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

[HibikiR]

Just watching developments in other states (Oregon) and wondering when the Dems will cross the line that states like CA, NY, and MA have.

[BAJ475]

How about Hawaii? Keeping in mind that Ca hasn't banned them per se. They just REGULATED them into mere shadows of their former selves.

Hawaii just bans assault pistols. AR style rifles are not banned. They are banned in CA if not registered and registration is closed. That is as close to a per se ban as I can imagine.

[CandG]

How about Hawaii? Keeping in mind that Ca hasn't banned them per se. They just REGULATED them into mere shadows of their former selves.

They can call it "regulated" or "controlled" all they want, but when it's 100% impossible for a normal citizen to legally acquire (and in most cases, possess) the described item(s), it's a ban.

The things you're presumably referring to as "mere shadows of their former selves" are not assault weapons, and are not regulated or controlled by the CA AWCA. They became "mere shadows of their former selves" simply because their "former selves" are outright banned to anyone who isn't LEO or Hollywood elite.

[NorCalAthlete]

If CA loses in the 9th (and/or in any subsequent en banc decision in the 9th), then yes, the AW ban is effectively rendered unconstitutional and would be enjoined from enforcement in CA. Since other states' laws in the 9th weren't directly the subject of the lawsuit, they would have to bring their own cases to have their own laws stricken, but those would be an easy win because they are required to adhere to the case law from this case. Usually (but not always) the other states would stop enforcing the laws that would be subject to the case law, making a lawsuit unnecessary.

It can be assumed that, even with CA being CA, if they lost in the 9th they would likely not pursue the case any further to SCOTUS, given the current SCOTUS makeup.

Of course, that's all hypothetical. The odds of actually winning in the 9th AND winning (or not getting) an en banc hearing afterwards, are astronomically low.

Our best chances are to get this case through the 9th circuit rejection formalities as quickly as possible, and win at SCOTUS.

The fact that we all know it's a formality to get rejected should be a sign for some major reforms. I think my favorite part of the opinion was when Benitez called out 40+ years of trampling on 2A rights with their shenanigans.

[????? ????]

Notice of appeal filed.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.642089/gov.uscourts.casd.642089.117.0.pdf

[kuug]

It's now down to luck of the draw on the motions panel.

[CandG]

It's now down to luck of the draw on the motions panel.

It would be hilarious if the panel decides that DOJ's reasoning that "we don't like that we lost" doesn't have standing to justify an appeal, and just rejects it

Probably not going to happen, but I can daydream...

I'm definitely curious to see what their appeal to the 9th actually says. Probably something along the lines of "The Judge erred in his decision, because we should be allowed to do whatever we want to do, as long as we say it's for public safety."

[ShadowGuy]

Notice of appeal filed.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...2089.117.0.pdf

That seems a little light on the reasoning. I thought you had to have a reason. At least that is what CA's Civic's self help suggests. Then again, IANAL.

[meanspartan]

It's now down to luck of the draw on the motions panel.

Probably not going to matter actually. People are overlooking that Rupp v. Becerra is way ahead of this case. It already has been assigned a panel and has been briefed and argued. It's just stayed pending Duncan.

Presumably, Rupp will get decided first and be controlling on Miller.

https://crpa.org/news/blogs/californias-assault-weapon-ban-ruled-unconstitutional-what-does-miller-really-mean-for-gun-owners/

[newbieLA]

Notice of appeal filed.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...2089.117.0.pdf

I'm not a lawyer but there is zero reasoning provided for the appeal or any justification for extending the stay. Is this normal?

[CandG]

That seems a little light on the reasoning. I thought you had to have a reason. At least that is what CA's Civic's self help suggests. Then again, IANAL.

That is just a notice to Benitez's court that says "we filed an appeal with the 9th". It isn't the actual appeal; the appeal itself hasn't been posted online yet.

[newbieLA]

That is just a notice to Benitez's court that says "we filed an appeal with the 9th". It isn't the actual appeal; the appeal hasn't been posted yet.

ah ok, thank you for the clarification. this is all a circus anyway, the fact they can appeal to a 3 judge panel, then a 9 judge panel etc etc. they can drag this out with endless taxpayer funds, but I'm glad the fight continues

[HKAllTheThings]

[kuug]

ah ok, thank you for the clarification. this is all a circus anyway, the fact they can appeal to a 3 judge panel, then a 9 judge panel etc etc. they can drag this out with endless taxpayer funds, but I'm glad the fight continues

En banc is actually 11 judges. Sydney Thomas+10 "randoms"

[meanspartan]

En banc is actually 11 judges. Sydney Thomas+10 "randoms"

Yep. That's part of the problem. While we have some alright odds of getting 6 friendlies given the Ninth isn't quite as hard left as it used to be, we automatically start down 1-0 and have to get 6 of the remaining 10 spots.