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

[taperxz]

Probably not many posts because it is just way to early in the process. Only the opening preliminary injunction brief has been filed. I would be surprised if the dated hearing in January is ready to proceed then. Defendants could ask to present witnesses and that always complicates scheduling if more than just a simple hour or two argument is needed. Even if it does proceed, you could easily wait several months for a decision. Realistically, the odds of a preliminary injunction being granted are slim - not zero - but preliminary injunctions are always tough to get. To me, the discussion of the last three factors on whether to grant a preliminary injunction seem thin.

Do you realize that this same exact judge gave us an injunction on high cap mags this year?

[Uncivil Engineer]

Do you realize that this same exact judge gave us an injunction on high cap mags this year?

He didn't give us a preliminary injunction. He waited to rule that standard capacity magazines are legal. He then let people order and dragged his feet a bit granting an injunction on his ruling but legalizing everyone that ordered magazines.

My guess is there is a slim chance we see a PI but get a favorable ruling quickly. Then an injunction when it goes to the ninth. The best in the short term is he writes the injunction to keep BB and allows standard capacity magazines while the ninth looks for ways to screw us.

[Sputnik]

I'll just watch and see how Benitez rolls with this case. I've had my hopes up before and so far, besides "freedom week" mags, I have not seen great strides forward in the reclamation of our 2A freedoms.
I'm not thinking that it can't or won't happen...I just haven't seen it yet.

[mcbair]

Probably more people following than is readily apparent. Some folks are not commenters.

[Brbecker]

What’s everyone’s best guess on when there will actually be a ruling?

[taperxz]

He didn't give us a preliminary injunction. He waited to rule that standard capacity magazines are legal. He then let people order and dragged his feet a bit granting an injunction on his ruling but legalizing everyone that ordered magazines.

My guess is there is a slim chance we see a PI but get a favorable ruling quickly. Then an injunction when it goes to the ninth. The best in the short term is he writes the injunction to keep BB and allows standard capacity magazines while the ninth looks for ways to screw us.

No! It was indeed a Prelimjnary Injunction.

In a short six-page order released Thursday afternoon, Benitez ruled his 2017 preliminary injunction enjoining the state from requiring high-capacity magazine owners to turn over their previously legally-acquired firearms should be reinstated, pending the appeal.

[gunuser17]

I do understand that it is the same judge. But it is a different lawsuit that has no threatened confiscation of the firearms at issue. I believe what amounted essentially to a confiscation of the magazines at issue is what drove the earlier case. That issue isn't present in the sporting rifle case and allowing the law to stand will not change anyone's circumstances since no one is being threatened with having a rifle taken tomorrow that was legal to possess today. Now, we may not like the stupid California rifle rules but that's not enough to get a preliminary injunction in my opinion.

[TruOil]

I do understand that it is the same judge. But it is a different lawsuit that has no threatened confiscation of the firearms at issue. I believe what amounted essentially to a confiscation of the magazines at issue is what drove the earlier case. That issue isn't present in the sporting rifle case and allowing the law to stand will not change anyone's circumstances since no one is being threatened with having a rifle taken tomorrow that was legal to possess today. Now, we may not like the stupid California rifle rules but that's not enough to get a preliminary injunction in my opinion.

Not so fast. The judge found the entire law unconstitutional, irrespective of the threat of confiscation. His ruling, if upheld, will allow 10+ mags to be sold here--just not the handguns that can hold them!

[Brbecker]

Not so fast. The judge found the entire law unconstitutional, irrespective of the threat of confiscation. His ruling, if upheld, will allow 10+ mags to be sold here--just not the handguns that can hold them!

And if you found the whole law unconstitutional there is a good chance in my opinion he will find The assault weapons law unconstitutional.

[3006]

All most 23,000 view's

[EM2]

All most 23,000 view's

Most of us are just following along.
Not a lawyerly type, but do want to stay informed.

[darkwater34]

tracking

[Thordo]

Patience. This is a marathon not a sprint. We've been waiting a lot of years for judges and courts that are, not just willing to hear 2A cases, but actually rule in favor of the Constitution.

Although!! An injunction for Christmas would be a nice present from Santa!!

Thordo

[taperxz]

I do understand that it is the same judge. But it is a different lawsuit that has no threatened confiscation of the firearms at issue. I believe what amounted essentially to a confiscation of the magazines at issue is what drove the earlier case. That issue isn't present in the sporting rifle case and allowing the law to stand will not change anyone's circumstances since no one is being threatened with having a rifle taken tomorrow that was legal to possess today. Now, we may not like the stupid California rifle rules but that's not enough to get a preliminary injunction in my opinion.

[A-J]

Probably more people following than is readily apparent. Some folks are not commenters.

For threads like this, I assume a majority of folks here are like me and do not want to clutter it with replies that are not relevant or on point. Make no mistake - the people that care about the issue are watching the thread closely, as I assume the opposition is.