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

[SpookyWatcher]

Is the decision more likely to come down on a Friday than any other day like the last two from Saint Benetiz? Maybe even late late Friday given the shenanigans where they found a judge at 930pm on a Friday night.

Or is there no strategy in publishing his decision?

Just curious how close I need to follow the thread. I'd hate to only have 30 mins and miss the window if there is one.

[CandG]

Is the decision more likely to come down on a Friday than any other day like the last two from Saint Benetiz? Maybe even late late Friday given the shenanigans where they found a judge at 930pm on a Friday night.

Or is there no strategy in publishing his decision?

Just curious how close I need to follow the thread. I'd hate to only have 30 mins and miss the window if there is one.

I'm sure he will utilize *some* strategy in timing is ruling (In Duncan, for example, I'm sure it wasn't a cooincidence that his PI was issued 2 days before the law would have taken effect), but there's no way to know.

I know everyone here (myself included) wants to believe that this case is the TOP priority for him, and that all his attention should be focused on this until it's done. But that's probably not reality. I'm sure he's also working on other things that might take priority.

Patience; the ruling will come, but not before it's ready. And I'm sure the read will be well worth the wait.

[NATO762]

I think the states continual overreach, may have shot themselves in the dick. By forcing us to register rifles, handgun style, they forced themselves into a situation which will show how many possible AR and other "assault rifle" type fire arms are in common use. They can't deny the data because it will show their incompetence. They know they are ****ed this round and are hoping the feds hit back with their version of an AWB. Data isn't always your friend.

No but they can hide the data, even when there are laws that say they must release it. Seems the DOJ is above the law.

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=1699811&highlight=Withholding

California AG office withholding data on gun sales, restraining orders from researchers

Benitez is probably aware of this and that’s why he’s asking specifically for sales data. He could find them in contempt of court and in violation of existing law. More like a double catch-22

ETA: When you have a conservative judge and UC Davis’ Wintemute both asking for the same data, you are definitely between a rock and a hard place.

[curtisfong]

When you have a conservative judge and UC Davis’ Wintemute both asking for the same data, you are definitely between a rock and a hard place.

I don't fully understand why they won't give Wintemute the data. He can be trusted to massage it to make them look good, not bad, since he's not actually a scientist. And at worst, massage the data to make sure it can be used by the DoJ to justify more underground regulation.

How is that not a win/win for the DoJ?

[Uncivil Engineer]

I don't fully understand why they won't give Wintemute the data. He can be trusted to massage it to make them look good, not bad, since he's not actually a scientist. And at worst, massage the data to make sure it can be used by the DoJ to justify more underground regulation.

How is that not a win/win for the DoJ?

It's so bad for their side but even he can pull off the scam. In addition the more they make data available to only him it will look like what it is and they are very afraid that someone more honest will demand the data. Then the jig is truly up and they are screwed.

I think the real issue with these studies is how they are used in courts. When he testifies we should be able to get all the data as part of discovery.

[HowardW56]

I don't fully understand why they won't give Wintemute the data. He can be trusted to massage it to make them look good, not bad, since he's not actually a scientist. And at worst, massage the data to make sure it can be used by the DoJ to justify more underground regulation.

How is that not a win/win for the DoJ?

What if the data doesn't support their justification for what they do, or are trying to do?

[ar15barrels]

What if the data doesn't support their justification for what they do, or are trying to do?

That's the most likely reason not to give the data out.
It would show that criminal uses of guns are down under 0.1% while non-criminal uses are up around 99.9%.
They are trying to legislate based on the 0.1% statistics while ignoring the 99.9%.

[BeAuMaN]

... The motions panel webpage is leading to a 404. Usually this displays the judges who are selected to be on the motions panel for this month.
This is the link: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/motionspanel.php

This is the archived link for 2/15/21: https://web.archive.org/web/20210215...tionspanel.php

Currently this means the public cannot view the motions panel for this month of March 2021. I'm not exactly sure by what other means the 9th circuit makes motions panel information available. I've sent an email to the 9th circuit questions email address, though I thought I would bring this to the attention of everyone. I hope this is webpage error of some sort and not an attempt by the courts to further obfuscate their processes.

