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

[Librarian]

This discussion is veering off the topic of the court case.

Yes, it is.

Gentle members, this thread is for the case itself. We have beaten the 'assault weapon' discussion to death, but if really you must, please start a new thread in General Guns.

[CAsubject]

If there is anytime we should have had a ruling, it should be now, so people can have the choice in how they legally set up their rifles.

[Sputnik]

If there is anytime we should have had a ruling, it should be now, so people can have the choice in how they legally set up their rifles.

Maybe so but consider that a win here will most likely not (IMO) result in the ability to set up a featured rifle.
Unless there is a PI issued against enforcement of the AWB we would be looking at the status quo pending a final ruling. Even a win at District would 100% get appealed by the state and the decision stayed pending a panel decision, again back to status quo. See Duncan for reference.
I, personally, will not be expecting any kind of AW freedom week. Even if we got one, once the decision is stayed pending appeal we'd likely have to go back into compliance mode.
But IANAL or a judge, so I could be very wrong.

[kuug]

Maybe so but consider that a win here will most likely not (IMO) result in the ability to set up a featured rifle.
Unless there is a PI issued against enforcement of the AWB we would be looking at the status quo pending a final ruling. Even a win at District would 100% get appealed by the state and the decision stayed pending a panel decision, again back to status quo. See Duncan for reference.
I, personally, will not be expecting any kind of AW freedom week. Even if we got one, once the decision is stayed pending appeal we'd likely have to go back into compliance mode.
But IANAL or a judge, so I could be very wrong.

We can hope for a PI and the injunction from the opinion. Those could be two short moments we can purchase modern rifles. Fastest way this could be cleared up is USSC takes up Worman v. Healey and we have an opinion by next June. Sadly I think Worman is most likely to be remanded back to the lower courts when NYSRPA is published along with the 9 other gun related cases currently on stay.

[ar15barrels]

We can hope for a PI and the injunction from the opinion. Those could be two short moments we can purchase modern rifles. Fastest way this could be cleared up is USSC takes up Worman v. Healey and we have an opinion by next June. Sadly I think Worman is most likely to be remanded back to the lower courts when NYSRPA is published along with the 9 other gun related cases currently on stay.

Even if there were a few day window to purchase/build featured weapons, there is no standing for such rifles to be grandfathered once the window closes.
ALL those rifles would have to be made compliant until such time that there is a final decision.

[kuug]

Even if there were a few day window to purchase/build featured weapons, there is no standing for such rifles to be grandfathered once the window closes.
ALL those rifles would have to be made compliant until such time that there is a final decision.

In Duncan Benitez did not revert back to a previous state of "grandfathered" he struck down the statute whole clothe then stayed the ruling and any prosecutions on new buyers and grandfathered owners alike.

[ar15barrels]

In Duncan Benitez did not revert back to a previous state of "grandfathered" he struck down the statute whole clothe then stayed the ruling and any prosecutions on new buyers and grandfathered owners alike.

[kuug]

I'm not quite sure the status quo included almost a million standard capacity magazines that were not in the state previously. Nor did the status quo include people being able to use those mags openly without repercussions. The whole point of the Duncan ruling was to apply Heller's common use clause in open defiance of 9th circuit "intermediate scrutiny"(which is actually just the rational basis standard) standard. I believe Benitez will look to do the same in Miller.

Given the inactivity of Miller since it was originally supposed to be heard back in January, it would seem Benitez is not going to bother hearing the case until NYSRPA is published.

[Sputnik]

I'm not quite sure the status quo included almost a million standard capacity magazines that were not in the state previously. Nor did the status quo include people being able to use those mags openly without repercussions. The whole point of the Duncan ruling was to apply Heller's common use clause in open defiance of 9th circuit "intermediate scrutiny"(which is actually just the rational basis standard) standard. I believe Benitez will look to do the same in Miller.

Given the inactivity of Miller since it was originally supposed to be heard back in January, it would seem Benitez is not going to bother hearing the case until NYSRPA is published.

[aBrowningfan]

I'm not quite sure the status quo included almost a million standard capacity magazines that were not in the state previously. Nor did the status quo include people being able to use those mags openly without repercussions. The whole point of the Duncan ruling was to apply Heller's common use clause in open defiance of 9th circuit "intermediate scrutiny"(which is actually just the rational basis standard) standard. I believe Benitez will look to do the same in Miller.

Given the inactivity of Miller since it was originally supposed to be heard back in January, it would seem Benitez is not going to bother hearing the case until NYSRPA is published.

Absolutely. DC judges hate putting effort into a case only to have that effort nullified by a proceeding in another forum, especially a superior forum.

[Brbecker]

Can anyone direct me to the thread or update me on whatever happened with the CA roster lawsuit that was filed in i think feb of last year and also with what happened in Young v. State of Hawaii?

[kuug]

Can anyone direct me to the thread or update me on whatever happened with the CA roster lawsuit that was filed in i think feb of last year and also with what happened in Young v. State of Hawaii?

Pena v Lindley is currently stayed at the supreme court pending NYSRPA. Young v Hawaii is currently stayed at the en banc level pending NYSRPA. You won't see any movement on either until the Supreme Court published their opinion in NYSRPA v NYC

[Brbecker]

Pena v Lindley is currently stayed at the supreme court pending NYSRPA. Young v Hawaii is currently stayed at the en banc level pending NYSRPA. You won't see any movement on either until the Supreme Court published their opinion in NYSRPA v NYC

Thank you!!

[Ishooter]

Do we have any update on this case?

[Librarian]

Do we have any update on this case?

Here's a listing of the case docket - https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...ler-v-becerra/

Last action:

Mar 16, 2020

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Honorable Roger T. Benitez: In keeping with the Covid-19 related recommendations of United States President Donald J. Trump, as well as medical experts as to social distancing, this Court hereby exercises its discretion and vacates the current motion hearing date of March 19, 2020. Notice of a new motion hearing date and time will be given at a later date.(no document attached) (gxr)