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

[tacticalcity]

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.

This is not going to stop no matter how the Supreme Court rules. If they even choose to hear it. California does not care. Our state legislators have said on camera and on the record ?California does not care about the Constitution.? Meanwhile activist judges are perfectly fine with eventually getting slapped down by the Supreme Court?a decade later.

Look at our Aw laws. They are a mulilayer mess that will take at least 3 attempts to erase. Each taking several years without a guaranteed outcome. During which time it is a virtual certainty California will just paper over any ruling in our favor with a new law that supposedly complies with the courts ruling but in fact blatantly violates it. Just like they just did with our CCW laws. So even if the court remains conservative, they will just continue to ignore it and then lie with a straight face and say they complied.

[Supersapper]

This is not going to stop no matter how the Supreme Court rules. If they even choose to hear it. California does not care. Our state legislators have said on camera and on the record ?California does not care about the Constitution.? Meanwhile activist judges are perfectly fine with eventually getting slapped down by the Supreme Court?a decade later.

Look at our Aw laws. They are a mulilayer mess that will take at least 3 attempts to erase. Each taking several years without a guaranteed outcome. During which time it is a virtual certainty California will just paper over any ruling in our favor with a new law that supposedly complies with the courts ruling but in fact blatantly violates it. Just like they just did with our CCW laws. So even if the court remains conservative, they will just continue to ignore it and then lie with a straight face and say they complied.

It was briefly talked about, but at some point SCOTUS will need to grow a spine and step on subordinate court's necks and issue some sort of edict about all of this. I'm not fully expert on the Constitution, but there has to be a process for SCOTUS to see this sort of recalcitrance and halt it and by that I mean they need to walk down there and deliver some sort of pride destroying, glasses off the face, hat off the head, open handed b**** slap that brings the 9CA and this state into line.

If not, they will soon become irrelevant and useless which would be the end of rights in this country.

[AlmostHeaven]

The simple reality is that the Supreme Court consists of only nine humans, and although Republican presidents appointed two-thirds of the members, only three have demonstrated a strong uncompromising adherence to originalism. The high court therefore essentially has a 3-3-3 composition.

Everyone lamenting about why SCOTUS has not commanded this or ordered that should learn the individual viewpoints and nuances of each Justice.

[SWalt]

This is not going to stop no matter how the Supreme Court rules. If they even choose to hear it. California does not care. Our state legislators have said on camera and on the record ?California does not care about the Constitution.? Meanwhile activist judges are perfectly fine with eventually getting slapped down by the Supreme Court?a decade later.

Look at our Aw laws. They are a mulilayer mess that will take at least 3 attempts to erase. Each taking several years without a guaranteed outcome. During which time it is a virtual certainty California will just paper over any ruling in our favor with a new law that supposedly complies with the courts ruling but in fact blatantly violates it. Just like they just did with our CCW laws. So even if the court remains conservative, they will just continue to ignore it and then lie with a straight face and say they complied.

Ok, I erased what I wrote and just point to this^^^.

Ohh....and blame the voters of this State for electing our "leaders".

That is all.

[SpudmanWP]

If States continue to abuse our 2A rights once clear rulings have happened, that will open them up to lawsuits that will take money out of their pockets. This happened with desegregation and voting rights cases. The Constitution gives us the tools to make them accountable, it just takes time. The worse they get, the more rope they are using to hang themselves.

[morthrane]

The leadership of 9 CA appears to play fast-and-loose with the rules.

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

"The code is more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules."

If States continue to abuse our 2A rights once clear rulings have happened, that will open them up to lawsuits that will take money out of their pockets. This happened with desegregation and voting rights cases. The Constitution gives us the tools to make them accountable, it just takes time. The worse they get, the more rope they are using to hang themselves.

"their pockets"? Just who do you think is providing the pockets in the first place?

Qualified immunity laughs at your Constitution.

[Sgt Raven]

The more crap they pile up in new laws, the faster it all gets shot down in the end. Their Hissy Fit new laws will lead to a bigger wider beat down.

[Bhobbs]

If States continue to abuse our 2A rights once clear rulings have happened, that will open them up to lawsuits that will take money out of their pockets. This happened with desegregation and voting rights cases. The Constitution gives us the tools to make them accountable, it just takes time. The worse they get, the more rope they are using to hang themselves.

How many desegregation rulings from SCOTUS did it take? Heller was 15 years ago. The lower courts aren?t waiting for clarification. They have zero intent to comply.

[SpudmanWP]

Qualified immunity laughs at your Constitution.

You have that reversed. QI gets set aside all the time where there is clear intent to violate civil rights.

How many desegregation rulings from SCOTUS did it take? Heller was 15 years ago. The lower courts aren't waiting for clarification. They have zero intent to comply.

SCOTUS did take too long between Heller and Bruen and we'll have to see how they handle the first wave of Post-Bruen "response" bills to definitively say what we can expect going forward. As far as lower courts, they are swinging pro-2A for the most part so they get it. One need not look any further than Grewsome's proposed amendment to understand that he sees the writing on the wall.

