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

[mshill]

Here's the response.

The final paragraph:

respecting the core right of law-abiding
citizens to possess authorized firearms for armed self-defense in the home.

The AWCA has not prevented a single crime committed with an AW. Most recent ones come to mind are Gilroy Garlic Festival and San Bernardino, there are many more. I love the highlighted phrase as well... with the word "authorized" negating the word "respecting".

[darkwater34]

agrea

[ShadowGuy]

REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY MOTION UNDER CIRCUIT RULE 27-3 TO STAY JUDGMENT PENDING APPEAL

Once again, they are talking in circles. As the plaintiffs explained, what CA defines as an AW is not an "exceptionally lethal weapon of war". And they continue to assert that without any evidence.

[TFA777]

Fairly normal. What their request says is,







Basically they're just covering their bases - they think they'll win, but in case they don't, they want alternative relief in the form of an extension of the stay until the en banc request and trial (if granted) is complete.

I don't know court procedures but this feels highly irregular.
When can you go to court and request a stay when one already exists.
And then further say you intend to appeal when the appeal hasn't even been granted. An appeal is not actually assured the judge has discretion as to whether to grant leave to appeal.

The 9th with no doubt re invent the English language and say the state has a rational basis to try something, anything to prevent gun deaths even if it doesn't prevent crimes committed with guns.

[CandG]

So really no just cause for an emergency stay there is already one in place.

Since the existing stay is only good for 30 days, that justifies an "emergency", (at least from their viewpoint). A standard motion for a stay could take months.

Granted, I agree that it absolutely is not an emergency in the traditional sense of the word, but from a legal process standpoint, it qualifies as one.

[pratchett]

There have been many comments here about Judge Benitez comparing an AR-15 to a Swiss Army Knife, and the media is lighting their hair on fire over it. It was surprising to me - and has been bewildering and amusing - how the left has fixated on that. I thought, "Are they trying to gaslight us into believing that half the nation has suddenly forgotten the mechanics of an analogy?"

This is the point of an analogy: in some way, every single thing is like any other thing; and in some other way, nothing is like anything else. How that statement is offensive confounds me.

If I asked you to write down the ways in which a butterfly was like a chainsaw, a smart person could write down some things. A dumb person would say, "Are you telling me chainsaws fly?!?" SIGH. Our ability to draw comparisons - and to flesh out the limits of those comparisons - is an important intellectual tool.

In not recognizing that, the folks who are theatrically pretending to be offended by saying "But Swiss Army Knives don't spray bullets!!1!1" are being intellectually lazy, and it's exhausting.

[ShadowGuy]

If I asked you to write down the ways in which a butterfly was like a chainsaw, a smart person could write down some things.

Both can be orange.

[CandG]

There have been many comments here about Judge Benitez comparing an AR-15 to a Swiss Army Knife, and the media is lighting their hair on fire over it. It was surprising to me - and has been bewildering and amusing - how the left has fixated on that.

I can tell you exactly why they're all fixated on that part.

Because it's the first sentence, and they didn't read beyond that, but they still feel qualified to opine on the remaining 93.5 pages anyways.

[BAJ475]

...
"But Swiss Army Knives don't spray bullets!!!" ...

All the more reason to own an AR rather than a Swiss Army Knife, especially one that has all of the normal features!

[CGZ]

IDK if this has been asked, but if this goes through, would .50 BMG rifles become legal, or is that a different penal code not covered by this ruling?

[Bhobbs]

.50 BMGs are a different law.

[Librarian]

IDK if this has been asked, but if this goes through, would .50 BMG rifles become legal, or is that a different penal code not covered by this ruling?

.50 BMG seems not to have been challenged.

(a) Any person who, within this state, manufactures or causes to be manufactured, distributes, transports, or imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives or lends any assault weapon or any .50 BMG rifle, except as provided by this chapter, is guilty of a felony, and upon conviction shall be punished by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for four, six, or eight years.

(b) In addition and consecutive to the punishment imposed under subdivision (a), any person who transfers, lends, sells, or gives any assault weapon or any .50 BMG rifle to a minor in violation of subdivision (a) shall receive an enhancement of imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of one year.

(c) Except in the case of a first violation involving not more than two firearms as provided in Sections 30605 and 30610, for purposes of this article, if more than one assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle is involved in any violation of this article, there shall be a distinct and separate offense for each.

The referenced code distinguishes between 'assault weapon' and '.50 BMG rifle', so the answer to your question seems to be NO.

[cyphr02]

Plaintiffs would apparently require States to allow individuals to keep and bear any dangerous weapon—from assault weapons to M-16s to bazookas— merely because the weapon’s lethal features might theoretically contribute to
self-defense in some circumstances.

Can't decide if this was just creative writing, or if AG lies to themselves so much they actually believe this is what's on the line. Either way, it must hurt to be so far left.

[ShadowGuy]

Can't decide if this was just creative writing, or if AG lies to themselves so much they actually believe this is what's on the line. Either way, it must hurt to be so far left.

Plaintiffs would apparently require States to allow individuals to keep and bear any dangerous weapon—from assault weapons to M-16s to bazookas— merely because the weapon’s lethal features might theoretically contribute to
self-defense in some circumstances.

AG continues to be confused.

• Every weapon is dangerous by design.
• All M-16s are assault weapons but assault weapons are not all M-16s
• Who mentioned bazookas?

[gobler]

IDK if this has been asked, but if this goes through, would .50 BMG rifles become legal, or is that a different penal code not covered by this ruling?

One could use the argument the Judge Benitez made in reference to tazers. If SCOTUS found 200,000 is "in common use" find out how many. 50 bmgs are in the wild..