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

[fixitquick79]

Given the First opinions issued from spring arguments today, I tend to think that if NYSRPA was going to be mooted it would have been today. No real reason to wait if they were going to moot it.

[kuug]

Given the First opinions issued from spring arguments today, I tend to think that if NYSRPA was going to be mooted it would have been today. No real reason to wait if they were going to moot it.

If NYSRPA was going to be mooted we would have heard back in February or January. Dissents do not take longer a few weeks to write for various types of dismissals

[fixitquick79]

If NYSRPA was going to be mooted we would have heard back in February or January. Dissents do not take longer a few weeks to write for various types of dismissals

Not necessarily. There was some thought that it would be mooted after some discussion among the justices. I think it is unlikely at this point though.

[kuug]

Not necessarily. There was some thought that it would be mooted after some discussion among the justices. I think it is unlikely at this point though.

Yeah, wrong thought by 2A infringers hoping for their best case scenario of delaying Trump's justices from changing gun rights. If it was going to happen it would have already. And none of these clowns seem to have asked themselves why the court didn't dismiss NYSRPA back in April 2019 on mootness grounds, or why none of the other stayed gun rights cases were granted cert to take NYSRPA's place.

[CAsubject]

This one next!? 😁
Double whammy!?

[SDCarpenter]

He was busy writing 120 pages of smackdown, that's why he wasn't getting this one out lol

[CAsubject]

That he was... I was thinking, this one goes through too, that may possibly open up NFA items to us, correct?

[KINGZ06]

Would the NFA item include a Remington 870 Tac 14?

[tabascoz28]

He need to get to this one first, cause there's no ammo out there at a reasonable price anyway.

[Dirk Tungsten]

That he was... I was thinking, this one goes through too, that may possibly open up NFA items to us, correct?

Lol keep dreaming. NFA in CA is for the most part a bridge too far for the foreseeable future. (i'd like to be wrong though)

[Redeyedrider]

That he was... I was thinking, this one goes through too, that may possibly open up NFA items to us, correct?

Heller pretty much put the nail in the coffin for NFA.

[aBrowningfan]

Heller pretty much put the nail in the coffin for NFA.

I would be satisfied with just being on a level playing field for non-NFA items (an LWRC SMG-45 comes to mind... https://www.lwrci.com/SMG-45-Pistol-SB-Brace_p_268.html ).

[CAsubject]

What I mean is that if the AWB was abolished, NFA items would legally be open. You can already own limited AOWs in the state. Without Cali's AWB, it should theoretically be open.

[bigstick61]

What I mean is that if the AWB was abolished, NFA items would legally be open. You can already own limited AOWs in the state. Without Cali's AWB, it should theoretically be open.

How does that follow? The laws governing other "dangerous weapons" in CA are different from those banning assault weapons. This case doesn't seem to have any bearing on those, certainly not in such a direct fashion.

I suppose if you had a C&R semi-auto that you made into an SBR after it turned 50 years old (or that was always one), and before the ATF cut off being able to convert a C&R into an SBR or SBS without making it a new weapon and thus not C&R, then I guess those would both be CA-legal, as they were before if registered, and not assault weapons anymore. Same for any AOWs that might run afoul of the ban.

[Maverick237]

What I mean is that if the AWB was abolished, NFA items would legally be open. You can already own limited AOWs in the state. Without Cali's AWB, it should theoretically be open.

No it wouldn't because NFA items are governed differently from Assault Weapons (different Penal Codes).

AOWs aren't exempt from AW laws, it just exempts them from the STATE SBR/SBS law (they view SBR/SBS differently than the federal definition).