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

[taperxz]

[Bhobbs]

Looks like Benitez wants to move through this as quickly as possible.

[Ocdlaw]

Benitez just gave the parties 20 days to brief re: effect of NYSRP v Bruen! That's pretty fast.

[lazycat]

What do you guys think will happen in case this ends up with an injunction ? Will we get a "freedom moment" to get features ? In other words, all featureless rifles converted to normal during the period of injunction will be legal just like freedom week mags ?

[Roswell Saucer]

What do you guys think will happen in case this ends up with an injunction ? Will we get a "freedom moment" to get features ? In other words, all featureless rifles converted to normal during the period of injunction will be legal just like freedom week mags ?

California will not prevail in this case. There is no THT for a black rifle ban. I will be extremely surprised if the 9th stays an injunction issued by Benitez because they will 100% be overruled by SCOTUS with an even tougher opinion than NYSRPA.

[curtisfong]

my prediction:

win with Benitez with yet another injunction (and another emergency stay to avoid a "catastrophic" freedom week where we can have grips with no fins) for the inevitable 9th appeal, who will find, again, that somehow Benitez erred, even SCOTUS told them it was the defendants and the 9th that erred, not Benitez. In any case, they want time to be able to re-jigger SCOTUS before the 9th's 2nd ludicrously idiotic decision in favor of the state gets appealed.

Galling. I still don't fully understand how the 9th was able to GVR it back down to Benitez, when it was their decision that sucked.

I'm not a lawyer. Maybe somebody can explain it to me as they would a child?

[lazycat]

My concern is not how this case will ultimately resolve in SCOTUS because I think everybody knows that already. The concern is to be prepared when Benitez issues a preliminary injunction on the law making the features legal for *period of time until they get emergency stay from 9th*. I lost faith in 9th circuit acting in any reasonable way at this point and I don't believe that they will obey the SCOTUS rules for evaluating second amendment cases. You can clearly see their position simply by looking at how this case was remanded back to Benitez, they could've just struck down the law and be done with it. Then you look at how San Jose judge somehow said that criminals posting surety is equivalent to insurance for all gun owners. These people are acting in a partisan way and they don't care about the objective THT.

[kuug]

What do you guys think will happen in case this ends up with an injunction ? Will we get a "freedom moment" to get features ? In other words, all featureless rifles converted to normal during the period of injunction will be legal just like freedom week mags ?

[kuug]

my prediction:

win with Benitez with yet another injunction (and another emergency stay to avoid a "catastrophic" freedom week where we can have grips with no fins) for the inevitable 9th appeal, who will find, again, that somehow Benitez erred, even SCOTUS told them it was the defendants and the 9th that erred, not Benitez. In any case, they want time to be able to re-jigger SCOTUS before the 9th's 2nd ludicrously idiotic decision in favor of the state gets appealed.

Galling. I still don't fully understand how the 9th was able to GVR it back down to Benitez, when it was their decision that sucked.

I'm not a lawyer. Maybe somebody can explain it to me as they would a child?

[taperxz]

[Inoxmark]

I think Benitez will allow the parties to respond to each other's briefs, then issue his ruling without oral arguments.Hopefully not stay his ruling this time.

As to CA position, in the most recent CA brief linked to in this thread, CA AG all but laid down their new arguments. They will argue that AW are not really covered by 2A, because 2A is about self-defense, but AW were designed for offense. That self-defense needs are covered by other non-banned means, therefore AW are fair game for banning. Same argument will be presented in all other "hardware" related cases (mags, roster, etc). Sounds ridiculous, but just watch. All they have to do is to find a sympathetic judge's ear. They are not going to find that in Benitez, but there are plenty others who will embrace their argument and support it with 50 pages of legalese.

[cleonard]

Can't Benitez play the "delay" game in a way? Issue a TRO/preliminary injunction while working on the summary judgement. Sure the state can ask for a stay from the 9th, but the case would still be with Benitez. Seems like a path to freedom month or two.

[kuug]

Can't Benitez play the "delay" game in a way? Issue a TRO/preliminary injunction while working on the summary judgement. Sure the state can ask for a stay from the 9th, but the case would still be with Benitez. Seems like a path to freedom month or two.

[Roswell Saucer]

100% this. Gotta move fast to address issues of first impression before the commies can.

[BAJ475]

....

Galling. I still don't fully understand how the 9th was able to GVR it back down to Benitez, when it was their decision that sucked.

I'm not a lawyer. Maybe somebody can explain it to me as they would a child?

Because it is the trial courts that make factual findings, so it needed to go back to Benitez to see if there are any facts that that might bear on the analysis required by Bruen. I think that we can reasonably assume that Miller's brief will state that there is no evidence that could come anywhere close to satisfying Bruen's THT requirement. And as SkyHawk posted we can hardly wait to see what Bonta pulls out of the B.S. drawer this time...