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

[ar15barrels]

Dudes I want a real M240B. Why can’t we own these things?

You can, just not in CA because it's a machine gun.

All you need is an SOT FFL and a potential agency buyer to write you a letter and then go here:

https://www.armsunlimited.com/FN-M240B-762mm-Belt-Fed-Machine-Gun-p/12976814.htm

[GW]

Lawsuits were prepared for filing on 7/1/22.
I know of 2 shops in the Vancouver area that are filing for an injunction.

[BobB35]

You can, just not in CA because it's a machine gun.

All you need is an SOT FFL and a potential agency buyer to write you a letter and then go here:

https://www.armsunlimited.com/FN-M24...p/12976814.htm

So the question I would have is what LE agency would have the need for a crew served belt fed weapon? Talk about violations of the 14th amendment and equal protections. To me the exemptions allowing this are clearly unconstitutional. LEO and the military should only be allowed to have what citizens can have...period

[BAJ475]

So the question I would have is what LE agency would have the need for a crew served belt fed weapon? Talk about violations of the 14th amendment and equal protections. To me the exemptions allowing this are clearly unconstitutional. LEO and the military should only be allowed to have what citizens can have...period

This is repeatedly stated and IMHO is azz backward. Citizens should be allowed to have what LEOs and the military can have. Disarming those that are there to protect us is simply stupid!

[flavor]

Would this mean I would be able to use a regular magazine release and use standard capacity magazines in my AR pistol?

[abinsinia]

Would this mean I would be able to use a regular magazine release and use standard capacity magazines in my AR pistol?

it seems to only covers 30515(a)(1) which is rifles.

https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-30515.html

The penalty provision of 30515(a)(4) are stricken , but I don't know exactly what that means.

[RickD427]

Would this mean I would be able to use a regular magazine release and use standard capacity magazines in my AR pistol?

Not sure what you mean by "this".

As of this moment there has been no change in California law resulting from the NYSPRA Supreme Court decision.

If you're relying on a fixed magazine to circumvent he "Assault Weapon" definition of Penal Code section 30515(a)(4), then no, you cannot run a Large Capacity Magazine in the weapon without creating an Assault Weapon under section 30515(a)(5).

[RickD427]

it seems to only covers 30515(a)(1) which is rifles.

https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-30515.html

The penalty provision of 30515(a)(4) are stricken , but I don't know exactly what that means.

Sir,

Your website link to "Findlaw" is outta date. The website was last updated in 2019 and section 30515 was last amended in 2020.

Here is a better reference to all of California Codes, maintained by the state: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes.xhtml

I'm not sure where you saw that the "penalty provision of 30515(a)(4) are stricken." All that section 30515 is to define what an "Assault Weapon" is. The penalties for doing illegal stuff with an Assault Weapon are primarily contained in sections 30600 and 30605

[abinsinia]

Sir,

Your website link to "Findlaw" is outta date. The website was last updated in 2019 and section 30515 was last amended in 2020.

Here is a better reference to all of California Codes, maintained by the state: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes.xhtml

I'm not sure where you saw that the "penalty provision of 30515(a)(4) are stricken." All that section 30515 is to define what an "Assault Weapon" is. The penalties for doing illegal stuff with an Assault Weapon are primarily contained in sections 30600 and 30605

On the last page of the decision here,

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/5381/attachments/original/1622850515/Miller_v_Bonta_Opinion.pdf?1622850515

[RickD427]

On the last page of the decision here,

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/5381/attachments/original/1622850515/Miller_v_Bonta_Opinion.pdf?1622850515

OK, Now I got you better.

What Judge Benitez said is a little different than your summary. You said that the "penalty provision of 30515(a)(4) are stricken." The struck me as being odd because there ain't no penalty provision in section 30515(a)(4). Judge Benitez's decision enjoined the enforcement of the penalty provisions of sections 30600, 30605 and 30800. The Judge got it right. There is a difference between defining the conduct (which 30515 does) and in specifying how folks get fanged for the conduct (section 30600 and 30605).

But id doesn't matter at all, for the moment, because Judge Benitez' decision has been stayed by the Circuit Court of Appeals

[abinsinia]

OK, Now I got you better.

What Judge Benitez said is a little different than your summary. You said that the "penalty provision of 30515(a)(4) are stricken." The struck me as being odd because there ain't no penalty provision in section 30515(a)(4). Judge Benitez's decision enjoined the enforcement of the penalty provisions of sections 30600, 30605 and 30800. The Judge got it right. There is a difference between defining the conduct (which 30515 does) and in specifying how folks get fanged for the conduct (section 30600 and 30605).

But id doesn't matter at all, for the moment, because Judge Benitez' decision has been stayed by the Circuit Court of Appeals

Ok. The IV (4) in the ruling it does appear he decided that 30515(a)(1) through (8) would be declared unconstitutional, and I think that includes the pistol parts of
30515.

The prior question, from my understanding, was if Benitez ruled against the assault features on pistols.

[RickD427]

Ok. The IV (4) in the ruling it does appear he decided that 30515(a)(1) through (8) would be declared unconstitutional, and I think that includes the pistol parts of
30515.

The prior question, from my understanding, was if Benitez ruled against the assault features on pistols.

That's the way I see it. If Miller gets resolved in favor of the Plaintiff, as it did at the Trial Court level, then the AW statute is pretty much toast.

But I always counsel against "counting your eggs before they hatch." We did get a very good Trial Court decision, and a very favorable supporting decision in NYSPRA. But Miller is still in play and we don't know how its going to turn out yet.

[abinsinia]

That's the way I see it. If Miller gets resolved in favor of the Plaintiff, as it did at the Trial Court level, then the AW statute is pretty much toast.

But I always counsel against "counting your eggs before they hatch." We did get a very good Trial Court decision, and a very favorable supporting decision in NYSPRA. But Miller is still in play and we don't know how its going to turn out yet.

There was a request to remove the stay so the decision can go into effect. It still may not happen, but people are prepping for the possible stay being removed.

[spike90049]

There was a request to remove the stay so the decision can go into effect. It still may not happen, but people are prepping for the possible stay being removed.

Is there any deadline on this by which the court needs to respond?

[abinsinia]

Is there any deadline on this by which the court needs to respond?

I don't think so . I would suspect next we get a brief from CADOJ.