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

[MAX123]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRY0x4BUu7E&t=26s

[ar15barrels]

Have you verified that to be accurate?

Have you found it not to be accurate?

[Mayor McRifle]

Do your own research - Google is your friend.

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

Wrong.

[SpudmanWP]

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

Unless Benitez does something odd, his ruling will only be covering the "ban by features" parts of the law.

[Sgt Raven]

Unless Benitez does something odd, his ruling will only be covering the "ban by features" parts of the law.

Page 2 line 16-18 the Plaintiffs are asking for the Roberti-Roos AWAC 1989 to be permanently enjoined. Roberti-Roos is Type ! AWs, banned by name. I don't think that was included by mistake.



But INAL.

[ar15barrels]

Page 2 line 16-18 the Plaintiffs are asking for the Roberti-Roos AWAC 1989 to be permanently enjoined. Roberti-Roos is Type ! AWs, banned by name. I don't think that was included by mistake.

Maybe the plaintiffs are simply trying to "pull one over" on the other side just like the defendants are trying to do with "common use for self defense" or "dangerous or unusual arms"...

I don't think that PC30510 is under attack in the actual complaint.

30510.
As used in this chapter and in Sections 16780, 17000, and 27555, “assault weapon” means the following designated semiautomatic firearms:

(a) All of the following specified rifles:

(1) All AK series including, but not limited to, the models identified as follows:

(A) Made in China AK, AKM, AKS, AK47, AK47S, 56, 56S, 84S, and 86S.

(B) Norinco 56, 56S, 84S, and 86S.

(C) Poly Technologies AKS and AK47.

(D) MAADI AK47 and ARM.

(2) UZI and Galil.

(3) Beretta AR-70.

(4) CETME Sporter.

(5) Colt AR-15 series.

(6) Daewoo K-1, K-2, Max 1, Max 2, AR 100, and AR 110C.

(7) Fabrique Nationale FAL, LAR, FNC, 308 Match, and Sporter.

(8) MAS 223.

(9) HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, and HK-PSG-1.

(10) The following MAC types:

(A) RPB Industries Inc. sM10 and sM11.

(B) SWD Incorporated M11.

(11) SKS with detachable magazine.

(12) SIG AMT, PE-57, SG 550, and SG 551.

(13) Springfield Armory BM59 and SAR-48.

(14) Sterling MK-6.

(15) Steyer AUG.

(16) Valmet M62S, M71S, and M78S.

(17) Armalite AR-180.

(18) Bushmaster Assault Rifle.

(19) Calico M-900.

(20) J&R ENG M-68.

(21) Weaver Arms Nighthawk.

(b) All of the following specified pistols:

(1) UZI.

(2) Encom MP-9 and MP-45.

(3) The following MAC types:

(A) RPB Industries Inc. sM10 and sM11.

(B) SWD Incorporated M-11.

(C) Advance Armament Inc. M-11.

(D) Military Armament Corp. Ingram M-11.

(4) Intratec TEC-9.

(5) Sites Spectre.

(6) Sterling MK-7.

(7) Calico M-950.

(8) Bushmaster Pistol.

(c) All of the following specified shotguns:

(1) Franchi SPAS 12 and LAW 12.

(2) Striker 12.

(3) The Streetsweeper type S/S Inc. SS/12.

(d) Any firearm declared to be an assault weapon by the court pursuant to former Section 12276.5, as it read in Section 3 of Chapter 19 of the Statutes of 1989, Section 1 of Chapter 874 of the Statutes of 1990, or Section 3 of Chapter 954 of the Statutes of 1991, which is specified as an assault weapon in a list promulgated pursuant to former Section 12276.5, as it read in Section 3 of Chapter 954 of the Statutes of 1991.

(e) This section is declaratory of existing law and a clarification of the law and the Legislature’s intent which bans the weapons enumerated in this section, the weapons included in the list promulgated by the Attorney General pursuant to former Section 12276.5, as it read in Section 3 of Chapter 954 of the Statutes of 1991, and any other models that are only variations of those weapons with minor differences, regardless of the manufacturer. The Legislature has defined assault weapons as the types, series, and models listed in this section because it was the most effective way to identify and restrict a specific class of semiautomatic weapons.

(f) As used in this section, “series” includes all other models that are only variations, with minor differences, of those models listed in subdivision (a), regardless of the manufacturer.

[Sgt Raven]

Maybe the plaintiffs are simply trying to "pull one over" on the other side just like the defendants are trying to do with "common use for self defense" or "dangerous or unusual arms"...

I don't think that PC30510 is under attack in the actual complaint.

I was skimming the brief and I had to go back and read that section again. It kinda jumped out at me. I remembered the multiple questions about Type1/Type2 Banned by Name AWs, in this thread. You and others have been saying, no just Banned by Features.


INAL, but did the Plaintiffs just expand their pleadings?

[jcwatchdog]

I was skimming the brief and I had to go back and read that section again. It kinda jumped out at me. I remembered the multiple questions about Type1/Type2 Banned by Name AWs, in this thread. You and others have been saying, no just Banned by Features.


INAL, but did the Plaintiffs just expand their pleadings?

[Dorzak]

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.

Although Bruen did somewhat address safe spaces. It said flat out New York couldn't declare Manhattan a safe space and then when on to point on restrictions would need historic analogues.

[Bhobbs]

I think bringing up the named assault weapons makes sense in response to their claim they are banning components, not arms.

[Dvrjon]

I was skimming the brief and I had to go back and read that section again. It kinda jumped out at me. I remembered the multiple questions about Type1/Type2 Banned by Name AWs, in this thread. You and others have been saying, no just Banned by Features.


INAL, but did the Plaintiffs just expand their pleadings?

Footnote, bottom of page 5, last word, continued to page 6 footnote (using numbering on the brief):

[WithinReason]

Dang, footnotes! I had my hopes raised even higher from a few postings in this thread...

[NorCalBusa]

Have you found it not to be accurate?

I'm not the one that posted it.

[Drivedabizness]

Wrong.

Great comeback, Potsie

[Mayor McRifle]

Great comeback, Potsie

Still no quote. Still no citation. Still wrong.

At least just give us the page number of the opinion that said, as you claim it did, “Walk in, get checked and, if you qualify under objective criteria, get your license quickly and at reasonable/minimal expense.”