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

[Bhobbs]

I don’t think there’s the 5 votes to take down AWBs. They didn’t even write a dissent.

[ritter]

I don?t think there?s the 5 votes to take down AWBs. They didn?t even write a dissent.

I think there are. I think they are saying "stop buggin us until you've got a petition for cert ready to go."

[Bhobbs]

I think there are. I think they are saying "stop buggin us until you've got a petition for cert ready to go."

They had Bianchi and punted it.

This isn?t as much about AWBs as it is the rebellion currently under way in the lower courts.

[rplaw]

I think there are. I think they are saying "stop buggin us until you've got a petition for cert ready to go."

I tell people all the time that judges don't live in the real world. This denial of the emergency petition proves it. It's fairly obvious that the court has bought in to the idea that "assault weapons" shouldn't be in the hands of ordinary citizens. Otherwise they'd be defending their decision in Bruen against the laws being passed which abrogate the 2nd amendment almost completely.

The problems as I see it, is that judges work in ivory towers with air conditioning. After work, they ride the air conditioned elevator down to the high security parking air conditioned garage where their air conditioned car awaits. They drive their air conditioned car all the way home, the deeply tinted windows preventing them from seeing what's going on as they drive by at high speed on the freeway to the expensive and exclusive gated residential enclave where they live. They park their air conditioned car in the air conditioned garage and walk straight from the garage into their air conditioned house never once understanding that air conditioning isn't the real world.

The court isn't "conservative" or "liberal." It's a good old boys club of fat cats who will not rock the boat and disturb the money train that supports them and their lifestyles. Which is why they will not intervene in this case or others on an emergency basis until the money dries up. At which point they no longer have to intervene and can turn their eyes to the next overstuffed wallet in the lineup.

[ritter]

I tell people all the time that judges don't live in the real world. This denial of the emergency petition proves it. It's fairly obvious that the court has bought in to the idea that "assault weapons" shouldn't be in the hands of ordinary citizens. Otherwise they'd be defending their decision in Bruen against the laws being passed which abrogate the 2nd amendment almost completely.

The problems as I see it, is that judges work in ivory towers with air conditioning. After work, they ride the air conditioned elevator down to the high security parking air conditioned garage where their air conditioned car awaits. They drive their air conditioned car all the way home, the deeply tinted windows preventing them from seeing what's going on as they drive by at high speed on the freeway to the expensive and exclusive gated residential enclave where they live. They park their air conditioned car in the air conditioned garage and walk straight from the garage into their air conditioned house never once understanding that air conditioning isn't the real world.

The court isn't "conservative" or "liberal." It's a good old boys club of fat cats who will not rock the boat and disturb the money train that supports them and their lifestyles. Which is why they will not intervene in this case or others on an emergency basis until the money dries up. At which point they no longer have to intervene and can turn their eyes to the next overstuffed wallet in the lineup.

Grim assessment. Likely correct, just grim.

[SpudmanWP]

Heller, Caetano, McDonald, and Bruen disagree with that assessment.
SCOTUS has proven that they are conservative.

Add to that several recent rulings against the EPA, etc.

[ddestruel]

i tend to think that SCOTUS likes to see the turmoil, flush out all the crappy arguments that the lower courts play games with. Then they respond with a rebuttal later that they try to stick thier fingers in as many holes as possible.

The Bruen ruling and the court only could answer the questions before it. These other various rulings and responses are reminiscent of Nordyke, Peurta, woolard all over again..... lower court's wanting to put their two cents in, the system getting gummed up and then a ruling that wipes out a fair amount of the games all over.

[Bhobbs]

Has there been 1 pro 2A ruling to come out of a circuit court since Heller? I’m genuinely asking, because I don’t know of any.

Heller, McDonald, Caetano, Bruen have little real world impact and zero legal impact, outside of the narrow issues they addressed.

Edit: I forgot about the 5th on bump stocks. So the only courts that abide by SCOTUS 2A rulings are in areas that already support the 2A.

[AlmostHeaven]

Has there been 1 pro 2A ruling to come out of a circuit court since Heller? I?m genuinely asking, because I don?t know of any.

Heller, McDonald, Caetano, Bruen have little real world impact and zero legal impact, outside of the narrow issues they addressed.

Here is the problem. The circuit courts most likely to rule favorably on the Second Amendment are located in areas where there are no state-level infringements to rule on. This is the problem with our Federal judiciary.

Take a look at the United States Courts of Appeals map.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_Court_of_Appeals_and_District_Court_map.svg

The circuit court most actively conservative, to the point where they ruled to block medication abortion nationally and had to be stayed by the Supreme Court, is the Fifth Circuit. There are no concealed carry restrictions, assault weapons bans, high-capacity magazine bans, red flag laws, or insurance requirements in any of the states located in the Fifth Circuit.

Meanwhile, the places with onerous infringements are located within the jurisdictions of unfriendly circuit courts.

This is why we see so few pro-Second Amendment lower court rulings.

[SpudmanWP]

We here in CA have had several pre-Bruen, even with a 3-Judge panel agreeing here in the 9th.
The problem is that the full panel reversed, even when not asked to do so.

[Bhobbs]

We here in CA have had several pre-Bruen, even with a 3-Judge panel agreeing here in the 9th.
The problem is that the full panel reversed, even when not asked to do so.

That?s my point. Anti gun circuits will never comply.

[SpudmanWP]

And if & when the 9th rules in a way that is grossly inconsistent with Bruen, it will just make the appeal easier.

[Bhobbs]

And if & when the 9th rules in a way that is grossly inconsistent with Bruen, it will just make the appeal easier.

You?re assuming that the supreme court has the same make up it does now and that they even accept search for this case. Not to mention, Benitez still hasn?t even issued his ruling yet, so we are many years away from this even reaching that point.

[Bhobbs]

I’m June 2015, the Supreme Court decided gay marriage was protected and legal nationwide and all states had to accept the license. In September 2015, Kim Davis was arrested for not issue a marriage license to a gay couple.

That’s how fast the system should react. It’s been 11 months since Bruen and no one has been arrested. No one has been punished. It takes years for any resultikn for gun rights but instantaneously for anything else.

[SpudmanWP]

Bruen did not directly say x, y, or z was legal outside that States cannot use "may issue".
They did lay down a set of rules that municipalities needed to follow to justify regulations going forward.
That process necessitates a drawn-out process (basically a trial) where the State has to prove its case.

To local LEOs, it may not be clear enough but we are seeing some examples like in IL where most of the State's Sherriffs told IL to fk off.

When a court, either District, Circuit, or SCOTUS, rules on a clear issue and there is no appeal, you will see officials enforce them.

There is too much up in the air for most of the country right now.