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

[abinsinia]

Good information. Makes me wonder- in such trials and appeals, does the District and Supreme justices (or their clerks) communicate ongoingly or at all with the other court under the radar? For example, when a case is handed back, does the lower judge figure out what he's going to do and discuss that strategy? Curious about what goes on with those behind the curtain...

I don't think we know if they communicate, but a couple clues are that Benitez knew Rhode would be remanded back to him about 10 days before it was remanded. Also SCOTUS seemed to know how the Cargill case would turn out before it was decided.

[zeneffect]

I'm certain they do as countless times judges in all levels of the judiciary have told us outright they are all friends, hang out, and go drinking together. Thinking from the other side of the coin, it would be a dick move to dump additional work back without a heads up. Communication as a courtesy

[gun toting monkeyboy]

The slungshot mentioned is a weapon consisting of a piece of shot, lead ball or similar, on a piece of rope/heavy string and used to whack somebody with great force. Sometimes made with a monkey fist on one end and a ring on the other to hold onto. Will punch a nice clean hole in the skull.

Slungshot was one of the first weapons banned based on who tended to use it. In the late 19th century, it was a weapon associated with sailors and other low-income people, as it could be readily made out of literally a rock and some string. Although a a lead ball, from 1 to 1.5 inches was preferred. The string could be anything from a few inches long to long enough to wrap around the waist like a belt. The former was used much like a more-lethal form of blackjack. The latter was generally thrown at your opponent's face, in hopes of breaking any of the facial bones and taking them out of the fight. Then it was retrieved and used as a melee weapon. It was a fairly common practice to carry the longer version hidden up your dominant hand's sleeve, with one end tied around your wrist. That way you could drop the shot into your hand unseen. The first inkling somebody might have that you had a weapon is several ounces of lead crashing into their face unexpectedly.

Much like the switchblade a few generations later, local politicians banned the use and carrying of slungshot as a way to "get tough on crime" and appease their constituents, rather than having any meaningful effect on anything. The widespread banning had much more to do with the lurid yellow journalism of the time, playing up the fears of their readers than an actual epidemic slungshot wielding gangs of sailors roaming the cities, raping and pillaging. You have to remember, at that point in time, you had some of the first mass media companies in the US, and blood/crime stories always sell newspapers. Which is why you had all of these laws against slungshot pop up at nearly the same time nationwide. Exactly the same way switchblades in the 1950s appeared in all kinds of movies about teen gangs, and got banned.

-Mb (who actually had to research the damned things a few years ago for a project)

[Bill_in_SD]

Duke Law Professor Jacob D Charles provides a paper for lower courts to "mitigate" NYSRPA v Bruen.
His words: "Finally, I lay out some responses that lower courts and legislatures can take in mitigating the worst impacts of the decision, like appointing consulting historians and creating a legislative record that supports the aspects Bruen makes salient."

https://twitter.com/JacobDCharles/status/1617645334309769223

Paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=4335545

[Drivedabizness]

****head should go back to whatever law school graduated him and ask for his money back.

Oh and, the ABA should revoke his membership.

[EM2]

Slungshot was one of the first weapons banned based on who tended to use it. In the late 19th century, it was a weapon associated with sailors and other low-income people, as it could be readily made out of literally a rock and some string. Although a a lead ball, from 1 to 1.5 inches was preferred. The string could be anything from a few inches long to long enough to wrap around the waist like a belt. The former was used much like a more-lethal form of blackjack. The latter was generally thrown at your opponent's face, in hopes of breaking any of the facial bones and taking them out of the fight. Then it was retrieved and used as a melee weapon. It was a fairly common practice to carry the longer version hidden up your dominant hand's sleeve, with one end tied around your wrist. That way you could drop the shot into your hand unseen. The first inkling somebody might have that you had a weapon is several ounces of lead crashing into their face unexpectedly.

Much like the switchblade a few generations later, local politicians banned the use and carrying of slungshot as a way to "get tough on crime" and appease their constituents, rather than having any meaningful effect on anything. The widespread banning had much more to do with the lurid yellow journalism of the time, playing up the fears of their readers than an actual epidemic slungshot wielding gangs of sailors roaming the cities, raping and pillaging. You have to remember, at that point in time, you had some of the first mass media companies in the US, and blood/crime stories always sell newspapers. Which is why you had all of these laws against slungshot pop up at nearly the same time nationwide. Exactly the same way switchblades in the 1950s appeared in all kinds of movies about teen gangs, and got banned.

-Mb (who actually had to research the damned things a few years ago for a project)

Your description of slungshot reminded me of something I had heard, back in the day sailors would roll coins into their neckerchief, hidden under their blouse flap, making a handy weapon while out on the town.

[NorCalBusa]

Your description of slungshot reminded me of something I had heard, back in the day sailors would roll coins into their neckerchief, hidden under their blouse flap, making a handy weapon while out on the town.

Try that crap with bitcoin...

[Bhobbs]

At this point, it’s exceedingly clear the state has no basis for its defense, right?

[SpudmanWP]

Welcome to the 2ATidalWave bitches

[EM2]

Try that crap with bitcoin...

OK, I chuckled.

[Flight4]

Why are state constitutions not included in the assessment of "history and tradition" as it applies to 2A cases?

Benitez asked for a list of "statutes/laws/regulations," but why not include state constitutional protections when reviewing "tradition?" I noticed these are not in the lists provided by the defendants.

44 States have incorporated a right to keep and bear arms. 4 others specifically allow "protecting" or "defending" life, liberty, and/or property.

In turn as they were adopted, these state constitutional protections consistently reiterated the right that the 2nd amendment codified.

Why are they not included in post-Bruen assessment of "history and tradition?"

[USMCmatt]

So what is the date or date range next for you all in CA?

[SpudmanWP]

Why are state constitutions not included in the assessment of "history and tradition" as it applies to 2A cases?

The Bruen/Heller test starts from the position that you have the right to keep & bear arms. Having more states confirm this will not help make it "more protected". The point of the test is to find historical laws that seem to contradict this natural assumption of protection. The test also has to be constitutional at the time, non-territorial, traditional (wide use), etc.

[SpudmanWP]

So what is the date or date range next for you all in CA?

Plaintiff responses due by 2/11-ish
Responses due by 2/21-ish

The survey list shall be filed within 30 days. Parties may file a brief up to 25 pages within 30 days thereafter focusing on relevant analogs. Parties may file a responsive brief within 10 days thereafter.

[Flight4]

The Bruen/Heller test starts from the position that you have the right to keep & bear arms. Having more states confirm this will not help make it "more protected". The point of the test is to find historical laws that seem to contradict this natural assumption of protection. The test also has to be constitutional at the time, non-territorial, traditional (wide use), etc.

Yes, I get that, and I'm not arguing to make it "more protected." But surely the "history and tradition" elements will be contested in multiple courts and jurisdictions for the next ten decades. Shouldn't it be possible to rebut the attempted rebuttal of that presumption by showing the RTKBA has been a continuous "tradition" before, during and after ratification of the Bill of Rights, including the incorporation of >92% of the states (and adoption of their state constitutions)?

Bruen seemed to say not all history was created equal, and analogous caselaw after the 2nd and 14th amendments could only serve to strengthen the protection of the 2A, not to weaken it to restrictive legislation.

Seems to be a powerful argument to interpret the 2A "history and tradition" that state after state after state reiterated a similarly- or identically-worded right as the republic was built.