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

[CGZ]

The state's 5 page brief is available to read now. They argue that the 1771 New Jersey law (#10 in the spreadsheet) prohibiting the setting of any trap gun is the most analogous law. Saying that it didn't prohibit possession, only features (strings, ropes, etc. used to set off the trap gun) arguing that the law at challenge doesn't ban semi autos, only certain features (pistol grips, flash hiders, etc.)

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.642089/gov.uscourts.casd.642089.168.0.pdf

[Bhobbs]

That argument doesn't even make sense. As pointed out by the plaintiffs, the laws didn't ban trap guns, they bans the use of trap guns as traps.

[CGZ]

That argument doesn't even make sense. As pointed out by the plaintiffs, the laws didn't ban trap guns, they bans the use of trap guns as traps.

Seeing as how setting a gun as a booby trap is still illegal or at least you will be liable for any injuries (IE. Katko v. Briney). It's not a good analogue for the law at challenge.

[BrokerB]

A little bit exciting .

Would this remove the banned by name list of "aw" as well?

[SpudmanWP]

That "trap gun" argument fails SCOTUS's "why" test.

They banned them "because" they were unattended and could hurt/kill indiscriminately.

Would this remove the banned by name list of "aw" as well?

It's not likely as that section of the law was not challenged. That being said, that section is in another case that will undoubtedly reference this decision once it's made.

[ritter]

That's not a ban on possession. It's a use restriction. Don't set your AR up with a string trap would be an analogous law.

[dmcag69]

An SKS with a detachable magazine would have to be its own court case, correct,like banned by name? Or would it fall under semi auto rifle features.

[LW6PPC]

Watch this.

https://youtu.be/R1XfQ8XQnqA

You can watch the same episode of Armed Scholar on Rumble without the numerous and lengthy YouTube commercials here:

https://rumble.com/v292szq-supreme-court-6-3-ruling-backs-californias-magazine-and-assault-weapon-ban-.html

[ar15barrels]

A little bit exciting .

Would this remove the banned by name list of "aw" as well?

No.
This case is only going after the "features" provisions.

[ar15barrels]

An SKS with a detachable magazine would have to be its own court case, correct,like banned by name? Or would it fall under semi auto rifle features.

"SKS with detachable magazine" is a named assault weapon.

The miller case does nothing for the roberti-roos or kasler lists that remain after Harrot v. Kings county.

[jcwatchdog]

This is it? This is what they hang their hat on? The hill they die on? After all these years the best they could do is one law about trap guns in one state?

Their brief reminded me of that pathetic kid in school who thought they were going to get away with something by writing a book report at the last minute, using the dust jacket.

[Dvrjon]

, Pages 6-7:

3. Trap Gun Laws
The State lists six laws, only one of which is from the Founding era (Def. Law No.10), and all of which generally

[Dvrjon]

May as well get ready for the appeal:

Various Footnotes in the Brief:

This brief responds to the Court’s December 15 Order, but the Attorney General notes that there is no motion pending. Defendants preserve their objections to the current post-remand proceedings and maintain that a reasonable discovery period is called for under Bruen. Defs.’ Suppl. Br. at 73–77. Moreover, to the extent that the Court has suggested that expert testimony may be irrelevant and that a survey of historical laws may suffice to resolve this case, see Dec. 12, 2022 Hr’g Tr. at 23–25, Defendants reiterate that expert elucidation is fundamental to application of the Bruen standard.

Professor Baron’s declaration in Duncan was prepared after the filing of Defendants’ prior supplemental brief and includes testimony relevant to this action. Defendants respectfully submit Professor Baron’s declaration in this action so that it may comprise part of the record assessed by this Court and on appeal. A true and correct copy is attached as Exhibit 1 to the accompanying Declaration of John D. Echeverria (“Echeverria Decl.”).

Col. Tucker’s expert report and declaration in Rupp was prepared after the filing of Defendants’ prior supplemental brief and includes testimony relevant to this action. Defendants respectfully submit Col. Tucker’s declaration in this action so that it may comprise part of the record assessed by this Court and on appeal. It is attached as Exhibit 2 to the Echeverria Declaration.

If the Court is inclined to rule in Plaintiffs’ favor, Defendants respectfully request a stay of any judgment, at least for a sufficient period to allow Defendants to seek a stay from the Ninth Circuit.

[SpudmanWP]

So when Benitez said no expert testimony CA decided the best course of action was to submit expert testimony?????

[Drivedabizness]

You can watch the same episode of Armed Scholar on Rumble without the numerous and lengthy YouTube commercials here:

https://rumble.com/v292szq-supreme-c...apon-ban-.html

Thanks for the link - but I know of no more irritating person to listen to. I will not watch him.