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

[splithoof]

It’s insane to think we’re coming up on 2 years from the oral arguments and still don’t have the opinion.

No surprises with that. If it is indeed true that there is NO legal requirement (or enforcement of such) that the opinion will ever be released, and the 9th chooses to sit on cases indefinitely, the politicians of California are free to create any gun laws they desire, knowing that it will be literally years before said laws are actually stopped. This is a tactic they have embraced, and used to great effect.

[Sgt Raven]

Two days after the oral arguments, the case was held awaiting Duncan. https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fir...pdf?1706314902

The Bruen decision reset everything and is now presenting novel understandings of the ruling as applied to all of the past cases. Duncan is now scheduled for en banc and this panel doesn’t want their ruling to potentially convolute the en banc deliberations.

It’s like having all of the aircraft ready to take off, but everything is grounded until the plane first in line launches.

WTF? Holy time machine Batman.
Duncan is at SCOTUS asking for Cert.

[Dvrjon]

WTF? Holy time machine Batman.
Duncan is at SCOTUS asking for Cert.

Yeah, thanks. I was trying to edit/clean that up and the site crapped out.

[7.62mm_fmj]

Five months since the last supplemental briefings were sent in. Did the court not even draft their opinion while the case was on a "time out"?
Or is this yet another example of "Let's see how much time can we delay this proceeding without being called out for judicial misconduct."

[tacticalcity]

Five months since the last supplemental briefings were sent in. Did the court not even draft their opinion while the case was on a "time out"?
Or is this yet another example of "Let's see how much time can we delay this proceeding without being called out for judicial misconduct."

As far as I can tell every 2A case gets the later treatment.

[abinsinia]

I would guess it's because Duncan is up at SCOTUS.

[Bolt_Action]

I would guess it's because Duncan is up at SCOTUS.

If Duncan goes to SCOTUS and they rule against us, obviously an AWB is OK. If Duncan goes to SCOTUS and they rule for us, an AWB is still OK because AWs aren't the same as large cap mags.

[abinsinia]

If Duncan goes to SCOTUS and they rule against us, obviously an AWB is OK. If Duncan goes to SCOTUS and they rule for us, an AWB is still OK because AWs aren't the same as large cap mags.

If Duncan goes to SCOTUS and they rule for us, it changes the methodology of all other hardware ban cases which means Miller would have to be entirely redone.

[jwkincal]

If Duncan goes to SCOTUS and they rule for us, it changes the methodology of all other hardware ban cases which means Miller would have to be entirely redone.

True, but Bonta is 100% going to say the thing that Bolt_Action predicts.

[Sputnik]

They’ll find a way to rule for the state no matter how Duncan goes. For now it’s just a way to stall.

[Bolt_Action]

Actually I don’t know if CA will relent on mags and AWs even in the face of a direct order from SCOTUS. I could see our Patrick Bateman cosplaying Governor shouting “gun control now, gun control tomorrow, gun control forever” until the president deploys the National Guard to enforce the court’s orders, like Eisenhower had to do back in ‘58 to get Arkansas to comply with Brown v Board of Education.

[abinsinia]

True, but Bonta is 100% going to say the thing that Bolt_Action predicts.

yeah, but the reason why it's legal will change. i.e. they must find a new and different loop hole.

[tacticalcity]

Actually I don’t know if CA will relent on mags and AWs even in the face of a direct order from SCOTUS. I could see our Patrick Bateman cosplaying Governor shouting “gun control now, gun control tomorrow, gun control forever” until the president deploys the National Guard to enforce the court’s orders, like Eisenhower had to do back in ‘58 to get Arkansas to comply with Brown v Board of Education.

The more realistic scenario is they pass a law that is slightly reworded, or just reword the existing PC, and claim they are complying with SCOTUS while still violating it, and then we wait yet another 10 years before SCOTUS tells them no, they are still violating their ruling. If SCOTUS takes it up all. This is what they did with concealed carry. They'll find a way to do it with this too. Trump won't help us on these sorts of things. The only thing that will is voters in California waking up and stop voting Democrat. And that has zero chance of actually happening too.

[Batman]

The really sad part is that there will be one person who will be the scapegoat. They'll be the one who'll be afoul of the unconstitutional "new USSC compliant" law. They'll get dragged through the courts. They'll spend every dollar they have fighting it. And while eventually there's a good chance they'll win (if they can survive the onslaught and the "you want this to go away? Sign your rights away here and it'll all be over" DA's that'll do everything they can to get that person to relent), we'll have a small window where we'll be able to have freedom, until they decide once again to put us back in stocks with another BS law that they say is legal. Lather, rinse, and unfortunately repeat.

[7.62mm_fmj]

If Duncan goes to SCOTUS and they rule for us, it changes the methodology of all other hardware ban cases which means Miller would have to be entirely redone.

And that would delay freedom for at least 5 years.