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

[CandG]

I seem to have gotten lost. I clicked on the "MILLER" thread.

But wound up with 50 or so posts related to "DUNCAN".

Partly my fault, I was kind of just following/responding to the conversation without realizing which thread this was.

To be fair, Duncan moderately relates to Miller in that "large capacity magazines" are one of several aspects which define an "assault weapon" in the law being challenged by this case; so it's not totally off track (although, admittedly, it's a little off track)

[Supersapper]

And my apologies as well. I got wrapped up in it too.. :P

[Turbinator]

Therefore, if you have a legal 2018 magazine that you purchased during freedom week

But but, Freedom Week was in 2019...

Turby

[aBrowningfan]

But but, Freedom Week was in 2019...

Turby

Magazine(s) could have been manufactured in 2018, but 'bought' during Freedom Week in 2019. That is my circumstance with the PMAGs that I 'bought' during Freedom Week.

[Turbinator]

Magazine(s) could have been manufactured in 2018, but 'bought' during Freedom Week in 2019. That is my circumstance with the PMAGs that I 'bought' during Freedom Week.

I understand now, got it. As in, actually manufactured by the manufacturer in 2018, then purchased legally during Freedom Week in 2019.

Turby

[ronlglock]

[bigstick61]

I saw that the state responded to the plaintiff's Rule 28(j) letter a couple of days ago.

Sounds like they are trying to wave away the recent SCOTUS cases with potential implications for this case (regarding scrutiny and takings).

They also repeat the claim that the plaintiffs have failed to provide any instance in which a Californian has actually fired more than ten rounds in self-defense.

Of course, such instances exist and have been posted in this thread, and more exist that were outside of CA, including some involving over 100 rounds fired in self-defense. I actually just found out about another in CA that happened somewhere along the American River in which 14 men attempted to rob three men on a road. One of the victims was killed immediately and another got off two shots before being killed. The third had two revolvers and fired all twelve shots, killing seven robbers. The remaining seven armed robbers pressed the attack, and not being able to reload under the circumstances, the victim used a knife to defend himself. Despite the gross disparity of force (exactly the sort of circumstance for which firearms are useful), the victim managed to kill four more robbers with his knife and caused the remainder to flee.

It's interesting, because more than ten rounds were fired, but not much more, and these were not adequate to resolve the situation, despite decent shooting. Reloading without being killed in the process was not possible under the circumstances, so that was not an option (the state claims in their response that even if someone needed more than ten rounds, they can just reload). And the only reason all three victims were not killed is that one had exceptional skill with swords and knives, was a combat veteran, and was exceptionally aggressive, combined with the skill of his opponents being inferior (and, IIRC, two were wounded by his gunfire and were diminished in ability as a consequence).

I wonder why the plaintiffs have either been unable or unwilling to counter this. Is there a rule about them citing such cases at this point in the process? They still did not do so at the district level, for whatever reason.

[Bolt_Action]

I wonder why the plaintiffs have either been unable or unwilling to counter this. Is there a rule about them citing such cases at this point in the process? They still did not do so at the district level, for whatever reason.

My guess would be incompetence.

[ohsmily]

I actually just found out about another in CA that happened somewhere along the American River in which 14 men attempted to rob three men on a road. One of the victims was killed immediately and another got off two shots before being killed. The third had two revolvers and fired all twelve shots, killing seven robbers. The remaining seven armed robbers pressed the attack, and not being able to reload under the circumstances, the victim used a knife to defend himself. Despite the gross disparity of force (exactly the sort of circumstance for which firearms are useful), the victim managed to kill four more robbers with his knife and caused the remainder to flee.
.

What movie was that in?

[bigstick61]

What movie was that in?

I don't believe it has ever been portrayed on film.

The man who prevailed was named Jonathan Davis, and he was a Mexican War veteran who was a prospector at the time of the incident, as were his companions, James MacDonald and Dr. Bolivar Sparks.

He was attacked by a gang composed of members of the Australian Sydney Ducks gang and a number of others, and they had robbed and killed ten men in separate incidents in the days preceding this attempt.

The incident occurred in a place called Rocky Canyon along the North Fork of the American River, somewhere outside of Sacramento on December 19, 1854. Davis and three witnesses to the event were deposed before a judge on the matter afterwards.

A link to an article on the incident:

https://truewestmagazine.com/the-gang-slayer-1/

[menancyandsam]

So if Calif can prove that no Californian has written a novel of more that 500 pages & more than 500 page novels are rare in the rest of the nation...then Calif can ban novels of more than 500 pages. Because you don't need that many pages to publish your ideas. And if it's not enough you can just publish a 2nd novel. See nothing unconstitutional to see hear, just move along.

If ammo are considered arms, since an ammoless gun ceases to be an effective weapon, then limitations on ammo capacity is at the core of our 2nd Amendment Rights. Being at the core puts the state justification for arbitrary limitations in peril.

[bigstick61]

So if Calif can prove that no Californian has written a novel of more that 500 pages & more than 500 page novels are rare in the rest of the nation...then Calif can ban novels of more than 500 pages. Because you don't need that many pages to publish your ideas. And if it's not enough you can just publish a 2nd novel. See nothing unconstitutional to see hear, just move along.

If ammo are considered arms, since an ammoless gun ceases to be an effective weapon, then limitations on ammo capacity is at the core of our 2nd Amendment Rights. Being at the core puts the state justification for arbitrary limitations in peril.

I agree that it should be irrelevant, but if that line of argument can be countered with facts, I see no reason not to do so while arguing against the relevancy if that argument to the constitutional issues at play. Of course, if it comes to the judges possibly being swayed by this sort of thing, it's not a good sign, IMO.

[kuug]

The court should be able to move on to the 9th circuit panel, likely no need to send the case back to Benitez since his original opinion already complies with Bruen/Heller. Also, Rupp is back at the district court level and there is no longer a reason to hold Miller pending Rupp.

[rplaw]

The court should be able to move on to the 9th circuit panel, likely no need to send the case back to Benitez since his original opinion already complies with Bruen/Heller. Also, Rupp is back at the district court level and there is no longer a reason to hold Miller pending Rupp.

Since Rupp hasn't been decided, based on the new test in Bruen, they can still hold Miller pending that final decision.

I think the GVR cases will require being re-briefed. I'm not going to say WHY because that will give listening ears a heads up. I suggest no one else says why either - we do NOT want to give them ammo to shoot us with.

[HAVOC5150]

Just saw this, can anyone comment on the authenticity of this?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk