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

[BobB35]

Here it is

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fir...pdf?1698433283

It's the same argument again and again. For self defense, not common, other courts have not found these laws unconstitutional (most are being appealed)

This will continue until SCOTUS stops it, if it ever does

[Drivedabizness]

What a ration of sh*t. I can't/won't read it

[gn3hz3ku1*]

You have to get a pacer account,

pacer.gov,

Then you go to this link,

https://ecf.ca9.uscourts.gov/n/beam/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=DocketReportFilter.jsp&caseNum=23-2979&shorttitle=Miller,%20et%20al%20v.%20Bonta,%20et%20al

Cost 10 cents per page, but if you search less then $30 worth per quarter it's free.

appreciate it

[pdsmith505]

Can't even get out of the introduction without it being absurd...

But, but... "just one day before..." *dun dun duuuuuuun*

"Halloween."

[7.62mm_fmj]

LoL

Plaintiffs' opposition to the Attorney General's motion for a stay pending appeal betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the Bruen framework, and it fails to engage with many of the Attorney General's arguments.

Well one party betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of Bruen but it's not Plaintiffs.

[michigander]

I found the day before Halloween parts hilarious. Otherwise, the normal crap.

[Franko221]

That AG's response is wholly inadequate but I expect that the court will find a justification for granting the stay that is just as absurd, perhaps even more so.

We will find out soon enough.

[ritter]

I found the day before Halloween parts hilarious. Otherwise, the normal crap.

Trick-or-treating with AR15s? The horror.

[abinsinia]

The events of this week only underscore those immense practical dangers.

They're trying to use the Maine thing to evoke some emotional action.

[7.62mm_fmj]

I feel like there is no way the AG can prevail based on their arguments. But then again I'm used to being disappointed by 9CA

[MajorSideburns]

LoL

Plaintiffs' opposition to the Attorney General's motion for a stay pending appeal betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the Bruen framework, and it fails to engage with many of the Attorney General's arguments.

Well one party betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of Bruen but it's not Plaintiffs.

They always accuse the other side of doing exactly what they do.

[Drivedabizness]

LoL

Plaintiffs' opposition to the Attorney General's motion for a stay pending appeal betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the Bruen framework, and it fails to engage with many of the Attorney General's arguments.

Well one party betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of Bruen but it's not Plaintiffs.

And who says we have to engage with his spurious arguments (Judge B already did that)???

[SvenFrost]

Cites to six district court opinions (inferior court opinions), calls those inferior court opinions substantial authority.

Continues to claim that protected arms are limited to those in common use for self defense.

Concludes by admitting that functionally identical arms are available in California, so no harm to plaintiffs. Fails to explain why the banned functionally identical arms are (1) not in common use, and (2) are more dangerous, than those available functionally identical arms.

"Even with a stay in place, moreover, plaintiffs and other law-abiding Californians will remain able to purchase and possess a wide range of approved firearms, including AR-platform rifles that do not have the specific tactical enhancements or configurations that qualify a firearm as an assault weapon under Section 30515. "

The state literally admits that it will not suffer irreparable harm where it admits that functionally identical arms are available. How can there be a flood if functionally identical arms are already available?

[ritter]

Cites to six district court opinions (inferior court opinions), calls those inferior court opinions substantial authority.

Continues to claim that protected arms are limited to those in common use for self defense.

Concludes by admitting that functionally identical arms are available in California, so no harm to plaintiffs. Fails to explain why the banned functionally identical arms are (1) not in common use, and (2) are more dangerous, than those functionally identical arms.

The state literally admits that it will not suffer irreparable harm where it admits that functionally identical arms are available.

I thought the same thing. Millions of dollars spent on this difference that isn't a difference... If the splitting of the hairs is this fine, logic would say the presumption goes to the constitution. Wait. Isn't that exactly what Bruen said?

[SpudmanWP]

Plaintiffs also contend that Bruen requires the State to "bear[] the burden of proving that" an arm is not "in common use" for purposes of its threshold inquiry. Opp. 13 (citing Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2135). But Bruen did not assign the burden that way; under Bruen, the burden shifts to the State to "justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition" only after the Court has held that the common-use inquiry is satisfied.

Holy fking *****....

Talk about "betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the Bruen framework".

Funny how they can't site in Bruen where is says "common use" is part of the "presumptively protected" part.