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

[BAJ475]

They can certainly read the CG.net forums, but I doubt it would be a good idea for them to express their opinions on cases under judicial review either here on CG.net or anywhere else except in their official written rulings. Doing so would IMO be at the very least unbecoming behavior for a judge.

I'd be quite happy if they read what we post here. I'd suggest all of us keep in mind that CG.net is a public forum and anything we post here can be read by anyone anyone with internet access, including those who are not at all supportive of the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment and CCW related forum provide a good way for us to try to explain why the 2nd Amendment is so important to maintain the other freedoms we as Americans have enjoyed since the founding of our great republic. The best way to achieve this goal is to argue with reason and equanimity.

I understand why most people who love their freedom would get angry at those who attempt to take it away. Feeling angry about having one's rights stolen is probably unavoidable and can serve to motivate people to defend their rights. Those who are determined to take away rights by whatever vile means they deem necessary do need to be challenged with the utmost vigor and determination, not by resorting to their vile techniques but by using all legally available means, including the judiciary and most importantly the ballot box. Fortunately, at this time we still have access to both of these options, though it seems they are coming more and more under attack.

What's to argue about? We agree. It's the Dem/Commies and those they have duped who disagree. Actually, what is most important is the cartridge box!

[AlmostHeaven]

And that is a hard pill to swallow for some as it no longer has much credibility. It means you are a simp for the state legislature. You can be an overnight criminal simply by waking up one morning, no matter how hard you have worked your entire life to live in obedience. Many have patiently waited decades for a scrap from the government after continually having their rights taken, and then see the courts piss all over them as they lay down after being kicked. I think we are getting a taste of what the colonists felt when the British turned up the heat.

Indeed, I hope that eventually, the outdated old trope of "law-abiding gun owners" fades into the sunset. One ought not to obey malum prohibitum statutes such as assault weapons bans, high-capacity magazine bans, handgun rosters, and short-barreled rifle/shotgun rules, which create classes of felons out of peaceable citizens who have hurt nobody and nothing other than the sensibilities of tyrannical ruling elites. Only gun control with just backing that govern the unreasonable use of weapons, including public discharge prohibitions, brandishing bans, and use-of-force limitations, deserve the deference of We The People.

[sfpcservice]

For about 12 hours I was a felon this month.

[eho0925]

For about 12 hours I was a felon this month.

Your not supposed to say the quiet part out loud too many protected class (I.e cops/IAs/brown shirts/tyrannts) watch these post best to use discretion and tell them to F off properly

[Bhobbs]

Miller v. Bonta panel is Berzon, Nguyen, and Miller. One Clinton, one Obama and one Trump nominee.

The bad news is it should be a loss. The good news is a loss should avoid going en banc.

[SpudmanWP]

I'll still wait as I've seen plenty of Obama and Biden judges rule in line with Bruen.

[Bolt_Action]

Miller v. Bonta panel is Berzon, Nguyen, and Miller. One Clinton, one Obama and one Trump nominee.

The bad news is it should be a loss. The good news is a loss should avoid going en banc.

All that matters is this getting to SCOTUS, so losing at the 9th ASAP is only good news.

[7.62mm_fmj]

All that matters is this getting to SCOTUS, so losing at the 9th ASAP is only good news.

Since the 3-judge panel is supposed to only be reviewing whether or not there were any errors in the opinion, they may affirm without concern, after much delay, knowing the case will go en banc, creating even further delay

[AlmostHeaven]

No liberal judge would want to sign his/her name onto a ruling affirming a district court decision that strikes down the oldest assault weapons ban in the country.

I feel confident that this 3-judge panel will reverse Judge Benitez and deliver the Second Amendment community the necessary circuit court final judgment to petition the Supreme Court for certiorari.

[sparky1979]

When is the next step going to take place in this case?

Sent from my SM-S908U1 using Tapatalk

[abinsinia]

When is the next step going to take place in this case?

Sent from my SM-S908U1 using Tapatalk

Oral arguments week of January 22, 2024. Looks like exact day it 24th.

[dawgcasa]

No liberal judge would want to sign his/her name onto a ruling affirming a district court decision that strikes down the oldest assault weapons ban in the country.

I feel confident that this 3-judge panel will reverse Judge Benitez and deliver the Second Amendment community the necessary circuit court final judgment to petition the Supreme Court for certiorari.

I agree. The only question is what type of tortured, twisted pretzel logic will they use to resurrect interest balancing, and how they redefine the words of the ?dangerous AND unusual? standard to mean ?unusually dangerous? in direct defiance of Bruen. It is clear that the anti-gun liberals on the 9th circuit are ideologically committed to a view that courts must defer to the interests of the state as ?guardians of the public good?, but only as it pertains to the 2A. E.g., they would never make such a concession if the challenged law abolished the 4th and 5th amendment rights of recidivist felons, despite it being empirically proven that such laws improve public safety. And they see no constitutional or ethical conflict in treating different civil rights by completely different legal standards. This is why they are unfit to be judges.

[Bhobbs]

I don?t really care what they say, I care about how long they take. We need to get one of these cases to SCOTUS as soon as possible.

[lastinline]

I don?t really care what they say, I care about how long they take. We need to get one of these cases to SCOTUS as soon as possible.

This thread of discussion alone has been going on since the summer of 2019. Can the 9th hold on for another four years? I think so. Seeing as how the first California ban went back to 1989-1990, I think most judges will do whatever they can to uphold it. Just imagine how nearly impossible it would be to roll back the GCA of 1968.

[TruOil]

I agree. The only question is what type of tortured, twisted pretzel logic will they use to resurrect interest balancing, and how they redefine the words of the ?dangerous AND unusual? standard to mean ?unusually dangerous? in direct defiance of Bruen.

It is hard work and takes a lot of time to be that creative and hope to get away with it. Remember how they first concluded that there was no right to a CCW (implying that the 2A protected a right to carry openly) but nonetheless found, on extremely dubious reasoning and mis-citations to various authorities, that there was no right to carry firearms off of one's own property at all? Boy, that was a real brain buster to come up with THAT conclusion!