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

[Gator15]

In its core.

Shall Issue is based on Objective reasons.
May Issue is based on Subjective reasons.
How much it costs and how long it takes, to be reasonable, has not been set at this point.

I think you are mixing burdens. The opinion basically said that if you are not a prohibited person you can carry and that you are entitled to a permit. The burden of cost in the issuance of the permit was not addressed by the court and this is ripe for lawsuits. A strong argument can be made that no fee may be charged to exercise a right. Do I need to pay a fee to exercise my 5A right against self-incrimination? Poll taxes are illegal. And the left always cries about voter ID because of the expense of a $35 driver's license as too burdensome. Lawsuits are coming as to these issues (and delay in granting permits--see 1A cases that state that any delay on 1A can violate the amendment) and the left will take it in the shorts again.

[Sgt Raven]

I think you are mixing burdens. The opinion basically said that if you are not a prohibited person you can carry and that you are entitled to a permit. The burden of cost in the issuance of the permit was not addressed by the court and this is ripe for lawsuits. A strong argument can be made that no fee may be charged to exercise a right. Do I need to pay a fee to exercise my 5A right against self-incrimination? Poll taxes are illegal. And the left always cries about voter ID because of the expense of a $35 driver's license as too burdensome. Lawsuits are coming as to these issues (and delay in granting permits--see 1A cases that state that any delay on 1A can violate the amendment) and the left will take it in the shorts again.

I don't think my statement disagrees with you.

It may take litigation to set a standard on how long/much time/cost is reasonable.

[SpudmanWP]

There are several things that SCOTUS said were ok but are ripe for abuse and will likely need further litigation like fees, training, duration, social media, references, etc. There are also a lot of post-CCW issues like "safe spaces", vicinity to a SS (onsite only, 1oo meters, 1000meters, parking lots, etc), storage while in a vehicle, etc that also need litigation.

[Gator15]

I don't think my statement disagrees with you.

It may take litigation to set a standard on how long/much time/cost is reasonable.

I think I agree

[Drivedabizness]

Can you cite where in the Bruen

Do your own research - Google is your friend.

What I said, while paraphrasing, was SPOT F*CKING on from Bruen.

[blackrat]

The problem with slow walking everything and thinking SCOTUS will follow through correctly if it ends up back in their lap is that the make up of the court can change at any moment. Bruen was settled prior to Jackson being able to weigh in but we all know where her vote would lay, just like Breyer. None of the judges are getting younger and if Biden gets another appointee were looking at a 5-4 split. Considering how flakey Roberts is without a powerhouse like Thomas to weigh in he might waver, we'd see a loss, and be right back where we started. These need to be cemented ASAP.

[Bhobbs]

Also, SCOTUS gives plenty of examples but no definitions. They say guns can be banned from sensitive places, but does not define sensitive place. Anti gunners then make everything a sensitive place.

SCOTUS says dangerous and unusual weapons can be banned but doesn't define dangerous and unusual, so anti gunners say AR15s are dangerous and unusual.

If SCOTUS is going to discuss limits in its opinions, it must strictly define those limits. They do not, which makes its rulings easy to avoid. Heller as a whole has been ignored for over a decade. Heller was so full of holes, it did more for anti gunners than the 2nd amendment.

SCOTUS has to start making strong rulings when it comes to guns. No more tempered, minimized rulings that have no teeth.

[SpudmanWP]

I could get behind that.

[CGZ]

The plaintiffs response brief's are available to read via FPC's website ATM.

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/5381/attachments/original/1676945200/2023-2-20-Miller-v-Bonta-169-Plaintiffs-Response.pdf?1676945200

Didn't expect them today because of the holiday. We'll see if the state releases theirs sometime around midnight as been happening.

[Sgt Raven]

^^^^^^^^^
There has been some discussion in this thread of the ban by name list and is it covered in this suit?


pg-6
(-RoosAssault Weapons

without further delay)

[homelessdude]

I would say they did a good job of pointing out all of the states games and refuting all their arguments. Well done.

[WithinReason]

There are several things that SCOTUS said were ok but are ripe for abuse and will likely need further litigation like fees, training, duration, social media, references, etc. There are also a lot of post-CCW issues like "safe spaces", vicinity to a SS (onsite only, 1oo meters, 1000meters, parking lots, etc), storage while in a vehicle, etc that also need litigation.

Agreed!

[AK5.56]

The plaintiffs response brief's are available to read via FPC's website ATM.

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/5381/attachments/original/1676945200/2023-2-20-Miller-v-Bonta-169-Plaintiffs-Response.pdf?1676945200

Didn't expect them today because of the holiday. We'll see if the state releases theirs sometime around midnight as been happening.

I thought that was it? Or are you saying the state gets to respond to the plaintiffs response again? I thought we just wait for Beneitez ruling now.

[Bhobbs]

This is it. The final responses are due today but it’s a holiday so the deadline is tomorrow.

It goes to Benitez now.

[CGZ]

I thought that was it? Or are you saying the state gets to respond to the plaintiffs response again? I thought we just wait for Beneitez ruling now.