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

[????? ????]

9th Circuit docket/case number is 21-55608

Only docket entry is

DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. SEND MQ: Yes. The schedule is set as follows: Appellants Rob Bonta and Luis Lopez Mediation Questionnaire due on 06/17/2021. Transcript ordered by 07/12/2021. Transcript due 08/10/2021. Appellants Rob Bonta and Luis Lopez opening brief due 09/20/2021. Appellees California Gun Rights Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., Gunfighter Tactical, LLC, Wendy Hauffen, James Miller, PWGG, L.P., Ryan Peterson, John Phillips, Patrick Russ, Neil Rutherford, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee, Second Amendment Foundation and Adrian Sevilla answering brief due 10/20/2021. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12140409] (RT) [Entered: 06/10/2021 11:52 AM]

There is a bunch of documents for that docket entry that are associated with any case opening. They are: Docketing Letter and Briefing Schedule, Notice to All Parties and Counsel, Mediation Letter, Mediation Questionnaire, and Case Opening Packet.

[Librarian]

answering brief due 10/20/2021.

Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.

That is, nothing really interesting happens before November 10, 2021.

[PrestonNorthEnd]

Didn't realize until that video that Judge Benitez pulled the vaccine death equivalence thing.

You so crazy Beni

I think that was his best line! But I was laughing at every other paragraph he wrote. His magazine ruling was just as good.

[????? ????]

Briefing schedule available at https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...2089.119.0.pdf

Matches the text of the docket entry.

[kuug]

That is, nothing really interesting happens before November 10, 2021.

Except the questions of the motions panel's composition and whether they grant the stay.

[CandG]

Ca is not quite banned. Even thought they call it that. Neutered ARs can still be legally bought/possessed, as long as it complies with "features".

It's all semantics. But the devil is in the details.

It's not semantics. Anything that falls under the definition of "assault weapon" is banned, by every definition of the word, and very clearly spelled out in the Penal Code, leaving no room for interpretation.

Sure, you can own things that aren't "assault weapons", such as neutered AR's, but that doesn't change the fact that there is a BAN in place, applying to anything and everything that the state decides is arbitrarily an "assault weapon". (Which, as they've demonstrated several times, is a goalpost they're quite happy to keep moving around)

[FirearmFino]

EMERGENCY MOTION UNDER CIRCUIT RULE 27-3 TO STAY JUDGMENT PENDING APPEAL

[CCWFacts]

EMERGENCY MOTION UNDER CIRCUIT RULE 27-3TO STAY JUDGMENT PENDING APPEAL

Ha! They don't want to risk having another Freedom Week starting on July 4!

Really, it would not be good to have chaos in this situation, because the people who would be at risk would be California AR15 owners, and I would hate to see any of them getting in trouble by not precisely following the legal developments in this case. In fact, the Freedom Week magazine purchasers themselves might end up having to dispose of their mags if that cases loses in the end. And it could - if the Democrats can remove the filibuster and pack SCOTUS we'll lose all these cases. I don't think that's likely but it's in play.

[pacrat]

It's not semantics. Anything that falls under the definition of "assault weapon" is banned, by every definition of the word, and very clearly spelled out in the Penal Code, leaving no room for interpretation.

Sure, you can own things that aren't "assault weapons", such as neutered AR's, but that doesn't change the fact that there is a BAN in place, applying to anything and everything that the state decides is arbitrarily an "assault weapon". (Which, as they've demonstrated several times, is a goalpost they're quite happy to keep moving around)

au contraire

noun
[1] ... the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning.
[2] ... the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text.

Moving the goalpost as you stated, in relation to the "definition" of AW. By the state constantly "redefining the parameters" of WHAT CONSTITUTES an AW. Is the very definition of SEMANTICS.

[BeAuMaN]

EMERGENCY MOTION UNDER CIRCUIT RULE 27-3TO STAY JUDGMENT PENDING APPEAL

Hm. 30 days should be enough time, and it shouldn't be an emergency motion to stay, yet the state is claiming that they must file an emergency motion for stay because if they filed a regular motion for stay and the 3 judge panel denied their motion, then they needed the opportunity to file an emergency stay motion en banc.

I'm hoping the AG is considered to be annoying the court at this point, but I won't hold my breath.

[Bruce3]

I thought the whole reason a 30 day stay was put in place was to prevent an emergency stay from being used. Confused.

Hm. 30 days should be enough time, and it shouldn't be an emergency motion to stay, yet the state is claiming that they must file an emergency motion for stay because if they filed a regular motion for stay and the 3 judge panel denied their motion, then they needed the opportunity to file an emergency stay motion en banc.

I'm hoping the AG is considered to be annoying the court at this point, but I won't hold my breath.

[USMCM16A2]

Pyrrhic victory. If this had to do with abortion, gay rights, gay marriage, LBGTLMNOP, 6 year olds being prevented from getting sex changes. The court would be on it like BLM at a white on black police shooting. Justice my ***. A2

[BeAuMaN]

I thought the whole reason a 30 day stay was put in place was to prevent an emergency stay from being used. Confused.

The AG has decided to file one anyway. They're saying they need relief sooner than 21 days (6/18) because they need a decision well in advance of the 30 day deadline so, on the chance that the motions panel rules they don't need a stay, they can then seek an appeal en banc on the motions panel. Also that the judge only gave them a 30 day stay instead of a full stay.

It's a bunch of crap really.

[jcwatchdog]

Ha! They don't want to risk having another Freedom Week starting on July 4!
In fact, the Freedom Week magazine purchasers themselves might end up having to dispose of their mags if that cases loses in the end.

[HibikiR]

I thought the whole reason a 30 day stay was put in place was to prevent an emergency stay from being used. Confused.

It's bullcrap from Bonta. The time period cut-off for an emergency under 27-3 of the 9th's guidelines is 21 days, so the Temporary Stay extends beyond that making it not an emergency.

Pg 75:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/guides/AppellatePracticeGuide.pdf