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

[ExuberantRaptorZeta]

Could the Supreme Court just announcing they are accepting Garland v. Cargill, kind of spill over into assault weapon bans? Considering a bump stock is just an accessory like much of the accessories that are effectively banned with most AW bans.

I was wondering the same thing. And unfortunately, if SCOTUS cucks on this decision, it could set a horrible precedent for everything else...

[Bhobbs]

Could the Supreme Court just announcing they are accepting Garland v. Cargill, kind of spill over into assault weapon bans? Considering a bump stock is just an accessory like much of the accessories that are effectively banned with most AW bans.

I don?t think Cargill will be a 2A decision. I expect it to be another case regarding executive agency overreach. They will avoid the 2A question as much as possible.

[SpudmanWP]

How joyous would it be if SCOTUS used this case to nuke Chevron Deference?

[rplaw]

How joyous would it be if SCOTUS used this case to nuke Chevron Deference?

SCOTUS could use the case as a vehicle to do several things.

Nuke Chevron deference, nuke exec agency overreach, nuke Duncan's en banc, nuke all the AW bans, nuke the Bruen response legislation, etc. because all of those things fall under the same problematic issue. Namely:

The government is violating the 2A and the lower courts are not only allowing this but encouraging it because of political ideology and they are still doing so even after the SCOTUS telling them they're deciding cases improperly.

We need a new standard in the way the lower courts scrutinize challenges to Constitution infringing laws. The current standard doesn't work and the courts tried to include Bruen's THT into it but it still doesn't work.

[SpudmanWP]

SCOTUS will not go outside what is in front of it.

SCOTUS decisions are like the flow of water where they take the shortest route possible.

Both Chevron and agency overreach are pathways to deal with the issue without having to bring up 2A rights at all.

I do agree that we need a better way of challenging laws that touch our rights. This is especially true of how we determine standing and how we determine the applicability of Preliminary Injunctions and Stays.

[AlmostHeaven]

How joyous would it be if SCOTUS used this case to nuke Chevron Deference?

Why would the Supreme Court use a case challenging the ATF regulation on bump stocks, when Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo explicitly poses the question of overruling Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loper_Bright_Enterprises_v._Raimondo

Questions presented: Whether the Court should overrule Chevron or at least clarify that statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute does not constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency.

[SpudmanWP]

I am all for attacking Chevron from every angle possible.

[ritter]

CA7 just vacated the lower court ruling on the Illinois AWB and mag ban finding both more suited for the military and thus not protected, so bans are totally cool. CA9 will absolutely use this to pad out their improper analysis on Miller. We will have no relief until SCOTUS in 2-5 years.

[SpudmanWP]

Too bad for them that using that as an excuse violates your 2A rights per Heller.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

[SpudmanWP]

Dupe

[Bhobbs]

Too bad for them that using that as an excuse violates your 2A rights per Heller.

Lucky for them Heller only applies to judges that care about SCOTUS. They have tremendous flexibility because its an honor system. There is nothing anyone can do to make them actually follow SCOTUS opinions.

And no, overturning them is not making them follow anything. Easterbrook was "slapped down", as everyone loves to say, in McDonald and he could not care any less.

[Bhobbs]

Too bad for them that using that as an excuse violates your 2A rights per Heller.

Since when has Heller actually stopped anything anti gun? Heller was obliterated with the two step method. Easterbrook certainly doesn't care about Heller. He doesn't care about SCOTUS, even after they "slapped him down".

[AlmostHeaven]

Some loathe to accept that the only nonviolent path forward involves electing Republicans to appoint more constitutionalist judges. President Trump shifted the composition of the Ninth Circuit to where only two more appointments would result in the appeals court flipping to conservative-majority.

Hate Trump and despise the rest of the Republican agenda; the Second Amendment nonetheless needs him to win next November.

[BAJ475]

Won't go page 161.

[BAJ475]

Dupe

There must be something past page 160.