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

[Uncivil Engineer]

Are you saying that it was not clear from my post? When I was in CA I never thought that being called a potato would be a compliment, now I know better.

Always great to have friendly discussions with other 2A supporters.

What we just had St Patrick's and we are still attacking the Irish. I want you to know I resemble that remark.

[bruss01]

Oh god forbid the seas of change become too large that the government's time is consumed, and the police and judges have to re-learn the laws and new books have to be written. Oh no....we are far better off allowing the unjust suffering of harm and violation of constitutional rights while we get our "ducks in a row." Makes perfect sense.

When change is warranted, there is a process for facilitating change. This is how it works. If you don't like it, move somewhere else where all the people have to do is install a tyrant that they "agree" with on their favorite issues, who by decree can simply order change overnight... then hang around until the opposition installs THEIR tyrant who will change it all back again overnight.

This is the price we pay for living in an orderly society governed by the rule of law. It is designed to produce a lasting, effective and largely just framework. It's downside is it doesn't change with the weather, as you seem to think it should.

[IVC]

Not being able to exercise one's civil rights for additional months or years sounds like irreparable harm to me.

That certainly is an irreparable harm. The problem is that the court hasn't determined yet whether it's a civil rights violation. That's what the whole case is about.

So, we are NOT being denied an exercise of a civil right, we are asking the court to determine WHETHER we are being denied a civil right. That's just how cases like this work, don't blame me.

[Bhobbs]

That’s because we have allowed the government to strip us of every right and then ask for them back individually. The system should demand the government to prove it’s laws are not a violation of our rights.

[IVC]

ONE MORE THING IVC, the Supreme Court showed a very active shadow docket since Barrett came into the picture with these COVID rulings on religious activity. So yes, the Supreme Court does play with timelines. Any illusions presented otherwise are comically out of touch. See Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v Cuomo.

We are talking about injunctions. These are "administrative brakes" on processes and have very different set of rules for a higher court to intervene.

If you want to compare apples-to-apples, you need to find a case where the Supreme Court got involved with dealing with lower court's injunctions in a civil rights case, not the speed at which the court took cases on merits or where the court dealt with a time-sensitive issue.

[IVC]

It already does - that's what "rational basis" is for. Essentially, it's a presumption that the law is constitutional unless it cannot pass a few basic hurdles. There is a lot of latitude afforded the legislators, but that's by design, where local governments cannot be easily stalled by activists.

We just find ourselves on the other side of the equation where we don't like the pace of the system. Whether it should be different is open for debate. There would be a lot of unintended consequences if the system worked the other way around. However, within the system that we work today, i.e., "the reality," we have to go through the process and ensure we win in the end. Whatever time it takes is not under our control.

[ar15barrels]

9th circuit covers:

District of Alaska
District of Arizona
Central District of California
Eastern District of California
Northern District of California
Southern District of California
District of Hawaii
District of Idaho
District of Montana
District of Nevada
District of Oregon
Eastern District of Washington
Western District of Washington

Tell me again which of those, besides CA, has an AWB?

Hawaii.

https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/assault-weapons-in-hawaii/

[bruss01]

9th circuit covers:

District of Alaska
District of Arizona
Central District of California
Eastern District of California
Northern District of California
Southern District of California
District of Hawaii
District of Idaho
District of Montana
District of Nevada
District of Oregon
Eastern District of Washington
Western District of Washington

Tell me again which of those, besides CA, has an AWB?

I think a better question would be which of those is anti-gun or pro-gun control in general, which currently does, or perhaps soon will, have additional second amendment infringements which could plausibly include an AWB.

People from Montana should have some voice in this, as it does affect their state (if not now, then plausibly in the future) and it's gun laws - they know that if more and more states are permitted to enact these bans then maybe someday 10-20-30 years from now, depending how the Millenials and GenZ's vote, it could happen there too. It certainly affects parts of Washington, Nevada, Oregon and California which are already saddled with some egregious 2A-infringing laws.

