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

[BAJ475]

The Sullivan act, in and of itself, was not the problem that lead up to Bruen. It was the abuse of it that did. Some states started as "may issue", but they were reasonable about it and did not raise the ire of SCOTUS. Along [the] way they even went "shall issue" and "permitless carry" all on their own.
NY took it too far which gave us Bruen.

Thank you NY!

Prior to Bruen the Judicial system did not have clear & concise instructions on how to rule on 2A issues.

Shall not be infringe is/was not clear enough?

As we have seen post-Bruen (largely due to Bruen "response" bills), there have been well over a hundred 2A suits that have, for the most part, been winning handily in court. Even the "losses" have been temporary.

This is why I call it a 2ATidalWave, because it is wiping clear the landscape of fascist [Marxist] state & local laws. It will take at least a year for all the dust to settle, but this is a truly historic time to be part of the 2A community.

I agree, it is a truly historic time. But I am still keeping my powder dry.

[SpudmanWP]

Shall not be infringe is/was not clear enough?

Clearly it was not. The reason is that the word "infringe" has a specific meaning in the context of when the 2nd was written. Language changes and another part of the 2nd is a clear example of that. The "well-regulated" part is the most misunderstood part of the 2nd amendment.

In today's parlance, it means things like restrictions, limitations, and micromanaged. However, in the time of its writing, it meant well-trained, well-funded, supplied, etc.

In that same context, we must look at "infringed". At the time it was akin to saying "illegally restricted" or "overly restricted" rather than "not restricted at all" which so many today try to make it mean. This is the same scope that SCOTUS used in Bruen in their reliance on historical laws from the founding era. In their mind, if the founders said "shall not be infringed" but still allowed a particular restriction, then that restriction must not have been an infringement.

[Sgt Raven]

The modern era of shall issue CCW permits started in Georgia in 1976. So that should be our starting point. As for gun rights, people started waking up in the Seventies. Before that it was the death of a thousand cuts.



Popularity of modern military style firearms came about in the late Seventies into the Eighties. Lots of people don't know that it was gun people who started using the term "Assault Weapons", to describe a class of firearms that looked like the military firearms of the times. The only thing these firearms were missing was full auto. The gun grabbers were reading our magazines and listening to us talk. The by name ban lists came right out of the ads in the Shotgun News and such. The real popularity of AR/AK firearms was after the 1994 Clinton AWB. Gun owners in general woke up and started wondering, what are these Assault Weapons all about? Then they found out that they are kinda fun to shoot.

[SpudmanWP]

I found this, but it starts in 1986 and has been updated through this year.

[Bhobbs]

Laws respecting 2A protected rights have been increasing in the last few decades, not decreasing. Just look at any "Permitless Carry" map if you need proof. Heller, Caetano, Bruen, etc have been taking chunks out of state's backsides in their attempt to infringe on our rights. This whole post-Bruen spat of "response" bills are just that, a baby throwing a fit. They won't and have not been lasting. Given the Duncan & Bianchi GVRs, those issues have already been decided as far as SCOTUS is concerned and when they make their way back, SCOTUS will rule accordingly. Expect several Caetano-like per-curiam decisions over the next few years, especially on BS like "magazines are not arms", "pistol grips, forends, & optics are not arms", etc.

I don't know why you say "you guys may be willing to risk" as we do not have any direct influence on what the courts do outside of electing leaders that will be appointing the judges. Again, this is what I think Trump will be most known for in the annals of history.

About the only thing that you can directly do is file civil rights cases against politicians & courts. Hey, it's your money.

Those laws are at the state level. They are not the result of court cases.

Heller, Caetano and Bruen have had limited to no real world impact. Bruen may have some impact, given enough time, but we have to wait and see how it plays out. The response to those response bills has been mediocre. Some have been stopped, some have been allowed to carry on and some have been supported by lower courts.

