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

[Sgt Raven]

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.

WTF are you talking about?



None of the current California AW Bans made it to SCOTUS. Duncan Mag Ban did and was GVR'd back to the 9th and then sent back to the District Court. Just as the AW Ban cases have been. We are waiting on Judge Benitez to give his decision.

[rplaw]

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.

We talk about those other cases because they have an impact on California cases like this one. The way the courts handle the issues, the rationales/excuses they give, the way the higher courts react, all of it impacts California cases.

It's really disheartening to read posts like yours because they only show that you haven't bothered to take the time to get informed. Instead you only want a handout or to be spoon fed results. Results which you next complain aren't very filling or tasty and that we need to do better to satisfy your cravings.

Meanwhile, those results we do get require a lot of effort on the part of many people and Orgs. Few of whom live/work in California but all of whom suffer from the same deprivation of rights. Discussing their wins/losses helps our litigants here in California to focus on the arguments and facts they need to bring to the table when they stand before the court.

[courtc2911]

Third District Court of California Appeals ruling CA assault weapons ban stands

This may be a dumb question but what's everyone's understanding of the Third District Court of California Appeals ruling that the CA Assault Weapons Ban is upheld?

How does this affect Miller?

https://www.ktvu.com/news/california-court-upholds-state-wide-ban-on-assault-weapons

[BAJ475]

This may be a dumb question but what's everyone's understanding of the Third District Court of California Appeals ruling that the CA Assault Weapons Ban is upheld?

How does this affect Miller?

https://www.ktvu.com/news/california...ssault-weapons

Not at all. The Third District Court of Appeal failed to apply Heller or Bruen and federal courts are not bound by state court decisions when applying federal law.

[Chewy65]

I don't believe I would say not at all. While the state court opinion isn't precedence, it can be cited for persuasive effect. This one is ripe for a reaming.

[WithinReason]

I don't believe I would say not at all. While the state court opinion isn't precedence, it can be cited for persuasive effect. This one is ripe for a reaming.

Agreed.

[chris]

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

Bloomberg for one. I'm sure some wealthy DemoKrat donors as well. Maybe on the sly DemoKrat politicians. Us taxpayers pay as well.

[Bhobbs]

SCOTUS has to address the new anti gun arguments before they become the new two step method.

[SpudmanWP]

Let's hope that ACB clarifies some of the most egregious in her IL review.

[JiuJitsu]

What would you guys say the new anti-gun arguments are? I have read so much BS since Bruen was decided last year that I cant keep the anti-gun arguments straight anymore.

[Bhobbs]

The most common are the plain text of the amendment doesn’t cover whatever the law regulates. The gun is dangerous OR unusual, instead of dangerous AND unusual. The test laid out in Bruen really is the old two step test from before Bruen.

[SpudmanWP]

What would you guys say the new anti-gun arguments are? I have read so much BS since Bruen was decided last year that I cant keep the anti-gun arguments straight anymore.

1. Common Use test applied to a region instead of national

2. Common Use for "self-defense" instead of "lawful purpose"

3. "Use" means the actual discharge of the weapon

4. Conflating weapon bans with historical carry restrictions

5. Using "OR" instead of "AND" in the "Dangerous and Unusual" test.

6. Judges just saying a law passes the THT test without actually giving a specific example.

7. Not understanding that the THT test requires a MINIMUM of 4 example laws as it needs to be a "tradition" and no outlier laws.

8. Trying to inject late 19th and early 20th century laws into the THT test when at most the 1860s are the limit.

9. Magazines, stocks, grips, flash hiders, etc are not "arms" covered under the 2nd Amendment.

10. The Common Use test only applies to arms in use when the 2nd was ratified. Heller called this argument "frivolous" and I am surprised that it's still being used.

[Dvrjon]

Nuance.

[JWHuey]

Friday





























Again

[rational_behavior]

1. Common Use test applied to a region instead of national

2. Common Use for "self-defense" instead of "lawful purpose"

3. "Use" means the actual discharge of the weapon

4. Conflating weapon bans with historical carry restrictions

5. Using "OR" instead of "AND" in the "Dangerous and Unusual" test.

6. Judges just saying a law passes the THT test without actually giving a specific example.

7. Not understanding that the THT test requires a MINIMUM of 4 example laws as it needs to be a "tradition" and no outlier laws.

8. Trying to inject late 19th and early 20th century laws into the THT test when at most the 1860s are the limit.

9. Magazines, stocks, grips, flash hiders, etc are not "arms" covered under the 2nd Amendment.

10. The Common Use test only applies to arms in use when the 2nd was ratified. Heller called this argument "frivolous" and I am surprised that it's still being used.

This is useful to me. Thanks.