I think it benefits EVERYBODY for both sides to bring their best, strongest arguments to the game. I WANT the state of CA (as well as OR and WA) to bring their best arguments, so that we can BEAT those arguments officially and have it officially on the record that they don't hold water. And also so that on the next go-round at SCOTUS that we KNOW those arguments before-hand and can have an effective counter-argument poised for delivery.

[RickD427]

Constitutional Rights would immediately be restored rather than continue as oppressed Rights until the courts "finally get around to it."




The people would still be oppressed by the refusal of the courts to do their mandated Constitutional duty. You can argue whether the Rights exist or apply BUT ONLY IF you can get your day in court.



This is the crux and it shouldn't even be in consideration in answering the question.

When Rights are wrongfully denied ANY legal remedy, either way, the judicial branch abrogates their duties and violate their mandate. IMO, when the courts refuse to settle disputes as they are required to do in order to keep the peace, there is only 1 avenue left. It is, after all, the foremost reason we have our independence.

That's all groovy, but you're making one of the most basic mistakes in your argument - You're "Asserting the Conclusion" and that makes the argument pretty useless.

The conclusion that you're reaching is that the current law violates the Constitution. I like that conclusion, and personally agree with it. More importantly, Judge Benitez also liked it. But it's only the starting point in a legal process that involves appeals. Until the decision is final, it's possible for folks to hold opposing views.

[rplaw]

That's all groovy, but you're making one of the most basic mistakes in your argument - You're "Asserting the Conclusion" and that makes the argument pretty useless.

The conclusion that you're reaching is that the current law violates the Constitution. I like that conclusion, and personally agree with it. More importantly, Judge Benitez also liked it. But it's only the starting point in a legal process that involves appeals. Until the decision is final, it's possible for folks to hold opposing views.

The problem is that "the system" automatically assumes that the infringement is lawful unless proven otherwise. Which means that EVERY law is Constitutional unless the Supreme's have already deemed it not.

That's not how it's supposed to work yet it does because everyone has forgotten step 1; Does the government have the authority to do it under the Constitution?

If no, or we don't know, then the State must first prove it actually has that authority before any other test can be used to weigh whether the law can infringe upon the Rights of the people.

THAT is the proper test to be used to determine lawfulness. THAT is what should be being challenged on appeal until the final decision is made. At which time either the State is enjoined, or the law itself can be challenged based on the level of scrutiny required.

We're totally skipping the main issue and have been for a long time. The result is that the people are being oppressed and no one is even talking about that. Instead what we're talking about is HOW MUCH oppression is ok.

[IVC]

The problem is that "the system" automatically assumes that the infringement is lawful unless proven otherwise. Which means that EVERY law is Constitutional unless the Supreme's have already deemed it not.

Is it really a problem?

In our case we wish it was the other way around. But now imagine your local government that you agree with, say at the city level, wants to do some basic management task such as approve your building application on your own land. Along comes PETA and claims that it violates their civil rights because some species of gnat might be living on the nearby parcel and might be using your land to commute to the fishing lake nearby.

If all it took for them to get an injunction was to ASSERT a violation of civil rights in order to block you, you'd quickly realize that it's not a good system.

As far as the OTHER SIDE in THIS case is concerned, we are making an unsubstantiated assertion against them. The court will make the decision based on what each side presents (an based on their political views, but that's besides the point), and the court will determine who is right. Until then, we could be the PETA in the above case, or we could be the righteous warriors for the civil rights.

[RickD427]

The problem is that "the system" automatically assumes that the infringement is lawful unless proven otherwise. Which means that EVERY law is Constitutional unless the Supreme's have already deemed it not.

Please see the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Brown v Maryland and the plethora of cases that have followed it. A law is presumed to be constitutional until there is a final court decision that it is not.

That's not how it's supposed to work yet it does because everyone has forgotten step 1; Does the government have the authority to do it under the Constitution?

Actually, that is the way that it is supposed to work and the Brown case explains why.

If no, or we don't know, then the State must first prove it actually has that authority before any other test can be used to weigh whether the law can infringe upon the Rights of the people.

You've got this one backwards. The presumption is that a statute is lawful until proven otherwise.

THAT is the proper test to be used to determine lawfulness. THAT is what should be being challenged on appeal until the final decision is made. At which time either the State is enjoined, or the law itself can be challenged based on the level of scrutiny required.