[curtisfong]

What if the data doesn't support their justification for what they do, or are trying to do?

Wintemute can easily misrepresent the data to show exactly what the DoJ (and Legislature) wants.

That is what he's paid to do. Why on earth would he bite the hand that feeds him? He's a shill.

[abinsinia]

Wintemute can easily misrepresent the data to show exactly what the DoJ (and Legislature) wants.

That is what he's paid to do. Why on earth would he bite the hand that feeds him? He's a shill.

Not all the research done by his group is flattering to gun control. There was a study that came from his group not that long ago which showed universal background checks in California accomplished nothing. I think it was this one,

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1047279718306161?via%3Dihub

[CandG]

That's the most likely reason not to give the data out.
It would show that criminal uses of guns are down under 0.1% while non-criminal uses are up around 99.9%.
They are trying to legislate based on the 0.1% statistics while ignoring the 99.9%.

Indeed.

Also worth noting, some of the specific data that DOJ is refusing to disclose involves their records of known armed prohibited persons and the weapons they're supposed to be confiscating from them.

Those records could possibly get them in some ethical (and probably even legal) trouble, since we all know DOJ decided to remove their Armed Prohibited Persons task force (either in whole or in part) from the embarrassingly large backlog of known armed prohibited persons, and instead re-purposed those resources and funding, probably without any authority to do so, to shake down and intimidate law-abiding gun owners.

I'm guessing they'd prefer any records about that to remain private.

(And it's absolutely mind-boggling that this has been known for years, yet all of the 2A organizations have barely acknowledged it, and none have shown any interest in addressing it... but that's a topic for a different thread.)

[curtisfong]

Not all the research done by his group is flattering to gun control. There was a study that came from his group not that long ago which showed universal background checks in California accomplished nothing. I think it was this one,

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...161?via%3Dihub

Interesting. I had no idea Wintemute was capable of this.

[Silence Dogood]

Indeed.

Also worth noting, some of the specific data that DOJ is refusing to disclose involves their records of known armed prohibited persons and the weapons they're supposed to be confiscating from them.

Those records could possibly get them in some ethical (and probably even legal) trouble, since we all know they have decided to take the Armed Prohibited Persons task force (either in whole or in part) off the embarrassingly large backlog of known armed prohibited persons, and instead re-purposed those resources and funding to chase after law-abiding gun owners, possibly without having authorization to make that decision. I'm guessing they'd prefer the records about that to remain private. (And it boggles my mind that this has been known for years, but none of the 2A organizations seem to have any interest in addressing it... but that's a topic for a different thread.)

Not all the research done by his group is flattering to gun control. There was a study that came from his group not that long ago which showed universal background checks in California accomplished nothing. I think it was this one,

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...161?via%3Dihub

Interesting. I had no idea Wintemute was capable of this.

It’s reassuring to think that at least one party in all of this is doing his duty, even if it isn’t the A.G. or the Armed Prohibited Persons task force (besides the Honorable Judge Benitez, that is).

[aBrowningfan]

Indeed.

Also worth noting, some of the specific data that DOJ is refusing to disclose involves their records of known armed prohibited persons and the weapons they're supposed to be confiscating from them.

Those records could possibly get them in some ethical (and probably even legal) trouble, since we all know DOJ decided to remove their Armed Prohibited Persons task force (either in whole or in part) from the embarrassingly large backlog of known armed prohibited persons, and instead re-purposed those resources and funding, probably without any authority to do so, to shake down and intimidate law-abiding gun owners.

I'm guessing they'd prefer any records about that to remain private.

(And it's absolutely mind-boggling that this has been known for years, yet all of the 2A organizations have barely acknowledged it, and none have shown any interest in addressing it... but that's a topic for a different thread.)

Ugh. Soo nauseating.

[taperxz]

Interesting. I had no idea Wintemute was capable of this.