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

[EM2]

Positive discrimination does not mean I endorse the practice or think that society benefits from such policies. I am merely using an actual technical term.

https://www.davidsonmorris.com/positive-discrimination/

Thank you, I stand corrected, and educated.

Still a bit confusing to me why they use the term positive with regard to discrimination, even if that discrimination is helping a protected class.

[Chewy65]

I picked a case up in the Volkh CosnpiracUS v Hansen and where she notes that, " The Ninth Circuit stacked the deck in favor of ordinary meaning, but it should have given specialized meaning a fair shake."

[1911su16b870]

...and nothing...https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...&order_by=desc

8/9 Added Teter v. Lopez decision as precedent that a outright ban on arms (e.g. bali-songs) is unconstitutional.

[darkwater34]

We will see

[AlmostHeaven]

8/9 Added Teter v. Lopez decision as precedent that a outright ban on arms (e.g. bali-songs) is unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court already clearly promulgated the in common use for lawful purposes such as self-defense test in District of Columbia v. Heller, but lower courts have twisted the wording into a much weaker in common use for self-defense test.

This will continue until SCOTUS explicitly reaffirms the common use test in a new case. If I sat on the court, I would push strongly to upgrade another level to in common lawful possession.

[natman]

The Supreme Court already clearly promulgated the in common use for lawful purposes such as self-defense test in District of Columbia v. Heller, but lower courts have twisted the wording into a much weaker in common use for self-defense test.

This will continue until SCOTUS explicitly reaffirms the common use test in a new case. If I sat on the court, I would push strongly to upgrade another level to in common lawful possession.

We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. DC v Heller page 53

...the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. ibid page 55

Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying "the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home," and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon's suitability for military use. Caetano v Mass

SCOTUS has already made it clear that "in common use" means commonly possessed in multiple cases. These distortions are not because it's not clear what "in common use" means - they are the result of deliberate distortion on the part of activist judges.

[AlmostHeaven]

We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. DC v Heller page 53

...the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. ibid page 55

Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying "the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home," and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon's suitability for military use. Caetano v Mass

SCOTUS has already made it clear that "in common use" means commonly possessed in multiple cases. These distortions are not because it's not clear what "in common use" means - they are the result of deliberate distortion on the part of activist judges.

The Supreme Court has not made sufficiently clear whether firearm features fall under the common use test by never deciding an assault weapons ban challenge. Of course, I am preaching to the choir here, since this entire thread is about a case the Second Amendment community hopes to take up to SCOTUS in order to resolve this specific issue.

[rplaw]

The Supreme Court has not made sufficiently clear whether firearm features fall under the common use test by never deciding an assault weapons ban challenge. Of course, I am preaching to the choir here, since this entire thread is about a case the Second Amendment community hopes to take up to SCOTUS in order to resolve this specific issue.

SCOTUS isn't going to take every case involving every individual weapon configuration to tell us it IS within the boundaries, they already told us that ANY weapon that is "possessed for lawful purposes" falls under the 2A.

This means AR's are covered. As would be AK's, Ghost Guns, and so on. It also means that pistols with the serial numbers filed off, possessed by prohibited persons, etc, aren't covered.

There is no need to create a "list" of what's allowed. Not only is this unworkable, but it's unwieldy and cannot encompass future technology and developments. (Think about it, under a "list" requirement, microstamping, biometrics, Phasers, etc would all be prohibited weapons.) Further, our system of laws don't tell us what we're "allowed" to have. Laws are there to prohibit conduct, not grant it.

[chris]

That's funny, because I recall California being under Republican leadership when the concealed carry law(now unconstitutional) and the Mulford Act were signed. The Mulford Act, sponsored by the NRA, was directed at the Black Panther's armed response to racist local and federal police terrorism.

While I'm aware that current Democrats want gun control, their current motives are not the same as those in power in the South during slavery/reconstruction, or in California for that matter. The EFFECT IS the same.

My point is racism is not limited to one party either historically or currently. Racism is active in both political parties.

Left out when Brown outlawed UOC in the state in 2012-13 I believe. Mulford isn't even relevant any longer. Yeah the law sucked but I'm guessing most on this board was not alive when it happened.

Don't forget the last 30+ years of non stop gun control written and voted in by Democrats in California. I do not recall many if any gun control laws in my lifetime written by Republicans in California. Sure Democrat and Republican governors have signed laws. Newsom is probably the worst with about 25 under his belt signed in his 7 years as governor. He has not vetoed one. Tell me is Mulford worse than the 25+ laws Newsom signed the numerous signed into law since then?

Remember after Mulford almost no legislation until the mid 70s and after than late 80s with AWCA when this state began the march to full retard on gun control.

Democrats have a worse track record when it comes to gun control. It never fails for someone to bring up Mulford when Democrats are mentioned for championing gun control.

