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

[ar15barrels]

On the last page of the decision here,

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

Why not just post the whole order?

[ar15barrels]

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.

30515(a)(1) through (8) covers pistols, rifles andd shotguns but not "others"

(9) (10) A semiautomatic centerfire firearm that is not a rifle, pistol, or shotgun, that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

(11) A semiautomatic centerfire firearm that is not a rifle, pistol, or shotgun, that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.

[rewireroy]

Im curious if there is any timeline of when a ruling would be made on this case?

Considering we are in a grey area of laws in place vs if those laws are constitutional, I'd think something would need to happen soon so as to not arrest people for laws that are unconstitutional and cost them their freedom as well as their effects.

[Bolt_Action]

Im curious if there is any timeline of when a ruling would be made on this case?

Considering we are in a grey area of laws in place vs if those laws are constitutional, I'd think something would need to happen soon so as to not arrest people for laws that are unconstitutional and cost them their freedom as well as their effects.

[champu]

Im curious if there is any timeline of when a ruling would be made on this case?

Honestly, Miller is probably not a case to bother watching anymore. It is a complaint that originally focused on the > 10 round fixed mag aspect of the AWCA. It is on ice pending Rupp.

Rupp focused on the rifle portions of the AWCA (excepting it didn't complain about a rifle that had a grenade launcher or flare launcher being considered an assault weapon) and is the one that the courts are actually moving given the NYSRPA decision, albeit slowly.

The chances of Rupp being ultimately resolved in a way that makes Miller still relevant strikes me as being very slim.

[randomBytes]

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

The heat death of the universe

[ar15barrels]

Im curious if there is any timeline of when a ruling would be made on this case?

The court makes it's own timeline.
They will get around to it when they please.
They could literally drag their feet for multiple years by deploying all manner of delay tactics.

[rewireroy]

The court makes it's own timeline.
They will get around to it when they please.
They could literally drag their feet for multiple years by deploying all manner of delay tactics.

I know we have been used to how it was, but given the SCOTUS ruling, Im asking how it will be.

I have to image that a Writ of Mandamus would come quickly if they drag their feet, especially with the petition to lift the stay or accept the rehearing dates in the petition. So what would allow the 9th to hold it up given the ruling?

[ar15barrels]

I know we have been used to how it was, but given the SCOTUS ruling, Im asking how it will be.

I have to image that a Writ of Mandamus would come quickly if they drag their feet, especially with the petition to lift the stay or accept the rehearing dates in the petition. So what would allow the 9th to hold it up given the ruling?

Nothing in the ruling defines a timeline for other cases.
The USSC has routinely denied writs of Mandamus for cases that have been held up for multiple years but if someone can convince them to act, perhaps the Writ will cause the 9th to get a move-on.

It's nice to dream sometimes but then I always wakeup to reality in the morning.

[kuug]

Honestly, Miller is probably not a case to bother watching anymore. It is a complaint that originally focused on the > 10 round fixed mag aspect of the AWCA. It is on ice pending Rupp.

Rupp focused on the rifle portions of the AWCA (excepting it didn't complain about a rifle that had a grenade launcher or flare launcher being considered an assault weapon) and is the one that the courts are actually moving given the NYSRPA decision, albeit slowly.

The chances of Rupp being ultimately resolved in a way that makes Miller still relevant strikes me as being very slim.

Please stop guys. Miller was held pending Rupp. Rupp was sent back to the district court because it did not have a ruling on the merits. Miller did have a ruling on the merits. Miller being held pending Rupp was on the basis that Rupp was further along than Miller, now that is no longer the case and Rupp is considered "resolved" at the circuit court level for the time being. Miller is going to either have it's stay lifted, it will be scheduled for oral arguments in front of a 3 judge panel, or sent back to Benitez(least likely option).

[spike90049]

The heat death of the universe

Sadly this is correct.. I'll believe it when I see it. And that this point for me I'm just months away from living in TX.

But will always keep watching and hoping for CA's freedom

[gobler]

The laws are unconstitutional. We know that; SCOTUS affirmed that. Just build your rifles and enjoy them.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

[keedba65]

I have a Question regarding timeline

Is the "Order Vacating and Remanding" in Rupp considered a "decision by this court in Rupp v. Bonta"?

Does this mean that "Miller v. Bonta" will move forward after 14 days (from 6/28/2022), assuming that parties requested appropriate relief (which I believe FPC did with 6/30/22: Motion to Lift Stay)?

From Miller v. Bonta, CA9 - "assault weapons" 6/21/21: Order Granting Motion to Stay Judgment Pending Appeal
From Rupp v Becerra (AWCA) 6/28/2022: Order Vacating and Remanding

[jcwatchdog]

It definitely was a decision. Does anyone know?

Is the "Order Vacating and Remanding" in Rupp considered a "decision by this court in Rupp v. Bonta"?

Does this mean that "Miller v. Bonta" will move forward after 14 days (from 6/28/2022), assuming that parties requested appropriate relief (which I believe FPC did with 6/30/22: Motion to Lift Stay)?

From Miller v. Bonta, CA9 - "assault weapons" 6/21/21: Order Granting Motion to Stay Judgment Pending Appeal


From Rupp v Becerra (AWCA) 6/28/2022: Order Vacating and Remanding

[IVC]

Vacating the decision returns the clock to just before the last court issued their decision that is being vacated. So, we are back to CA-9.

The real trick here is lifting the stay because the stay was in place while CA-9 was considering the case that was a win for us at district level. If the stay is lifted, our win stands *while* the court works on the next steps, including the reconsideration in light of Bruen. If the stay for some strange reason remains, then we have to wait with the AWB in place until the court issues a new decision, which can take quite a long time.