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

[fixitquick79]

Just updated and said it went well. They still have 7 witnesses and should wrap up by end of the week.

[Bolt_Action]

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...can-v-becerra/

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...ode-v-becerra/

I was looking at that earlier. I see the entry of judgement on line 88 (for Duncan), but I couldn't figure out what date the oral argument was held in front of Benitez (which is where we are today). Unless it's the hearing held all the way back in May 2018, which means that it took almost a year to write the initial decision?

[jeff.i.thomas]

https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/status/1318362153045291008?s=19

Sent from my SM-N976V using Tapatalk

[ajb78]

I was looking at that earlier. I see the entry of judgement on line 88 (for Duncan), but I couldn't figure out what date the oral argument was held in front of Benitez (which is where we are today). Unless it's the hearing held all the way back in May 2018, which means that it took almost a year to write to initial decision?

I believe it was the MSJ hearing held 05/10/2018, line 60.

[ar15barrels]

it's the hearing held all the way back in May 2018, which means that it took almost a year to write the initial decision

That's correct.

[Bolt_Action]

That's correct.

So a year for the ruling, then an appeal followed by another year or two for another ruling from the 9th, then another several months for an en banc request, then another year or two for an en banc ruling? Then maybe SCOTUS decides to get involved?

At this point, perhaps the best thing Benitez could do is rule against us for some purposefully terrible reason, and then we ask the Supreme Court to take the case immediately.

[vino68]

So a year for the ruling, then an appeal followed by another year or two for another ruling from the 9th, then another several months for an en banc request, then another year or two for an en banc ruling? Then maybe SCOTUS decides to get involved?

At this point, perhaps the best thing Benitez could do is rule against us for some purposefully terrible reason, and then we ask the Supreme Court to take the case immediately.

Add a few years to your time line and going direct to SCOTUS is not how it works.

[Bolt_Action]

Add a few years to your time line and going direct to SCOTUS is not how it works.

My understanding is that technically SCOTUS can take any case they want, at any level they want, whenever they want. Clearly in the past we have had cases go quickly to SCOTUS when they saw fit to allow it.

[CandG]

My understanding is that technically SCOTUS can take any case they want, at any level they want, whenever they want. Clearly in the past we have had cases go quickly to SCOTUS when they saw fit to allow it.

So far the current composition of SCOTUS hasn't demonstrated that they want any 2a cases, from any level, at any time. That might change soon, of course, but that's how it stands currently.

[Bolt_Action]

So far the current composition of SCOTUS hasn't demonstrated that they want any 2a cases, from any level, at any time. That might change soon, of course, but that's how it stands currently.

[ar15barrels]

At this point, perhaps the best thing Benitez could do is rule against us for some purposefully terrible reason, and then we ask the Supreme Court to take the case immediately.

Benitez is federal district court.
Gotta pass through the 9th before you can petition the supreme court.
The biggest reason you get into the supreme court is that there is a split between districts.

[Bolt_Action]

Benitez is federal district court.
Gotta pass through the 9th before you can petition the supreme court.
The biggest reason you get into the supreme court is that there is a split between districts.

Why do you HAVE to go through the appellate court to petition the Supreme Court? Is it illegal for the Supreme Court to grant cert to a petition from a lower level? Did they go through the lower court process in Bush v Gore?

[John Browning]

The USSC conservative 4 have made no secret of their desire to take 2A cases, but have refrained since Roberts likely has pictures of him with a little boy at Epstein's island or something.

With five justices on the court who are eager to talk 2A, there is a definite chance they may take up something. This could be it. Benitez writes brilliantly and reasons just as well.

[Uncivil Engineer]

The USSC conservative 4 have made no secret of their desire to take 2A cases, but have refrained since Roberts likely has pictures of him with a little boy at Epstein's island or something.



With five justices on the court who are eager to talk 2A, there is a definite chance they may take up something. This could be it. Benitez writes brilliantly and reasons just as well.

I see Roberts trying to keep the respect for the court and thus bends his support to that end. I suspect once the 2a votes are there he will fall in line and support it just because he wants larger majorities.

[repoman1984]

Can someone clarify this. I'm of the understanding if the honorable Benitez orders an injunction this could potentially create another "freedom week" or "freedom window" of opportunity similar to those previous where certain AWBanned features would not apply for brief but opportunistic amount of time; possibly creating a grandfathering effect where changes made during this brief amount of time would be allowed till further notice?

TL;DR if Benitez orders an injunction at the end of this hearing in our favor can we then go full featured until the state calls for an emergency stop like the magazine freedom week?

Do I have this right?