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

[SpudmanWP]

My point was in response to several posters wrongfully complaining that "nothing has changed" and even positing that we were better before Bruen.

Nobody has claimed that it's all flowers & sunshine here in CA from a 2A perspective, but it's a hell of a lot better post-Bruen than pre and getting better every day.

When you have a long-term fight for your rights, you must look at it just like you would a war. There will be battles where some are lost and some are won. The way to judge how it's going is to look at the momentum, which the Pro-2A side is clearly winning, heavily.

[Elgatodeacero]

My point was in response to several posters wrongfully complaining that "nothing has changed" and even positing that we were better before Bruen.

Nobody has claimed that it's all flowers & sunshine here in CA from a 2A perspective, but it's a hell of a lot better post-Bruen than pre and getting better every day.

When you have a long-term fight for your rights, you must look at it just like you would a war. There will be battles where some are lost and some are won. The way to judge how it's going is to look at the momentum, which the Pro-2A side is clearly winning, heavily.

This is the right attitude. we are starting to win, there will be losses and set backs, but the momentum currently belongs to the forces of liberty.

[rplaw]

My point was in response to several posters wrongfully complaining that "nothing has changed" and even positing that we were better before Bruen.

Nobody has claimed that it's all flowers & sunshine here in CA from a 2A perspective, but it's a hell of a lot better post-Bruen than pre and getting better every day.

When you have a long-term fight for your rights, you must look at it just like you would a war. There will be battles where some are lost and some are won. The way to judge how it's going is to look at the momentum, which the Pro-2A side is clearly winning, heavily.

The problem is that we're not winning. You think so and celebrate the decisions which have come down but despite that nothing has changed. In fact it is worse than it was pre-Bruen.

We have SB2 which will go into effect in Jan. The current lawsuit against it only requests part of it be enjoined. If that request is granted the parts which raise training costs, increase training times, require certifications and registrations, and which allow for slow walking the applications, as well as IA discretion on issuance, still remains. That's not "a win" no matter how you look at it. Even if it's later overturned after another DECADE of fighting we're not better off.

In the meantime we have a few thousand who will get approved while millions still have no 2A Rights. Again, that's not "better."

We're also not winning on the public perception front. There's an article about Gretchen Carlson (a devout conservative media personality) who believes that AR's aren't in common use and that we don't need them. If those on our own team don't believe in our cause, we have no chance of "winning."

[SpudmanWP]

There are 2 separate lawsuits vs SB2 so far and the Plaintiffs will undoubtedly amend their complaint as needed.

It's not perfect, but it is "better" than it was.

Odds are Bruen response bills from NY and NJ will get to SCOTUS before CA so I'm not holding my breath for CA to get resolved first.

[rplaw]

This also showed up on my newsfeed this am.

Bearing Arms article

Why is it that no one understands the simple truths in that article? That States cannot regulate our arms because we're required to bring them with us when the militia is called up. We cannot bring arms we don't have so the entire idea of gun bans is anti-Constitutional from the get go.

It's a simple truth that apparently no one in the judiciary understands either. It's not "common use." It has nothing to do with "common use" or "self defense" or anything else. It's that Constitutionally and legally under Federal law, arms are required to be possessed and trained with as part of the national defense.

This isn't just our "Right" it's a mandate. Yet here we are celebrating tiny "wins" which do nothing and think we're getting somewhere. We're not. We're losing. In fact, we've already lost. Most just won't face that fact and few will admit it.

[Oneaudiopro]

This also showed up on my newsfeed this am.

Bearing Arms article

Why is it that no one understands the simple truths in that article? That States cannot regulate our arms because we're required to bring them with us when the militia is called up. We cannot bring arms we don't have so the entire idea of gun bans is anti-Constitutional from the get go.

It's a simple truth that apparently no one in the judiciary understands either. It's not "common use." It has nothing to do with "common use" or "self defense" or anything else. It's that Constitutionally and legally under Federal law, arms are required to be possessed and trained with as part of the national defense.

