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

[ritter]

Yeah but...You remember what happened the last time the Supreme Court was asked to intervene when an injunction was denied under identical circumstances. All they did was urge the Second Circuit to act expeditiously.

This is a different situation. The NY case was specific to NY and had not been litigated beyond preliminary injunction. AWBs are popping up all over the place. Bianchi was litigated all the way to SCOTUS for a GVR. Miller all the way through CA9. AWBs are fully briefed and argued yet still getting interest balanced away.

I would love to see SCOTUS issue a directive that lower courts are free to continue litigating AWBs on their schedules but must do so while those laws enjoined since semiautomatic magazine fed rifles are very much included in the plain text of keep and bear and are in common use so are therefore presumed constitutional.

[AlmostHeaven]

I would love to see SCOTUS issue a directive that lower courts are free to continue litigating AWBs on their schedules but must do so while those laws enjoined since semiautomatic magazine fed rifles are very much included in the plain text of keep and bear and are in common use so are therefore presumed constitutional.

The Supreme Court needs to settle the issue once and for all and actually take up one of the myriad assault weapons ban cases. GVRing Bianchi v. Frosh was a mistake, seeing as the lower courts are very much disinclined from ruling in accordance with the Constitution. NYSRPA v. Bruen has yet to cause a single one of the ten pre-Bruen state-level assault weapons or magazine bans to fall.

Bianchi and Duncan both should have been heard and decided. No more remands.

[automat is Brett]

You're right on. The question is who are actually behind funding those organizations?

We are. Most of them are funded mostly by government subsidies and political donations and contributions

[TruOil]

This is a different situation. The NY case was specific to NY and had not been litigated beyond preliminary injunction. AWBs are popping up all over the place. Bianchi was litigated all the way to SCOTUS for a GVR. Miller all the way through CA9. AWBs are fully briefed and argued yet still getting interest balanced away.

The case we are discussing has not progressed past the preliminary injunction stage either., which is the foremost inquiry. And just as the NY case where the Second Circuit merely cited a case in support of its denial, in this case the Seventh Circuit didn't even bother to do that. There has been no determination on the merits in either case, except tangentially in deciding whether plaintiff will probably succeed on the merits--not that he/she/it will. The Supreme Court is generally opposed to intervening at such an early stage unless it is a case it really wants to hear.

[ritter]

The case we are discussing has not progressed past the preliminary injunction stage either., which is the foremost inquiry. And just as the NY case where the Second Circuit merely cited a case in support of its denial, in this case the Seventh Circuit didn't even bother to do that. There has been no determination on the merits in either case, except tangentially in deciding whether plaintiff will probably succeed on the merits--not that he/she/it will. The Supreme Court is generally opposed to intervening at such an early stage unless it is a case it really wants to hear.

Oh I agree with this specific case not being litigated. But the concept sure as hell has been. The NY case concept of "restrict carry everywhere" had not been litigated at all. That is the difference I hope will inspire SCOTUS to intervene. Plus, AWBs are being passed at a dizzying pace making it more urgent nationally than NY's one off middle finger play. We'll see.

[rplaw]

The Supreme Court needs to settle the issue once and for all and actually take up one of the myriad assault weapons ban cases. GVRing Bianchi v. Frosh was a mistake, seeing as the lower courts are very much disinclined from ruling in accordance with the Constitution. NYSRPA v. Bruen has yet to cause a single one of the ten pre-Bruen state-level assault weapons or magazine bans to fall.

Bianchi and Duncan both should have been heard and decided. No more remands.

I don't know this, but I'm getting the impression that Bianchi failed to get a solid majority consensus and was GVR'd because a plurality opinion might harm Bruen. Basically, Bianchi suffered from bad timing and poor prior case law. Now that Bruen's out there, it might have a different end result because supporting precedent now exists and the lower court's will have to actively work against following it. As we're already seeing them do, even though that's reversible error, because it drags out the final resolution in favor of We the People.


In any event, the State has until next Monday @ noon to respond to Barrett's request. Then we'll see if she's worth her salary or not.

[ritter]

I don't know this, but I'm getting the impression that Bianchi failed to get a solid majority consensus and was GVR'd because a plurality opinion might harm Bruen. Basically, Bianchi suffered from bad timing and poor prior case law. Now that Bruen's out there, it might have a different end result because supporting precedent now exists and the lower court's will have to actively work against following it. As we're already seeing them do, even though that's reversible error, because it drags out the final resolution in favor of We the People.


In any event, the State has until next Monday @ noon to respond to Barrett's request. Then we'll see if she's worth her salary or not.

