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

[AlmostHeaven]

Now, it may come easy for me to say, as a person who no longer resides in California, but I have had it up to my ears with the globalist, socialist, authoritarian, anti-constitutional, treasonous tyrants masquerading as impartial judges, who deliberately fail to enforce fundamental constitutional provisions and flagrantly ignore established Supreme Court precedent.

Everyone has a quasi-divine moral justification to dispense with the notion of complying with assault weapons bans and high-capacity magazine bans. Just avoid getting caught.

[librarian72]

The inferior courts are well aware that these cases were not GVR'd so they can rule against plaintiffs yet again.

I think my signature says it all....

[dawgcasa]

My take away from the oral arguments: the judges are trying to nullify the “common use” doctrine by narrowing the scope to CA only … which ignores that this is a national CONSTITUTIONAL question, not a CA only question; and, they are fixated on a cognitive bias that AR15 ‘type’ firearms are “unusually dangerous” and thus “inappropriate for the purpose of self-defense” … which ignores that so-called assault weapons are functionally indistinguishable from (legal in all 50 states) featureless semi-automatic rifles in terms of rate of fire, typical calibers fired, lethality, and magazine capacity. They have twisted the intent of the “dangerous AND unusual” standard to mean “unusually dangerous”, I.e., fit only for military use, largely by falsely pretending that so-called assault weapons are somehow “different and more dangerous” than featureless semi-automatic rifles. I would have loved if the plaintiff’s lawyer had noted to the judge that the San Bernardino massacre was committed by perps who acquired featureless rifles.

[AlmostHeaven]

My take away from the oral arguments: the judges are trying to nullify the ?common use? doctrine by narrowing the scope to CA only ? which ignores that this is a national CONSTITUTIONAL question, not a CA only question; and, they are fixated on a cognitive bias that AR15 ?type? firearms are ?unusually dangerous? and thus ?inappropriate for the purpose of self-defense? ? which ignores that so-called assault weapons are functionally indistinguishable from (legal in all 50 states) featureless semi-automatic rifles in terms of rate of fire, typical calibers fired, lethality, and magazine capacity. They have twisted the intent of the ?dangerous AND unusual? standard to mean ?unusually dangerous?, I.e., fit only for military use, largely by falsely pretending that so-called assault weapons are somehow ?different and more dangerous? than featureless semi-automatic rifles. I would have loved if the plaintiff?s lawyer had noted to the judge that the San Bernardino massacre was committed by perps who acquired featureless rifles.

The judges already know the result. The central holding and conclusion of their ruling will be written before the main body, just like every document produced by the gun control movement.

[Sgt Raven]

[ProfChaos]

Delay delay delay! Also A-15s.

[chris]

The fix is already in before it even began.

[7.62mm_fmj]

I wonder if there is any recourse to 1) the blatant dereliction of duty on the part of the judges which has delayed the settling a case regarding a fundamental right, 2) the apparent lack of knowledge by the judges regarding the subject firearms case despite volumes of discovery that they should have reviewed prior to oral arguments, 3) the judges going down the wrong road with respect to Heller/Bruen precedent in their questioning, and 4) the apparent deference by the judges to the state's interests with no regard for plaintiffs.

[RickD427]

I wonder if there is any recourse to 1) the blatant dereliction of duty on the part of the judges which has delayed the settling a case regarding a fundamental right, 2) the apparent lack of knowledge by the judges regarding the subject firearms case despite volumes of discovery that they should have reviewed prior to oral arguments, 3) the judges going down the wrong road with respect to Heller/Bruen precedent in their questioning, and 4) the apparent deference by the judges to the state's interests with no regard for plaintiffs.

If the above issues are not present in the panel decision, then NO, because they would be irrelevant.

If they are present in the panel decision, then the plaintiffs have two options: 1) To seek an "en banc" rehearing of the case before the Ninth Circuit, or 2) To seek a review by the U.S. Supreme Court

[BAJ475]

If the above issues are not present in the panel decision, then NO, because they would be irrelevant.

If they are present in the panel decision, then the plaintiffs have two options: 1) To seek an "en banc" rehearing of the case before the Ninth Circuit, or 2) To seek a review by the U.S. Supreme Court

The plaintiffs should have told the 3 judge panel to issue what ever decision they choose, so that the other side could seek an "en banc" rehearing so that Miller and Duncan could be consolidated and heard at the same time; because we know that the matter will not be resolved until it gets to SCOTUS.

[RickD427]

The plaintiffs should have told the 3 judge panel to issue what ever decision they choose, so that the other side could seek an "en banc" rehearing so that Miller and Duncan could be consolidated and heard at the same time; because we know that the matter will not be resolved until it gets to SCOTUS.

I think that Judge Miller worked it the other way, and to the same end. He telegraphed, about as strongly as he could, that Miller needed to be heard jointly with Duncan.

I strongly suspect that the en banc panel will rule against Ms. Duncan. In every other circuit, the simple fact that the court votes for an en banc rehearing infers that the panel decision will not stand unless enough of the "for" voting judges are persuaded to change their minds following the arguments. The Ninth is a little different because the composition of the eleven judge panel may not fully reflect the voting composition of the court.

If Ms. Duncan should lose at the rehearing, the case is gonna go to the Supreme Court. If she prevails, I'm no so sure that the state would pursue an appeal. I can see Mr. Bonta having his arm twisted by other Attorneys General to refrain so as not to upset the state of the law in other circuits.

[BAJ475]

I think that Judge Miller worked it the other way, and to the same end. He telegraphed, about as strongly as he could, that Miller needed to be heard jointly with Duncan.

I strongly suspect that the en banc panel will rule against Ms. Duncan. In every other circuit, the simple fact that the court votes for an en banc rehearing infers that the panel decision will not stand unless enough of the "for" voting judges are persuaded to change their minds following the arguments. The Ninth is a little different because the composition of the eleven judge panel may not fully reflect the voting composition of the court.

If Ms. Duncan should lose at the rehearing, the case is gonna go to the Supreme Court. If she prevails, I'm not so sure that the state would pursue an appeal. I can see Mr. Bonta having his arm twisted by other Attorneys General to refrain so as not to upset the state of the law in other circuits.

As usual, we agree. If Duncan prevails, it would pretty much tie the hands of the Miller panel and would help the other 2A cases pending in CA and the 9th Circuit. Thus, I will be shocked if Duncan prevails.

[AlmostHeaven]

The Ninth Circuit will deny the en banc rehearing request because this instance would benefit Second Amendment plaintiffs, as opposed to gun control proponents.

The Supreme Court remains the only institution with the power to unjam this mess, but Chief Justice John Roberts and at least one of the other Republican appointees lack the fortitude.

[AlmostHeaven]

As usual, we agree. If Duncan prevails, it would pretty much tie the hands of the Miller panel and would help the other 2A cases pending in CA and the 9th Circuit. Thus, I will be shocked if Duncan prevails.

The Ninth Circuit en banc panel did not seize control of Duncan v. Bonta away from the 3-judge panel to decide in favor of the Second Amendment. In fact, I expect even more dishonest machinations such as further remands.

[Bhobbs]

Is there anyway for the plaintiffs to petition to merge Miller with Duncan?