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

[SpudmanWP]

SCOTUS will only step in to protect government interests. Anyone expecting them to step in to protect our rights is lying to themselves.

You are aware that both Heller and Bruen were them "stepping in" and deciding a case instead of simply reversing an order and sending it back, right?

They also recently told the 2nd or 3rd Circuit that while they could continue with the case as-is, they had to expedite it and if they did not, the plaintiffs could come back to SCOTUS.

This is one of the reasons why the detail and depth of Benitez's ruling are so important. It forces the State to come up with BS reasons to appeal which are more likely to draw the ire of SCOTUS. Case in point, the opening complaint in the Miller Stay is that Benitez did not use "common use for self-defense" in the "presumptively protected" stage of the Bruen test. This is not a simple misreading of a historical analog, but a gross misapplication of the Bruen standard. These types of shinanigans are what draw the ire of SCOTUS.

[LEAD LAUNCHER]

Wow....our 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is literally owned and operated by the Leftist run State of California. We live in a Banana Republic. Not just an edgy phrase-but for real.

These Courts exist only to give the illusion of a properly running and fair system as things are supposed to be.

I know....insert Captain Obvious meme here....

Since the SC will do Jack sheet about this... I guess I'll just go back to complying (or not complying).

Are we at the 4th box yet or does anyone still think...

"So You're Telling Me There's A Chance?"

[AlmostHeaven]

Does anyone have an actual link to the text of the latest stay?

ORDER FILED. William A. FLETCHER, Consuelo M. CALLAHAN, Mark J. BENNETT In light of this court's published order granting a stay in Duncan v. Bonta, 83 F.4th 803, 805'06 (9th Cir. 2023) (en banc) (concluding that the attorney general of California is likely to succeed on the merits and has shown that California will be irreparably harmed absent a stay), and the similarities between Duncan and this case, we grant appellants' motion (Docket Entry No. 6) and administratively stay the district court's October 19, 2023 permanent injunction and judgment. In granting an administrative stay, we do not intend to constrain the merits panel's consideration of the merits of this appeal in any way. The administrative stay shall remain in effect until the merits panel decides the appeal or issues an order lifting the stay. We sua sponte expedite this appeal. The opening brief is due November 9, 2023. The answering brief is due November 22, 2023. The optional reply brief is due November 29, 2023. No streamlined extensions of time will be approved. See 9th Cir. R. 31-2.2(a)(1). The Clerk will place this appeal on the calendar for December 2023. See 9th Cir. Gen. Ord. 3.3(g).

CALLAHAN, Circuit Judge, dissenting in part: I would deny appellants' motion for a stay pending appeal. I do not believe we are bound by the published order in Duncan v. Bonta, 83 F.4th 803 (9th Cir. 2023), and I do not believe appellants have otherwise met their burden of showing a likelihood of success on the merits or that they will suffer irreparable injury absent a stay. I concur in the order insofar as it expedites this appeal. [Entered: 10/28/2023 09:07 AM]

[SpudmanWP]

It looks like Courtlistener does not have a section for items that come before the Motions Panel. Time for a Feature Request

[aboof]

Well, at least we now know how Bennett will be on 2A cases. Very bad appointment on Trump's part.

Bennett screw us. Mark him down as anti gun.

I already had him down as anti in my tracker. His nomination was at a time when the senate still honored a process called 'blue slipping' which allowed a nominee's home state US senators to reject a nomination. In other words, Trump knew that the GOP senators would not vote to confirm a nominee who Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer disapproved of, and we all know that those two weren't going to approve of a pro-2A judge. After Bennett, the GOP stopped honoring the blue-slip process.

[BlessedHunter]

I was expecting the Bush appointee to be on the fence........

Not the Trump appointeee.

[bigstick61]

Bennett screw us. Mark him down as anti gun.

I'm not surprised. He was a bad pick from the beginning and was chosen for political reasons by Trump; he wasn't a recommendation from the Federalist Society or anything like that.

[BlessedHunter]

Also, as a side question, let's assume that Bennett sided with us.

Could CA have appealed the denial of stay to an en banc panel?

