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

[BAJ475]

I'd love to see the legal beagles weigh in on this notion: these constant judicial shenanigans seem ripe for being codified as bad behavior by Federal judges and therefore removal from office. You want to be an independent jurist - great. But don't F it up on purpose because you can't bear to uphold the laws.

Would seem that a billy could not be especially dangerous or unusual as a matter of common knowledge.

[Metal God]

FWIW that lawyer was the plaintiffs lawyer ( our side ) . He didn’t say this but I’d think an example of his theory would be carrying a chainsaw down the street while revving it. It’s dangerous and unusual in that it would be pretty damn scary to be anywhere around someone wielding that kind of weapon and yet chainsaws them selves are not regulated in any way .

IMHO , I think it’s an interesting argument that isn’t completely out of line . It also helps if excepted to allow full auto weapons because even when carried under that theory they would not be unusual ;-) haha

EDIT .

Actually the more I think about it and that this is regarding banning billy clubs . He argument may be hey billy club is not unusual like open carrying a samurai sword or Alibaba sword . I don’t know but the more I think of that specific case I understand his argument more now .

[bwiese]

An acquaintance of an acquaintance was charged/convicted related to that
exact action (I'm unclear what the actual crime charged was).

One dude was doing something irritating across the street, and Charged Party
raised his Stihl /pointed it toward him/ revved it.

(Hell, it could have just been Disturbing the Peace.)

As I recall he did not become a prohibited person.

[wchutt]

[Metal God]

Here are some relevant articles or papers regarding early gun/arms restrictions .

I'm currently in the process of getting these to each of the plaintiff's lawyers even though it's unlikely they don't have them already . I feel these are relevant writings that go to the core of the current order from the judge . Notice how many of our current laws use the same reasoning minus the overt racial overtones .

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/12/14/did-the-fourteenth-amendment-alter-the-meaning-of-the-second-amendment/

https://www.sedgwickcounty.org/media/29094/the-racist-roots-of-gun-control.pdf

https://harvardlawreview.org/2022/06/racist-gun-laws-and-the-second-amendment/

[NorCalBusa]

Dude, you just referenced yourself thinking about it 27 times...

[Metal God]

Dude, you just referenced yourself thinking about it 27 times...

LMAO , just stop me when I start referring to my self in the 5th person

[Metal God]

I could only get through about half way through the Harvard law review . I'm not buying there argument that the anti's can still use racist laws from the past because they were banning dangerous or unvirtuous people which is basically the same thing as banning felons or mentally ill people nowadays . What the hell is that kind of argument , I'll tell you - IT'S RACIST !!!! I'd love for the state to make that argument . OMG there is NOTHING in your skin color that indicates how unvirtuous or dangerous one might be and to think so is the very definition of racism . Anyone trying to compare banning someone based on there skin color or social status and someone proven to be a danger to society is comparing IDK apples to skyscrapers ??? Trying to argue we'll just take out the "backs can't" part and just add "anyone who" because it's basically the same thing is ridiculous . Oh please PLEASE have the state make that argument .

I wish I had the vocabulary to make my point stronger , I just know what that sure looks like to me .

[eaglemike]

I could only get through about half way through the Harvard law review . I'm not buying there argument that the anti's can still use racist laws from the past because they were banning dangerous or unvirtuous people which is basically the same thing as banning felons or mentally ill people nowadays . What the hell is that kind of argument , I'll tell you - IT'S RACIST !!!! I'd love for the state to make that argument . OMG there is NOTHING in your skin color that indicates how unvirtuous or dangerous one might be and to think so is the very definition of racism . Anyone trying to compare banning someone based on there skin color or social status and someone proven to be a danger to society is comparing IDK apples to skyscrapers ??? Trying to argue we'll just take out the "backs can't" part and just add "anyone who" because it's basically the same thing is ridiculous . Oh please PLEASE have the state make that argument .

I wish I had the vocabulary to make my point stronger , I just know what that sure looks like to me .

Winkler isn't the guy we want to influence these decisions, IMHO. He's been referenced here on CG at times in the past. As I read his stuff, he's not objective, although he wants people to think he is. He references the power of the legislatures, but doesn't say they are limited by the US Constitution and BOR anywhere that I saw. Maybe I missed it? I started getting a headache reading his stuff.

[Metal God]

Agreed but good to read for the possible arguments the state may bring up . If he believes that way of thinking others do as well .

[NorCalBusa]

LMAO , just stop me when I start referring to my self in the 5th person

Attaboy!

[wchutt]

I'm currently in the process of getting these to each of the plaintiff's lawyers even though it's unlikely they don't have them already . I feel these are relevant writings that go to the core of the current order from the judge . Notice how many of our current laws use the same reasoning minus the overt racial overtones .

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/12/14/did-the-fourteenth-amendment-alter-the-meaning-of-the-second-amendment/

https://www.sedgwickcounty.org/media/29094/the-racist-roots-of-gun-control.pdf

https://harvardlawreview.org/2022/06...ond-amendment/

[Drivedabizness]

Winkler isn't the guy we want to influence these decisions, IMHO. He's been referenced here on CG at times in the past. As I read his stuff, he's not objective, although he wants people to think he is. He references the power of the legislatures, but doesn't say they are limited by the US Constitution and BOR anywhere that I saw. Maybe I missed it? I started getting a headache reading his stuff.

Winkler is no friend of the 2A. NEVER forget.

[Bhobbs]

I could only get through about half way through the Harvard law review . I'm not buying there argument that the anti's can still use racist laws from the past because they were banning dangerous or unvirtuous people which is basically the same thing as banning felons or mentally ill people nowadays . What the hell is that kind of argument , I'll tell you - IT'S RACIST !!!! I'd love for the state to make that argument . OMG there is NOTHING in your skin color that indicates how unvirtuous or dangerous one might be and to think so is the very definition of racism . Anyone trying to compare banning someone based on there skin color or social status and someone proven to be a danger to society is comparing IDK apples to skyscrapers ??? Trying to argue we'll just take out the "backs can't" part and just add "anyone who" because it's basically the same thing is ridiculous . Oh please PLEASE have the state make that argument .

I wish I had the vocabulary to make my point stronger , I just know what that sure looks like to me .

[SpudmanWP]

I would say that is true for the rabid, anti-gun judges. Thankfully a lot of judges, even ones appointed by Obama, Biden, etc, are applying Heller/Bruen correctly as we have recently seen in CO, NY, etc.