Where did you get the idea that this is the proper test? Is it because of your own personal beliefs on the subject (which are about as worthless as my own personal beliefs), or can you provide a citation to any case law so holding?

We're totally skipping the main issue and have been for a long time. The result is that the people are being oppressed and no one is even talking about that. Instead what we're talking about is HOW MUCH oppression is ok.

Here's where we circle back to the "Asserting the Conclusion" issue. If you are correct in your belief that the statute is unconstitutional, then the people are being oppressed. If you are incorrect in your belief that the statute is unconstitutional, then the people are not being oppressed. It would therefore seem that we would need to finally resolve the question, in court, before we can reach a conclusion if anyone is being oppressed.

[ar15barrels]

I think a better question would be which of those is anti-gun or pro-gun control in general, which currently does, or perhaps soon will, have additional second amendment infringements which could plausibly include an AWB.

People from Montana should have some voice in this, as it does affect their state (if not now, then plausibly in the future) and it's gun laws - they know that if more and more states are permitted to enact these bans then maybe someday 10-20-30 years from now, depending how the Millenials and GenZ's vote, it could happen there too. It certainly affects parts of Washington, Nevada, Oregon and California which are already saddled with some egregious 2A-infringing laws.

I think it benefits EVERYBODY for both sides to bring their best, strongest arguments to the game. I WANT the state of CA (as well as OR and WA) to bring their best arguments, so that we can BEAT those arguments officially and have it officially on the record that they don't hold water. And also so that on the next go-round at SCOTUS that we KNOW those arguments before-hand and can have an effective counter-argument poised for delivery.

Unfortunately, the political makeup of the court follows population and not land area.
The political makeup of the 9th circuit follows the population that is in the land making up the 9th.
That is to say that the liberal cities have FAR more people in them than the conservative open land does and hence the 9th has more liberal justices.

[Aldo The Apache]

Since St. Benitez’s ruling and then stay granted, I haven’t seen anything or anyone protesting in the streets unfavoring this stay. **** I’ll take a week off work and March with all of you to capital hill if need be but where’s the organization?
Let’s stop with all this legalese mumbo-jumbo or cite this or that. It’s obvious they don’t care. It’s obvious we shouldn’t either. Where’s the rally??? **** it worked for blue-haired-butch-dykes and non-binary beta males sooo…how will it not work for us? Let’s make some goddamn noise already. Set it off!

Edit: look at what a little bit of fem-males noise can do:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/unanimous-vote-final-step-toward-120847010.html

[rplaw]

Please see the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Brown v Maryland and the plethora of cases that have followed it. A law is presumed to be constitutional until there is a final court decision that it is not.



Actually, that is the way that it is supposed to work and the Brown case explains why.



You've got this one backwards. The presumption is that a statute is lawful until proven otherwise.



Where did you get the idea that this is the proper test? Is it because of your own personal beliefs on the subject (which are about as worthless as my own personal beliefs), or can you provide a citation to any case law so holding?



Here's where we circle back to the "Asserting the Conclusion" issue. If you are correct in your belief that the statute is unconstitutional, then the people are being oppressed. If you are incorrect in your belief that the statute is unconstitutional, then the people are not being oppressed. It would therefore seem that we would need to finally resolve the question, in court, before we can reach a conclusion if anyone is being oppressed.

Basically, you're argument boils down to the fact that SCOTUS said that laws are Constitutional unless otherwise struck down.

My argument is that this is backwards because anyone who reads the Constitution and the Federalist Papers would understand that the Founders wanted the control of our nation in the hands of the people and government would only be "allowed" to do what the people "let it" do through the powers granted to the government.

That the SCOTUS decided otherwise doesn't mean that the founding concept of limited government is wrong. It means that those in power usurped more power for themselves at the expense of the people who actually prohibited it. To that end, any SCOTUS decision to the contrary is actually lawless because the courts cannot grant powers to the government that are not provided for in the Constitution. Going outside those frameworks to grant those powers exceeds the court's authority.

In the end this is an exercise in ideology because by this time it cannot be reversed since modern US society wouldn't allow it.