With a bit-o-luck, SCOTUS will reafirm "presumed constitutional" and this stay BS will end across the board for AWBs. The states can litigate as long as they want, provided the laws are enjoined until settled.

[natman]

I believe the appeal to SCOTUS is asking to grant the PI?

Let's say Justice Barrett grants the PI. Would it then still have to make its way through the 7th Circuit or could she issue a ruling on the merits of the case?

All that SCOTUS is being asked to do is grant an emergency injunction.

In January, SCOTUS received a similar emergency request in a New York gun case, Antonyuk v. Nigrelli and it was denied on procedural grounds. SCOTUS doesn't like to get involved in cases that are still active at lower levels. The denial was for procedural reasons only, not on the merits of the case.

I expect that SCOTUS will do the same thing here, for the same reasons.

[randomBytes]

All that SCOTUS is being asked to do is grant an emergency injunction.

In January, SCOTUS received a similar emergency request in a New York gun case, Antonyuk v. Nigrelli and it was denied on procedural grounds. SCOTUS doesn't like to get involved in cases that are still active at lower levels. The denial was for procedural reasons only, not on the merits of the case.

I expect that SCOTUS will do the same thing here, for the same reasons.

Mark Smith agrees with you, but the fact that she is demanding a response is a signal all by itself.

[natman]

Mark Smith agrees with you, but the fact that she is demanding a response is a signal all by itself.

Not much of one. The plaintiffs submitted a motion, she needs to hear from the other side before she deals with it. Sotomayor did the same thing in the Antonyuk case.

[Joe Manco]

I thought this was a California "assault weapons" discussion. I am sick of hearing about foreign cases and how they impact the AWB here when they never do.

It is here, now, not the 7th Circuit. The 9th has been ordered by the SC to reconsider CA.'s AWB in light of their newest decisions. The 9th has stalled by giving the case back to the lower court----and we wait. Then they will find another way to stall, and stall and stall.

We need a law firm to file a Motion or similar, perhaps more appropriate pleading, to force the 9th to act on the SC decision NOW.

Everything else, everything else you people discuss here, is mental masturbation.

[AlmostHeaven]

Everything "foreign" to California is useless and mental masturbation?

That's a d*mn narrow-sighted way of looking at the issue. The fact of the matter is Miller and Rupp won't be reaching the Supreme Court anytime soon, while these faster-moving cases in the east will. Bianchi is only one more appeal away from getting back to the Supreme Court, where it was already GVRed once in light of Bruen. If the Supreme Court takes a case on the issue at all, it won't one of the California ones.

Interlocutory appeals for gun rights cases have never been accepted directly into the Supreme Court docket, but one of the eastern cases may set the precedent needed to end the AW scheme in California before the Ninth Circuit mis-applies Bruen yet again, which I'm certain they will.

I don't only donate to gun rights organizations in Virginia. I don't stick my head back in the sand just because my state doesn't have an assault weapons ban. If you want to call talking about the big picture derogatory terms, be my guest, but unless a "national divorce" actually happens, all the Second Amendment battles is everyone's business.

[gobler]

At this point, it's simple. Do Not Comply. We know our rights. If LEO wants to try and arrest, then they're nothing more than an enemy of the constitution. I've been done with California's assault on our rights for quite a while.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

[BlessedHunter]

I thought this was a California "assault weapons" discussion. I am sick of hearing about foreign cases and how they impact the AWB here when they never do.

It is here, now, not the 7th Circuit. The 9th has been ordered by the SC to reconsider CA.'s AWB in light of their newest decisions. The 9th has stalled by giving the case back to the lower court----and we wait. Then they will find another way to stall, and stall and stall.

We need a law firm to file a Motion or similar, perhaps more appropriate pleading, to force the 9th to act on the SC decision NOW.

Everything else, everything else you people discuss here, is mental masturbation.

Precedent set by the SC can cause waves across the lower courts. As in, the exact issue we're dealing with in CA.

Justice Barrett can grant the appeal to enjoin the AWB ban in Illinois and thus greatly help us with our own petition to enjoin the AWB while the courts work out the merits.

[michigander]

I thought this was a California "assault weapons" discussion. I am sick of hearing about foreign cases and how they impact the AWB here when they never do.

It is here, now, not the 7th Circuit. The 9th has been ordered by the SC to reconsider CA.'s AWB in light of their newest decisions. The 9th has stalled by giving the case back to the lower court----and we wait. Then they will find another way to stall, and stall and stall.

We need a law firm to file a Motion or similar, perhaps more appropriate pleading, to force the 9th to act on the SC decision NOW.

Everything else, everything else you people discuss here, is mental masturbation.

The Miller case never got to the Supreme Court. Duncan did.