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

[riderr]

There will only be the assault weapon definitions remaining based on make/model, caliber and elective registration.

"Featured" rifles can be de-registered, if those no longer have AW features.

[ar15barrels]

"Featured" rifles can be de-registered, if those no longer have AW features.

Only the 4th and 5th batch guns.
The 1st, 2nd and 3rd batch guns are not able to be de-registered unless they are first moved outside the state because they were nor registered based on having features.

[BAJ475]

You have that right.

Did you see me say that?
There are only assault weapon registration openings when required by a change in law which creates assault weapons from previously legally configured/owned firearms.
The elimination of the features-based assault weapon legal definition would not trigger another assault weapon registration period.

That's going to have to take a different lawsuit to settle.
This case is only about the "features" list.

If Miller is successful, there will no longer be an assault weapon definition based on features because that's what the Miller case is about.
There will only be the assault weapon definitions remaining based on make/model, caliber and elective registration.

First let me say that I did not intend my post to be a debate. I was merely asking for your thoughts. So what happens to a CA resident that has an unregistered AR or AK with features? Is it not an AW so there is no need to register it or is it an AW but need not be registered to keep it? In other words just what relief did Judge Benitez's decision give Californians?

Edit: I went back are read the FAC. Based on that complaint it appears to me that .50BMG rifles and featured ARs and AKs are still AWs but can be dealt with (possessed, transferred, transported ect.) the same as non AWs with no need to register them. If anyone has a different take, please state you views.

[Bhobbs]

They could easily extend the admin stay while they decide.

Isn?t the point of the motions panel to decide the administrative stay? I thought they decided the administrative stay and the 3 judge panel decided the permanent stay.

[pMcW]

I have not done a deep dive into the PI to see what specific PC is in there.
I am working from my recollections of the original complaint and I could be off on some fine details.

Assuming that the order in the Miller v. Bonta district court decision ever takes effect as written (unlikely as that might be), here is what it actually enjoins:

...enjoined from implementing or enforcing California Penal Code:
30515(a)(1) through (8) (defining an ?assault weapon? by prohibited features),
30800 (deeming those ?assault weapons? a public nuisance),
30915 (regulating those ?assault weapons? obtained by bequest or inheritance),
30945 (restricting use of registered ?assault weapons?),
and the penalty provisions 30600, 30605, 30800 as applied to ?assault weapons? defined in Code ?? 30515(a)(1) through (8).

(I added some line breaks, but didn't change any wording)

I take that to mean that any features-defined "AWs" could then be acquired, possessed, transferred, used, and stored just like any non-AW firearm.

I might be missing something, but I also believed that current or prior RAW registration status would not matter at all for features-defined "AWs." You could deregister them, but I don't see why it would be required.

The state would be enjoined from defining such firearms as AWs and also from enforcing anything about registration or use of them.

As stated previously, the rules for the named AWs and 50 BMGs would remain unchanged unless something happens in Rupp v. Bonta.

Until we have a final order to read, it's all still up in the air.
Literally anything is still possible.

I fully recognize this, and also that the state can pass a bunch of replacement laws next session, etc., but I still think it's still a worthwhile exercise to consider the potential effects of the actual words of the order.

[AlmostHeaven]

California could enact a law requiring the registration of all semi-automatic rifles, or even all firearms, and still comply with Judge Benitez's ruling, as long as the state permits the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer, possession, storage, and use of rifles currently classified as assault weapons based on features.

Registration lies entirely outside the scope of Miller v. Bonta. The existing registry would remain in its present status, or the state could reopen or expand it.

[SpudmanWP]

Isn?t the point of the motions panel to decide the administrative stay? I thought they decided the administrative stay and the 3 judge panel decided the permanent stay.

The motions panel rules on the motion in front of them. The State is asking for a permanent stay pending the outcome of their appeal. The panel is well within their rights and standard procedure to extend the admin stay for a few days pending their ruling on a permanent stay.

[7.62mm_fmj]

California could enact a law requiring the registration of all semi-automatic rifles, or even all firearms, and still comply with Judge Benitez's ruling...

Yea they could do that but they will have to survive a lawsuit challenging it based on THT before it goes into effect.

So in roughly 3-1/2 hours until we get to see the state's reply. Somewhere inside the heart of every law clerk and lawyer at the CA DOJ, they know what they're doing is wrong on many levels.

[SpudmanWP]

They could always do it as an "emergency" that goes into effect immediately.

[ar15barrels]

First let me say that I did not intend my post to be a debate. I was merely asking for your thoughts. So what happens to a CA resident that has an unregistered AR or AK with features? Is it not an AW so there is no need to register it or is it an AW but need not be registered to keep it? In other words just what relief did Judge Benitez's decision give Californians?

Edit: I went back are read the FAC. Based on that complaint it appears to me that .50BMG rifles and featured ARs and AKs are still AWs but can be dealt with (possessed, transferred, transported ect.) the same as non AWs with no need to register them. If anyone has a different take, please state you views.

In a post-miller USSC decision supporting miller world, there is no longer an assault weapon definition based on the presence of features so features would no longer define an assault weapon.
Featureless and formerly "featured" guns become the same for legal purposes.

Unregistered named assault weapons and 50bmg rifles continue to be illegal assault weapons and as-such, all the laws apply. You could be arrested for possession, transfer or transport.

Registered named assault weapons and registered 50bmg rifles remain as registered assault weapons and the registered assault weapon transport/storage restrictions still apply.

[ar15barrels]

I take that to mean that any features-defined "AWs" could then be acquired, possessed, transferred, used, and stored just like any non-AW firearm.

I might be missing something, but I also believed that current or prior RAW registration status would not matter at all for features-defined "AWs." You could deregister them, but I don't see why it would be required.

The state would be enjoined from defining such firearms as AWs and also from enforcing anything about registration or use of them.

I read it the same way.

[tacticalcity]

Is there open litigation to get rid of named AWs?

On a semi-related note does anyone have a complete list of the open litigation regarding pistol braces at the federal level? Google has been less than helpful.

[7.62mm_fmj]

The rest of the AW laws are challenged in Rupp.

[AlmostHeaven]

Is there open litigation to get rid of named AWs?

Rupp v. Bonta

On a semi-related note does anyone have a complete list of the open litigation regarding pistol braces at the federal level? Google has been less than helpful.

You likely have to browse all the various Second Amendment advocacy group websites, since so many of the organizations have concurrent lawsuits pending. For example, the Firearms Policy Coalition is litigating Mock v. Garland.

[Silence Dogood]

On a semi-related note does anyone have a complete list of the open litigation regarding pistol braces at the federal level? Google has been less than helpful.

In the thread here in the National forum, we have a list of seven. I have been busy but intended to followup posts for each like we do for most cases. https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1844232