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

[rewireroy]

Someone else posted something on this,

Thats 41 pages, is there a simple one or two sentence answer? I read ten pages of it and the best Im coming at is regarding upper courts making bad decisions in regards to enumerated rights and thats just if Im understanding it correctly.

[CGZ]

Page 24 footnotes.

"118 Spreading the mandate is the issuance of an order stated and entered on the record
by the district court noting its compliance with the mandate of the appellate court. See
Integrated Computer Sys. Publ'g Co. v. Learning Tree Open Univ., Nos. 93-56656, 94-
55799, 1995 WL 444664, at *3 (9th Cir. July 25, 1995)."

[Flight4]

Found this, page 24 of the linked PDF

https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/defaul...PRO_059248.pdf

Taken at its face, Benitez holds a hearing to "spread the mandate" and within a week enters an order consistent with his earlier judgement with an explanation of how that judgement is consistent with Bruen (as was "mandated" by 9th).

Could it be that straightforward?

Benitez could write:

"As I already said, like the Swiss Army Knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment. Good for both home and battle, the AR-15 is the kind of versatile gun that lies at the intersection of the kinds of firearms protected under District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and United States v Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). Yet, the State of California makes it a crime to have an AR-15 type rifle. Therefore, this Court declares the California statutes to be unconstitutional." "P.S. This finding is consistent with Bruen because it was ALREADY consistent with Heller and Miller, which Bruen upheld. "

Why not?

(State may appeal, but judgement is for the plaintiff, the law is declared unconstitutional.)

[curtisfong]

Why not?

(State may appeal, but judgement is for the plaintiff, the law is declared unconstitutional.)

Presumably, if he wants to make it more durable during the appeals process, he has to give the State plenty of time to make its case before writing such a holding, otherwise the risk is higher that State appeal would succeed. Though, imo, the odds are very much in favor of the State regardless, for obvious reasons.

[Bhobbs]

Presumably, if he wants to make it more durable during the appeals process, he has to give the State plenty of time to make its case before writing such a holding, otherwise the risk is higher that State appeal would succeed. Though, imo, the odds are very much in favor of the State regardless, for obvious reasons.

The en banc panel is corrupt and will rule in favor of the state, no matter the strength of either argument. There is no reason to extend the case because it won't actually impact the validity of his opinion.

[curtisfong]

The en banc panel is corrupt and will rule in favor of the state, no matter the strength of either argument.

I agree this is the single most likely outcome. The question is if a slightly faster loss is better or worse for us, *if* the likelihood is the same either way. I'm not convinced it is worth the extra risk, no matter how small. Maybe.

[ar15barrels]

I agree this is the single most likely outcome. The question is if a slightly faster loss is better or worse for us, *if* the likelihood is the same either way. I'm not convinced it is worth the extra risk, no matter how small. Maybe.

A quicker loss in the 9th is better so we can get on shadow docket with another GVR and maybe even an actual review of the 9th's shady doings so quickly after they are ordered to shape up.
This needs to happen before the court is re-composed.

[robertfchew]

The point remains well made.

I would not fly on an airline that landed safely 99% of the time, if I were simply commuting. The risks don't balance the rewards and I have better options available to travel. But if I were fleeing a war zone where there was a good chance of being killed, then I most certainly would fly out on that airline with the 99% record.

I agree that people's rights are far more important than a game, but that doesn't change anything. The system is still being run by humans, and you cannot remove human frailties from the system just because the consequences are great.

If you don't like baseball, then look at it this way. Even the best cancer doctors don't cure 100% of their patients.

[rplaw]

Does anyone know what the "Spreading the Mandate" docket entry and hearing are ?

Basically, Spreading the Mandate" means that the case isn't over until the District Court which has jurisdiction enters the final order.

It works like this:

• The district court has jurisdiction and hears the case.
• The appeals court hears any appeal. They issue a decision on the appeal and remand the case back to the district court which has jurisdiction.
• That court enters the final judgement on the matter.
• If, as in this case, there's an en banc panel and they issue a decision, they merely remand back to the district court to enter the final judgement on the matter.

Thus; the district court is the court which has jurisdiction until the final judgement is entered. That final judgement comes after the mandate from the higher court sends it back to them.

Benetiz, by setting the "spreading the mandate" hearing, is poking the bear to either crap or get out of the woods.

[Bhobbs]

I agree this is the single most likely outcome. The question is if a slightly faster loss is better or worse for us, *if* the likelihood is the same either way. I'm not convinced it is worth the extra risk, no matter how small. Maybe.

The faster the case gets out of the 9th, the better. What is the extra risk? Do you think the current SCOTUS would change their mind about AWBs because Benitez got fed up?

[jimbo79]

Appeal Mandate Hearing set for 8/29/2022

Aug 24, 2022

NOTICE of Spreading the Mandate: Appeal Mandate Hearing set for 8/29/2022 09:30 AM in Courtroom 5A before Judge Roger T. Benitez. (no document attached) (gxr) (Entered: 08/24/2022)

Main Doc*ument

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.642089/gov.uscourts.casd.642089.128.1.pdf

[ivanimal]

I have no overlords. I don't buy anything in stores so I don't feed the system for taxes. No kids so I don't have the need to keep a safe soft weak society. No need to get food or drink from others when you kmow how to hunt and prepare food, when you've studied what plants to eat and harvest for medicinal purposes. No need for police or firemen. No need for reliance on anyone. Please speak for yourself

Hahahah ban ban ban sounds like the same thing liberals say. As you reflect its all a rigged game, both sides are the same. Lawyers are the ruling class and will keep their fellow class members wealthy and happy.

Just like the war on poverty or any other issue in.society. The ruling class justifies their perpetual growth and prosperity by telling the serfs that we will solve your problem just keep paying us

OK you are in-fantasy land.
Enough.

[abinsinia]

NOTICE re Letter to Hon. Roger T. Benitez by California Gun Rights Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., Gunfighter Tactical, LLC, Wendy Hauffen, James Miller(an individual ), James Miller, PWGG, L.P., Ryan Peterson, Ryan Peterson(an individual ), John Phillips, Neil Rutherford, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee, Second Amendment Foundation, Adrian Sevilla (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Letter to Hon. Roger T. Benitez)(Lee, George) (Entered: 08/25/2022)

There's a docket entry for a love letter to Saint Benitez.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.642089/gov.uscourts.casd.642089.128.0.pdf

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.642089/gov.uscourts.casd.642089.128.1.pdf

Appears related to SB 1327.

[Lanejsl]

There's a docket entry for a love letter to Saint Benitez.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.642089/gov.uscourts.casd.642089.128.0.pdf

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.642089/gov.uscourts.casd.642089.128.1.pdf

Appears related to SB 1327.

Interesting letter. Thank you for sharing. I hope Benitez orders a conference to but the DOJ's feet to the flame. SB 1327 is already having it's desired effect unfortunately.

[Dirtlaw]

Can one judge make a difference? Can one man make a difference? We are encouraged to say, "No" when faced with personal pain and suffering. On the other hand there are some men who are that brave. I believe the Judge here is one of them.