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

[Ringleader32]

I love how he even has Baghdad Bob in there.

[darkwater34]

California Governor Gelhead has even admitted that he cannot win any of these Anti Second Amendment Cases yet he continues to spew out new Anti Second Amendment Regulations and Laws and spends money fighting these lawsuits. Eventually every legal gun owner in California will be in prison or have left the state for safer pastures.

[Dvrjon]

After what happened with Duncan v. Bonta and the utterly shameless internal machinations, egregiously executed to ensure Second Amendment rights would not prevail in California, successfully completed by the Ninth Circuit, I cannot help but feel pessimistic about this decision having any effect for the next 2 years, let alone in merely 10 days.

The Supreme Court sleeps while We the People in California drown.

The September motions panel had a much better composition for affirming gun rights, but that opportunity has passed. Nonetheless, at least, the Second Amendment plaintiffs still have a nonzero chance of prevailing.

Many of US the People who actually ARE IN California see this as a win. The system is the system, but the rules of play have changed and every step will continue to expose the State?s legal fallacies.

It will be a tortuous exercise for the 9CA to find for Appellants, and if they do, it will be a split en banc decision making it instantly ripe for SCOTUS review.

Take the WIN!

[Bhobbs]

It’s got to be frustrating to put all that work into these rulings, just for them to have no impact on the laws in question.

[AlmostHeaven]

It is my opinion that AWBs are the most egregious example of non compliance with Heller, et. al. Perhaps the wobblers will be convinced. I doubt it, but perhaps. As you say, there's a nonzero chance.

I completely concur. The Supreme Court laid down the in common use for lawful purposes test as the law of the land in June 2008, but for the past 15 years, Democratic states and liberal lower courts have egregiously defied the standard.

[AlmostHeaven]

Many of US the People who actually ARE IN California see this as a win. The system is the system, but the rules of play have changed and every step will continue to expose the State?s legal fallacies.

It will be a tortuous exercise for the 9CA to find for Appellants, and if they do, it will be a split en banc decision making it instantly ripe for SCOTUS review.

Take the WIN!

I will start imagining when the Ninth Circuit does anything other than bolster its 53-0 record of ruling in favor of gun control and against Second Amendment rights.

[BlessedHunter]

Could someone please explain to me in a very detailed judicial explanation the point of granting a 10 day stay?

I read that it's a generally agreed to formality, but what logical basis is there for it?

I understand that an appeal is because the district court issued a decision one of the parties believes was issued incorrectly or wasn't interpreted incorrectly.

But from a procedural standpoint, how does "not* granting a stay become a point of argument for the appeals process? A stay does nothing for the merits of the decision.

If anything, a stay is saying "I believe what I wrote is right, but I hope it's right and here's some time to make sure what I wrote is right."

Why wouldn't you issue a decision and let the appeals court then decide whether it's right or wrong vs. preemptively assuming it's possibly wrong?

Maybe my interpretation of the stay isn't necessarily due to doubt but I'm trying to understand the logic behind it.

[abinsinia]

NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th Circuit as to 175 Order by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, DOJ Bureau of Firearms Director Brent Orick. ( Filing fee $ 505 receipt number ACASDC-18280069.) (Notice of Appeal electronically transmitted to US Court of Appeals.) (Attachments: # 1 Representation Statement)(Echeverria, John) (Entered: 10/19/2023)

Only took a few hours , but California is appealing of course.

[Bhobbs]

The state asked for it, so the traditional thing to do is grant the stay.

Also, it prevents people from getting caught up with illegal rifles, if they convert them before the stay is issued by the 9th.

The downside is we are probably 4-5 years away from any resolution, if SCOTUS decides to take the case.

[Bhobbs]

The state asked for it, so the traditional thing to do is grant the stay.

Also, it prevents people from getting caught up with illegal rifles, if they convert them before the stay is issued by the 9th.

The downside is we are probably 4-5 years away from any resolution, if SCOTUS decides to take the case.

[rplaw]

Only took a few hours , but California is appealing of course.

Interesting, only the notice of appeal and no request for an emergency stay.

[abinsinia]

Interesting, only the notice of appeal and no request for an emergency stay.

There's still work to get there. They have to open the case with the court of appeals, then they file the emergency motion. Maybe it's done already , but the district court docket just has the notice of appeal.

[tenemae]

The state asked for it, so the traditional thing to do is grant the stay.

Which is a massive error. Before Bruen the "traditional" thing to do was interest-balance the second amendment away. That it was traditional didn't make it right. By the Winters test for PI, one has to determine the likelihood of success and any incurred irreparable harms.

Any issue that infringes a core right is automatically an irreparable harm, so the only decision needed is: does this infringe a core right? Benitez has argued in his opinion that AW bans infringes the 2A. So for him to proceed to issue a stay, thus perpetuating an irreparable harm is inane on its face. Which is it?

This opens an argument for the state that there is no irreparable harm and even the district judge acknowledges that. It's ****ing stupid and I wish it would stop

[Sgt Raven]

Chuck Michel & CRPA on Miller.

[rplaw]

Analysis is strong. I like how he highlights that the State is flailing and that they're trying to relitigate issues outside the remand parameters. He really closes the door on their list of laws. I would have like to see a stronger rebuke about how they included a whole bunch of laws outside the ordered boundaries though. Failing to strongly rebuke them means that he'll have to accept it when they do it again in some other case.

The dig where the State apparently left out one law from their extensive list was great. The dismissing of the State's experts was good but I'd have liked to see something which says that although it is proper for an expert to be paid for their testimony, these experts weren't paid so much for their expertise as for their willingness to parrot false facts and debunked narratives. But all in all, it was still a good swift kick to their declarations and opinions.