This isn't just our "Right" it's a mandate. Yet here we are celebrating tiny "wins" which do nothing and think we're getting somewhere. We're not. We're losing. In fact, we've already lost. Most just won't face that fact and few will admit it.

And to add salt to our wounds, Newsome and the legislators can, within days or weeks, pass new anti gun laws and have them on the books. We get a favorable ruling, CA appeals, and we have to wait months, if not years to get it reversed. It's almost like climbing up two rungs and falling down 10. smh

[SpudmanWP]

They can do this "now" because the post-Bruen shenanigans have not been decided so there is some ambiguity in the details surrounding the THT test.

As more get decided, judges will have a better understanding of things like "analogous", the different aspects of the THT test, timeframe, etc.

Will there still be rebellious States & courts after that, sure, but we have a process to deal with them too. Just as when some States rebelled against desegregation & voting rights, States can be brought to heal under the direct management of a Judge in all 2A regulations in a similar fashion.

[GetMeCoffee]

Also, with any newly enacted laws, we have the "status quo" on our side. That's not the case with the AW ban or the LCM (sales) ban. We have seen this work for us in the LCM possession piece of Duncan, and I sure hope we see it in Rhode and SB2. Rhode should be up soon, so perhaps that will be the bellwether.

[CenterX]

the system has a basic flaw - constitutionality should be a step prior to enactment not decades later.

[BAJ475]

The problem is that we're not winning. You think so and celebrate the decisions which have come down but despite that nothing has changed. In fact it is worse than it was pre-Bruen.

We have SB2 which will go into effect in Jan. The current lawsuit against it only requests part of it be enjoined. If that request is granted the parts which raise training costs, increase training times, require certifications and registrations, and which allow for slow walking the applications, as well as IA discretion on issuance, still remains. That's not "a win" no matter how you look at it. Even if it's later overturned after another DECADE of fighting we're not better off.

In the meantime we have a few thousand who will get approved while millions still have no 2A Rights. Again, that's not "better."

We're also not winning on the public perception front. There's an article about Gretchen Carlson (a devout conservative media personality) who believes that AR's aren't in common use and that we don't need them. If those on our own team don't believe in our cause, we have no chance of "winning."

Those who don't believe in our cause are not on our team. And, there are a few winners. We are called Calguns Expatriates! Otherwise, you are correct.

[SpudmanWP]

Unfortunately the Courts, which are in place to enforce Constitutionality, are at the end of the chain. There is no viable way to insert them into the front end when someone falls to the old adage of "absolute power corrupts absolutely" short of a "consent decree" type of situation.

[ar15barrels]

The posted order gives set dates and says that no streamlined continuances will be allowed.
How is that so difficult to understand?
What about the order leads you to believe that the court will accept a request for a continuance and then grant it?

Oh ****, is the 9th circuit following all it's own rules and orders now?
When did this start?

[BAJ475]

Oh ****, is the 9th circuit following all it's own rules and orders now?
When did this start?

While I respect and generally agree with rplaw, you have a point. Too many of the judges on the 9th circuit allow their political views to dictate their legal analysis instead of trying to get it right, which to me is a treasonous violation of their sworn oaths.

[tacticalcity]

Unfortunately the Courts, which are in place to enforce Constitutionality, are at the end of the chain. There is no viable way to insert them into the front end when someone falls to the old adage of "absolute power corrupts absolutely" short of a "consent decree" type of situation.

They also do not usually enforce the Constitution but create new ways to circumvent it. Even the Supreme Court has been hit and miss. And that is when they decide to do their job and hear the case in the first place.

[SpudmanWP]

Oral Arguments set for:
2023-12-08 9:00 am 2nd Floor Courtroom, The Pioneer Courthouse, Portland Oregon

https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/calendar/panel_sittings/812388.html