Maybe Mulford could be challenged under Bruen now. But with SB2 and the possible insane restrictions on CCW holders and future ones is more pressing than a law that is 60 years old.

So far no one has challenged that law. Other laws that we are seeing being litigated now are more important.

[AlmostHeaven]

SCOTUS isn't going to take every case involving every individual weapon configuration to tell us it IS within the boundaries, they already told us that ANY weapon that is "possessed for lawful purposes" falls under the 2A.

This means AR's are covered. As would be AK's, Ghost Guns, and so on. It also means that pistols with the serial numbers filed off, possessed by prohibited persons, etc, aren't covered.

There is no need to create a "list" of what's allowed. Not only is this unworkable, but it's unwieldy and cannot encompass future technology and developments. (Think about it, under a "list" requirement, microstamping, biometrics, Phasers, etc would all be prohibited weapons.) Further, our system of laws don't tell us what we're "allowed" to have. Laws are there to prohibit conduct, not grant it.

I never stated that the Supreme Court needs to produce an exhaustive list of all individual weapon features protected by the Second Amendment. I mean that liberal lower courts do not recognize so-called assault weapon features as falling under the common use test. There is no doubt that SCOTUS needs to issue a majority opinion explicitly affirming that states may not ban, for example, AR-15s with pistol grips, adjustable stocks, and muzzle brakes under the justification that AR-15s with fin grips, fixed stocks, and non-threaded barrels remain lawful. I hope this appears in a passage somewhere in a future ruling on the matter.

[NorcalGSG]

Left out when Brown outlawed UOC in the state in 2012-13 I believe. Mulford isn't even relevant any longer. Yeah the law sucked but I'm guessing most on this board was not alive when it happened.

Don't forget the last 30+ years of non stop gun control written and voted in by Democrats in California. I do not recall many if any gun control laws in my lifetime written by Republicans in California. Sure Democrat and Republican governors have signed laws. Newsom is probably the worst with about 25 under his belt signed in his 7 years as governor. He has not vetoed one. Tell me is Mulford worse than the 25+ laws Newsom signed the numerous signed into law since then?

Remember after Mulford almost no legislation until the mid 70s and after than late 80s with AWCA when this state began the march to full retard on gun control.

Democrats have a worse track record when it comes to gun control. It never fails for someone to bring up Mulford when Democrats are mentioned for championing gun control.

Maybe Mulford could be challenged under Bruen now. But with SB2 and the possible insane restrictions on CCW holders and future ones is more pressing than a law that is 60 years old.

So far no one has challenged that law. Other laws that we are seeing being litigated now are more important.

Fwiw Schwarzenegger signed every gun control bill he could get his little hands on. I get your point but it's not accurate with history here unfortunately. That Austrian did a lot of damage to our state with lasting effects well after he was retired under his guise of global warming crap and "public safety" garbage. I mean the 50bmg ban, come on get serious.

[BobB35]

Fwiw Schwarzenegger signed every gun control bill he could get his little hands on. I get your point but it's not accurate with history here unfortunately. That Austrian did a lot of damage to our state with lasting effects well after he was retired under his guise of global warming crap and "public safety" garbage. I mean the 50bmg ban, come on get serious.

He was the definition of a RINO. Hell he was married to a Kennedy. Biggest scam out there when he ran as a republican

[Bhobbs]

The Supreme Court has not made sufficiently clear whether firearm features fall under the common use test by never deciding an assault weapons ban challenge. Of course, I am preaching to the choir here, since this entire thread is about a case the Second Amendment community hopes to take up to SCOTUS in order to resolve this specific issue.

Not all assault weapons are feature based. Many are name based. Features are one aspect of an assault weapon but assault weapon is a legal class of firearm. Assault weapons bans would fail the common use test and the THT test, so they would fail either way.

[gobler]

The Supreme Court already clearly promulgated the in common use for lawful purposes such as self-defense test in District of Columbia v. Heller, but lower courts have twisted the wording into a much weaker in common use for self-defense test.



This will continue until SCOTUS explicitly reaffirms the common use test in a new case. If I sat on the court, I would push strongly to upgrade another level to in common lawful possession.

They did so. 2016 Caetano v Mass. 9-0 Weapons that were not yet invented in 1792 are covered. The fact that 200,000 Americans OWN such a weapon, for whatever reason, makes them commonly owned, thus protected by the 2A.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

[SpudmanWP]

SCOTUS just needs to slip this into the next 2A ruling:

1. The "Use" in common use covers simple ownership and not the actual discharge of the firearm.
2. Lawful purpose covers everything including but not limited to defense, hunting, collecting, plinking, just-for-fun, etc.
3. The "Common Use" test is based on the class of arm and not individual models (see Heller & Caetano).