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

[hoystory]

I think the split is 5 originalists/conservatives (Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Alito , Thomas and Barrette), one swing (Roberts) and three liberals. So more like 5-1-3 on Second Amendment issues. The rumors of Thomas retiring any time soon have been denied by the Justice, so I have to discount the rumors.

I think this classification is the most accurate. Barrett's dissent in Kanter v. Barr is a pretty good/expansive view of 2nd Amendment rights. I don't see her as a squish like Roberts, at least not until there's some evidence on the other side. I've got a brief summary on the Kanter case here, along with some other recent news.

[fixitquick79]

Not really sure why some are so convinced that Gorsuch is a liberal. Because he sided with the libs on one case? And a case that was not directly constitutional in origin. All he said is unless a treaty is changed or abandoned by legislation with a native tribe the government has to abide by it. I don't see that as a terrible decision.

[selfshrevident]

Not really sure why some are so convinced that Gorsuch is a liberal. Because he sided with the libs on one case? And a case that was not directly constitutional in origin. All he said is unless a treaty is changed or abandoned by legislation with a native tribe the government has to abide by it. I don't see that as a terrible decision.

[sbrady@Michel&Associates]

Just to include facts in this discussion, Justice Gorsuch joined Justice Thomas in dissenting to the refusal to hear Peruta: https://michellawyers.com/wp-content...Certiorari.pdf

[steel]

Something to point out about Roberts: He was part of the majority in both Heller and McDonald.

[seaweedsoyboy]

[chuckdc]

I find it uplifting that these liberals may get a dose of their own medicine. They need to experience the awful feeling that their own personal values are constantly under assault, and that there is an active, organized force working against them, and won't stop until they are totally crushed.

And we see them driven before us .we already hear the lamentations of their women, who never shut up.

[chuckdc]

Paratrooper m1 carbines??

[kuug]

Something to point out about Roberts: He was part of the majority in both Heller and McDonald.

Votes he has refused to uphold ever since. McDonald was ten years ago. Roberts is no longer a part of the conservatives and willing to uphold the constitution. He votes based on politics to make his own image look better.

[gumby]

Votes he has refused to uphold ever since. McDonald was ten years ago. Roberts is no longer a part of the conservatives and willing to uphold the constitution. He votes based on politics to make his own image look better.

This^^^^^^^^^

[selfshrevident]

[????? ????]

Just in case anyone missed that Miller v. Becerra is still an ongoing case, it looks like a few things were filed on PACER. The witness list is available.

Emanuel Kapelsohn, Ashley Hlebinsky, James Curcuruto, George Mocsary, Allen Youngman, for the plaintiff on October 19.

Louis Klarevas, Blake Graham, and Lucy Allen for the defendant on October 19.

Ryan James Peterson and John Lott for the plaintiff on October 22.

Adam Kraut and John J. Donohue for the defendant on October 22.

I wonder if Adam Kraut for the defendant is an error.

Transcripts of their testimony have been filed and will be available for viewing on PACER later.

It also looks like both the plaintiff and defendant requested changed deadlines to submit supplemental briefing.

[thainoodlestand]

I'm curious as to whether anyone paid attention to the AG's arguments.

Honestly, I didn't see any real good basis for their defense of the legislation that could hinder us. In addition, the judges didn't seem too won over and even questioned the arguments pretty harshly as compared to the plaintiff's.

But would love to hear if anyone saw something that might turn our case on its head.

[CandG]

I'm curious as to whether anyone paid attention to the AG's arguments.

Honestly, I didn't see any real good basis for their defense of the legislation that could hinder us. In addition, the judges didn't seem too won over and even questioned the arguments pretty harshly as compared to the plaintiff's.

But would love to hear if anyone saw something that might turn our case on its head.

Their argument was something along the lines of "any and all gun restrictions that we can get away with are good because maybe it can save lives."

In watching it, I didn't notice anything earth-shattering on the state's side of the arguments. Just the same old "It's constitutional and necessary because we say it is."

[Lonestargrizzly]

Any gun right issue that goes our way right now is greatly needed