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

[SpudmanWP]

It's not a balancing test, only a search for a tradition of applicable laws in the founding era. SCOTUS even said that 1, 2, or even 3 laws are not enough to show a tradition of a restriction. They called these "outliers" and were to be ignored in the test.

An excellent example of this is "sensitive places". As you said, virtually every state has a 2nd Amendment equivalent yet all also allow for restrictions on sensitive places of a certain type.

[Bhobbs]

[Batman]

If he's smart, he'll wait the full 30 days plus the 10 days. No reason to give them any low-hanging fruit for a challenge or a stay on appeal. And I don't think he's dumb. He'll make sure that his ruling is fairly bullet-proof, however, the 9th will still contort the logic to put the law back to the way it was.

[Bhobbs]

I’m not saying to release his rulings now. I’m saying he should already be writing them. The state has failed to meet the standard set by Bruen. Nothing they have presented comes close, and if the 9th will just ignore Bruen and his ruling, then there’s no need to draw this out. He can’t make his ruling bullet proof against a corrupt court.

[Dvrjon]

With the end of the second 30 day period approaching, is Benitez likely to address anything or just wait for the additional 10 days to end? What are the odds he’s already working on his rulings?

At this point I expect Benitez’ clerks to be reviewing the spreadsheets/briefs using parameters he’s outlined. And they may be drafting text based on their observations. (He also has other cases in his court).

But he has to let the full process run to ensure he gets everything in context, and if the future inputs hold additional information, he’ll want to incorporate that.

I’m not saying to release his rulings now. I’m saying he should already be writing them. The state has failed to meet the standard set by Bruen. Nothing they have presented comes close, and if the 9th will just ignore Bruen and his ruling, then there’s no need to draw this out. He can’t make his ruling bullet proof against a corrupt court.

He needs to make it bulletproof for the SCOTUS.

[Bolt_Action]

[Dvrjon]

And we know the makeup of SCOTUS which favors us. But they have to have something solid for SCOTUS to support.

[Bolt_Action]

And we know the makeup of SCOTUS which favors us. But they have to have something solid for SCOTUS to support.

[SpudmanWP]

I don't think the 9th's response is as certain as some might think.
Remember that in Duncan that the 9th agreed with Benitez in the original 3-judge panel.

On top of that, most of Benitez's original rulings used the same historical comparison to Heller that the Bruen court used and emphasized. While Miller did not get the same GVR that Duncan got, the 9th was definitely put on notice as to how it's handling 2A cases.

Just as in Miller2, Benitez will issue a very thorough and well-backed-up decision in Miller and the other 3 cases. SCOTUS has already shown that they will let a Circut know if they think that they are processing incorrectly (ie 2nd STAY order). If the 9th tries something underhanded, we'll hear from SCOTUS.

Best thing to do is grab the popcorn and enjoy the show.

p.s. This may all be moot depending on the 4th Circuit's decision, any appeal, and if SCOTUS picks it up.

[SpudmanWP]

SCOTUS GVR'd Duncan, not Miller.
They did GVR the AWB case in the 4th however.

In either case, they conveyed to the Circuits how they felt quite clearly.

[Bhobbs]

[SpudmanWP]

I am sure that he'll be keeping a copy of the spreadsheets internally to use in the future. Other judges should also start using it.

[rplaw]

SCOTUS GVR'd Duncan, not Miller.
They did GVR the AWB case in the 4th however.

In either case, they conveyed to the Circuits how they felt quite clearly.

In a twisted reversed way I agree. The reversal of the TRO from the 4th about "sensitive places" and the refusal of the SCOTUS to step up to the plate and require compliance of their mandates shows exactly how the SCOTUS feels when it comes to the 2A.

[SpudmanWP]

That was the 2nd and not the 4th.

SCOTUS did not agree with the stay. In fact, they told the Plaintiffs to come back if the 2nd did not properly respect the process.
Their problem with the 2nd was that the 2nd put the stay in place without giving a reason or expediting the case. The result of the SCOTUS warning was headed by the 2nd and they expedited all of the pending cases (not just the one involved) and will have oral arguments on the same day.

[Bhobbs]

The 2nd placing the stay is them not respecting the process. They have been disrespecting the process, the constitution and SCOTUS.

Everyone fully expects the 9th to disrespect the process because SCOTUS allows it.