SpudmanWP]

The nice thing about a spreadsheet is that you can set the columns however you want so one line per law

[gunuser17]

The court reporters almost always have a recorder going so they can check their transcript. Also, at least some courts record the microphones in the court room. These types of recordings just are not available to the public. On a side note, you want to be careful when you are in any court room and the judge is not in the room. The microphones may well be on and the court staff can listen/hear what is said in the courtroom.