Yes, Duncan and Bianchi were GVRd by the current court. As Heller shows, that will not last. All it takes is one Justice to die or step down and any advance of gun rights will stop.

Clearly, we don't have individiual impacts on court cases. This is just us debating. I don't understand the desire to slow walk this. The other side doesn't slow walk anything. They directly challenge the authority of the court and their judges will make up any standard they want, just like they made up the two step test and used it to reduce Heller to the point of it being useless. If SCOTUS doesn't protect Bruen, the same thing will happen.

[newbieLA]

SCOTUS gave them a chance to make good decisions based on Heller but since they couldn't help themselves, Bruen.

As others have said, Trump's greatest contribution to the history of the US will be the 3 judges he appointed to SCOTUS.

Agree. especially given the fact that nearly the rest of our institutions have fallen including most of the district and federal courts

[NorCalBusa]

I found this, but it starts in 1986 and has been updated through this year.

Have you verified that to be accurate?

[Drivedabizness]

The Sullivan act, in and of itself, was not the problem that lead up to Bruen. It was the abuse of it that did. Some states started as "may issue", but they were reasonable about it and did not raise the ire of SCOTUS. Along eth way they even went "shall issue" and "permitless carry" all on their own.

NY took it too far which gave us Bruen.

Prior to Bruen the Judicial system did not have clear & concise instructions on how to rule on 2A issues. As we have seen post-Bruen (largely due to Bruen "response" bills), there have been well over a hundred 2A suits that have, for the most part, been winning handily in court. Even the "losses" have been temporary.

This is why I call it a 2ATidalWave, because it is wiping clear the landscape of fascist state & local laws. It will take at least a year for all the dust to settle, but this is a truly historic time to be part of the 2A community.

Perhaps because supposed "constitutional scholars" like Barry Sotero opined that the 2A meant different things in different States - according to their needs. Like slavery, Progressives view "rights" as policy choices they can grant or deny.

Our system, at its core, is designed to be the guarantor of our Liberty. Judges would do well to remember that at first glance - "how does this uphold liberty?"

[SpudmanWP]

Have you verified that to be accurate?

I'd start with the wiki and follow the trail from there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_concealed_carry_in_the_United_States

[Drivedabizness]

Anyone who claims CA is "Shall Issue" is simply mistaken

[SpudmanWP]

Anyone who claims CA is "Shall Issue" is simply mistaken

I got mine last fall. Granted, I live in Riverside County.

While we still have some ******* foot-dragging departments & counties, the state as a whole si a shall-issue state.

[Drivedabizness]

I applied in Solano in August. Interviewed in October. Still haven't heard a peep (and I had a Sac County CCW for 8 years before that - my background should have been cake).

Shall Issue means just that. Walk in, get checked and, if you qualify under objective criteria, get your license quickly and at reasonable/minimal expense.

Even in Counties that "issue", MANY do NOT meet that simple criteria, as laid out in Bruen.

[Mayor McRifle]

Shall Issue means just that. Walk in, get checked and, if you qualify under objective criteria, get your license quickly and at reasonable/minimal expense.

Even in Counties that "issue", MANY do NOT meet that simple criteria, as laid out in Bruen.

Can you cite where in the Bruen opinion that definition of “shall issue” is laid out?

[SpudmanWP]

ewwww

I am assuming that it's BS leaking from the bay.

What does your coordinator say?

[Sgt Raven]

I applied in Solano in August. Interviewed in October. Still haven't heard a peep (and I had a Sac County CCW for 8 years before that - my background should have been cake).

Shall Issue means just that. Walk in, get checked and, if you qualify under objective criteria, get your license quickly and at reasonable/minimal expense.

Even in Counties that "issue", MANY do NOT meet that simple criteria, as laid out in Bruen.

In its core.

Shall Issue is based on Objective reasons.
May Issue is based on Subjective reasons.
How much it costs and how long it takes, to be reasonable, has not been set at this point.