[ExuberantRaptorZeta]

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

https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/calenda...gs/812388.html

I thought there were supposed to be 3 written briefs in November, starting with the state's on 11/9. What is the difference with the oral arguments?

[SpudmanWP]

IANAL but maybe orals come first and the filed briefs are used to add details, oppose items brought up by the other side etc.

btw, The scheduling URL changed (ffs) and the new one is:

https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/calendar/monthly_sittings/127589.html

Also, I noticed that they are only giving 20 minutes per side. Seems kind of low of low for a foundational 2A case.

[Dvrjon]

Sir, first you claim I do not read; then you claim I am ignorant; now you slide to ad hominem attacks. Truly pitiful.

I do not believe anything in the court order will happen until it happens. Such is the Tao of the 9 CA.

What you believe is irrelevant to the words in the order.

I'm also not entirely positive that there's enough time in the briefing schedule to allow for a formal motion for a continuance. I don't even think that a joint motion for a continuance will fly at this point. Nor would I expect plaintiffs to agree to one as it would only cause untimely delay for no purpose to plaintiff's or their counsel of record.

Got it. What I think is irrelevant, but what YOU think and expect is pure gold. The arrogance is incredible.

If you don't like what I post, there's an ignore feature built into the software. Amazingly you can actually use the feature and put me on a formal ignore list, or just fake it. Either way the end result is the same.

Pointless, because others will call you out on this issue and it will still show up on my feed.

Oh. Look:

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.

(Thanks, Gents. I truly wish I had planned that^.)

[1911su16b870]

IANAL but maybe orals come first and the filed briefs are used to add details, oppose items brought up by the other side etc.

btw, The scheduling URL changed (ffs) and the new one is:

https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/calendar/monthly_sittings/127589.html

Also, I noticed that they are only giving 20 minutes per side. Seems kind of low of low for a foundational 2A case.

20 minutes seems a reasonable time for appellants to argue how Judge Benitez failed to follow law (Heller/NYSRPA) and or procedure thereby invalidating the end result. Plaintiffs will only need to affirm law and procedure.

IMHO Benitez has expertly applied law and procedure. The merits of the case have been decided and any judge who faithfully applies law and checks correct procedure followed would find against appellants.

[rplaw]

Got it. What I think is irrelevant,

What you think is indeed irrelevant in all possible ways and connotations.

The 9th isn't going to go against it's own orders. To believe it will is to also believe that the Duncan en banc ruling is without effect and that the lower courts can and will freely disregard it.

Which is basically the dumbest thing I can think of anyone believing given the facts of the decision here in Miller which adhere to the en banc decision in Duncan. That we believe the Duncan en banc came to the wrong decision given the ruling in Bruen doesn't change how the lower courts are required to obey the en banc panel.

Which in this case means the motions panel ruling that streamlined continuances are denied and the hearing will be scheduled in December is what is relevant, not your opinion to the contrary.

Point of fact; the hearing is currently set for Dec 8th in Portland. (Why the heck are California cases being heard in Portland instead of SF?) Which totally defeats everything you're saying.

but what YOU think and expect is pure gold.

Of course it is. If by "gold" what you really mean is "rhodium."

[rplaw]

20 minutes seems a reasonable time for appellants to argue how Judge Benitez failed to follow law (Heller/NYSRPA) and or procedure thereby invalidating the end result. Plaintiffs will only need to affirm law and procedure.

IMHO Benitez has expertly applied law and procedure. The merits of the case have been decided and any judge who faithfully applies law and checks correct procedure followed would find against appellants.

The problem is the en banc decision asserting that the State will likely prevail based on interest balancing. This means that interest balancing is still the test in the 9th unless and until the SCOTUS once again says it isn't.

That Bruen is a higher case than Duncan's en banc is irrelevant to the appeals panel. The issue of conflicting higher decisions is something for SCOTUS to handle and not the lower courts which are subject to the directive in the Duncan en banc decision which is more recent than Bruen. The panel cannot do an end run around that by citing to Bruen since the en banc decided that Bruen isn't enough to defeat interest balancing. That we believe it's a wrong decision doesn't change the requirement of the Miller panel to obey. That the Duncan en banc failed to obey Bruen is also irrelevant to the Miller panel's duty to obey.

What is required is for Duncan to request cert and have it granted by the SCOTUS which then immediately GVR's the Duncan en banc decision in the strongest terms possible before the Miller panel decision is made. Otherwise, Miller will follow Duncan's en banc sometime next spring. If Miller somehow doesn't obey the en banc mandate then there will be another en banc to overturn their decision.

In the end the only conclusion possible is that we cannot prevail until SCOTUS grows a spine and enforces its orders. The 9th is in open rebellion and until they are brought to heel their decisions are binding on the lower courts within the circuit. Those decisions mandate interest balancing and Miller cannot overcome that. Arguing Bruen will not alter anything and is a losing strategy at this point in time.