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

[Roswell Saucer]

From here on out, you can predict there will be a slew of "emergencies" when helping the defendants immediately is critical, and a lot of delays when the 9th (except for Benitez) wants to avoid having to do something that might help the plaintiffs.

They're utterly corrupt.

Which, ultimately, I imagine will cause SCOTUS to become more active in the 2A area. I very much doubt the current court will appreciate inferior courts running amok.

[DRM6000]

I predict they will lift their stay, and vacate and remand back to Benitez.

I too think so. They're gonna throw St. Benitez under the bus. The 9th doesn't want to have to own the politically unpopular (in CA) decision.

[kuug]

I predict they remand but with instructions that the stay remains "to protect the status quo".

[Scott Connors]

Question: if the 9th CA vacates and remands the decision back to Heller so that we are essentially back to square one, does that eliminate the stay of the original summary judgement that stopped enforcement of the magazine ban and gave us Freedom Week, thus opening us to prosecution?

[ar15barrels]

Question: if the 9th CA vacates and remands the decision back to Heller

What are you even asking?

Vacating is eliminating a previous judgement.
Remanding is sending the case back where it came from to be decided again.
Neither have anything to do with a stay.
Stays are handled separately.

[Inoxmark]

Does anyone familiar with protocol knows if the following scenario is possible:
1. Case remanded back to Benitez;
2. Benitez rules as we think he would, consistent with previous ruling;
3. CA AG appeals that new ruling AGAIN, to 9th;
4. 9th takes it and agrees with CA;
5. Our side appeals to SCOTUS AGAIN, round and round we go...

Or the next ruling is pretty much final unless appealed directly to SCOTUS?

[RickD427]

Does anyone familiar with protocol knows if the following scenario is possible:
1. Case remanded back to Benitez;
2. Benitez rules as we think he would, consistent with previous ruling;
3. CA AG appeals that new ruling AGAIN, to 9th;
4. 9th takes it and agrees with CA;
5. Our side appeals to SCOTUS AGAIN, round and round we go...

Or the next ruling is pretty much final unless appealed directly to SCOTUS?

That scenario is possible. How likely is anyone's guess.

Remember that Ninth is not as heavily biased as it previously was. For your scenario to play out, you'd need two of three judges to really go pretty far outside of NYSRPA to reach that conclusion. Judges can be pretty bull-headed, but they also understand the limits of their prerogative. It's actually pretty likely that the Ninth would uphold the trial decision in light of NYSRPA.

[????? ????]

[curtisfong]

The district court’s June 4, 2021 order and judgment are vacated

Why is Benitez's judgement the one to be vacated? It's not the one that defies Heller/McDonald (or Bruen for that matter).

If he just says "i meant what i said, no change", what is the 9th's endgame here? Benitez isn't the one who is wrong.

Let's re-examine those orders:

https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/Decision%20--%20Miller%2020210604.pdf

[abinsinia]

Is the stay even still in place ? Because what do they need a stay for if there is no decision (because they vacated it) .

[curtisfong]

Is the stay even still in place ? Because what do they need a stay for if there is no decision (because they vacated it) .

They want the entire issue of the stay to go away, if I had to guess. Why else vacate *the whole damn order* instead of lifting the stay?

The whole thing stinks.

They're stalling. They want to force Benitez to rewrite the entire thing, all over again, because "Bruen broke new ground", even though his decision was (and is) perfectly consistent with Bruen.

[Lanejsl]

The 9th circuit continues to find ways to show their corruption.

[newbieLA]

OK so explain to us non-lawyers what happens next in terms of proceedings? Does this mean an entire new hearing is required (loooong delay), or simply that Judge Benitez needs to reiterate his original ruling (short delay)?

[curtisfong]

The 9th circuit continues to find ways to show their corruption.

If I were Benitez, I would start work on my own revised orders ready to go as soon as I heard of the GVR, knowing the 9th would force me to rewrite them.

Then, as *soon* as they claim what I wrote originally was not consistent with Bruen, immediately file the newly rewritten order such that they were exactly the same, only with a few cosmetic changes to the judgement.

[curtisfong]

Judge Benitez needs to reiterate his original ruling (short delay)?

It is possible he can do this, but I have no doubt the State will complain they would like the opportunity to re-litigate the entire case, preferably with a different judge.

I am not a lawyer, though, so I don't know if there is anything that makes this impossible.

Whatever conventions/rules are in place, I'm sure the 9th will find a way to defy them in a way to assist the State with whatever they need to win.