[Chewy65]

The part expediting the hearing on the merits got my attention. To be calendared for hearing in December this year and no streamlined extensions of time for briefing will be approved.

[troyPhD]

Anger at open corruption is not blind range. Anger that SCOTUS isn?t protecting our rights isn?t blind range.

The person I responded to is expecting SCOTUS to step in by end of year and reverse the 9th within 100 days after that. I would say that's an example of "blind rage" leading to unrealistic expectations in the real world, and sets that person up for further emotional distress from future disappointment. It's just not productive to live in a fantasy world.

[Bhobbs]

You are aware that both Heller and Bruen were them "stepping in" and deciding a case instead of simply reversing an order and sending it back, right?

They also recently told the 2nd or 3rd Circuit that while they could continue with the case as-is, they had to expedite it and if they did not, the plaintiffs could come back to SCOTUS.

This is one of the reasons why the detail and depth of Benitez's ruling are so important. It forces the State to come up with BS reasons to appeal which are more likely to draw the ire of SCOTUS. Case in point, the opening complaint in the Miller Stay is that Benitez did not use "common use for self-defense" in the "presumptively protected" stage of the Bruen test. This is not a simple misreading of a historical analog, but a gross misapplication of the Bruen standard. These types of shinanigans are what draw the ire of SCOTUS.

No, they didn't step in. They allowed the violation of our rights to continue as the shenanigans emboldened other shenanigans. The state didn't have to come up with any BS. Everyone here knew exactly what they would say and that it would work. The 9th is never going to embrace the 2nd amendment. Taking a gun case once very 15 years is not defending the 2nd amendment. Denying every single emergency request to stop blatantly unconstitutional laws is not defending the 2nd amendment. Granting stays to protected unconstitutional laws is not defending the 2nd amendment.

The anti gun judges are dismantling Bruen the same way they dismantled Heller with the "two step analysis" and SCOTUS is allowing it to happen.

Since Heller, our rights in California have gone backwards. We are actively losing ground. We can't purchase common magazines. We can't purchase common rifles. We can't purchase common pistols. We have to pass a background check for ammo. Starting January 1st, we can't carry concealed weapons.

The time for ire from SCOTUS was 15 years ago. The time for action is now. Instead, they still believe lower courts just need more guidance.

[AlmostHeaven]

People confused why a Trump appointee holds anti-gun views should read this Wikipedia article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_slip_(U.S._Senate)

[Sgt Raven]

I already had him down as anti in my tracker. His nomination was at a time when the senate still honored a process called 'blue slipping' which allowed a nominee's home state US senators to reject a nomination. In other words, Trump knew that the GOP senators would not vote to confirm a nominee who Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer disapproved of, and we all know that those two weren't going to approve of a pro-2A judge. After Bennett, the GOP stopped honoring the blue-slip process.

You realize Harris replaced Boxer Jan 3, 2017, before Trump was sworn in, don't you?

[aboof]

You realize Harris replaced Boxer Jan 3, 2017, before Trump was sworn in, don't you?

Same difference for the purpose of this conversation.

[USMCmatt]

No, they didn't step in. They allowed the violation of our rights to continue as the shenanigans emboldened other shenanigans. The state didn't have to come up with any BS. Everyone here knew exactly what they would say and that it would work. The 9th is never going to embrace the 2nd amendment. Taking a gun case once very 15 years is not defending the 2nd amendment. Denying every single emergency request to stop blatantly unconstitutional laws is not defending the 2nd amendment. Granting stays to protected unconstitutional laws is not defending the 2nd amendment.

The anti gun judges are dismantling Bruen the same way they dismantled Heller with the "two step analysis" and SCOTUS is allowing it to happen.

Since Heller, our rights in California have gone backwards. We are actively losing ground. We can't purchase common magazines. We can't purchase common rifles. We can't purchase common pistols. We have to pass a background check for ammo. Starting January 1st, we can't carry concealed weapons.

The time for ire from SCOTUS was 15 years ago. The time for action is now. Instead, they still believe lower courts just need more guidance.