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

[abinsinia]

I suspect that the parties being California residents, the issue arising under California law, and the decision issuing out of the southern district court, when the Court saw that the attorneys were seeking remote appearances (Zoom) instead of personal appearances (preferred by the Court), they moved the case to the courthouse in So.Cal. to accommodate the parties.

Problem is that it was specifically expedited and that's why it was in Portland and why there was remote requests.. To move the case now we have a clerk it seems who has decided to remove the Judges order to expedite and create a delay which was specifically removed as an option. It doesn't seem like normal behavior.

[TruOil]

Problem is that it was specifically expedited and that's why it was in Portland and why there was remote requests.. To move the case now we have a clerk it seems who has decided to remove the Judges order to expedite and create a delay which was specifically removed as an option. It doesn't seem like normal behavior.

You are correct that the Clerk cannot do that--which means that a judge or judges simply transferred the case. yes, the panel probably changed, but which would you prefer, judges from down in So.Cal. or judges from Portland?

[SpudmanWP]

Problem is that it was specifically expedited and that's why it was in Portland and why there was remote requests.. To move the case now we have a clerk it seems who has decided to remove the Judges order to expedite and create a delay which was specifically removed as an option. It doesn't seem like normal behavior.

There might be something we are missing. Because there is no Courtlistener page for this appeal yet, there may have been a request that we don't know about.

[abinsinia]

There might be something we are missing. Because there is no Courtlistener page for this appeal yet, there may have been a request that we don't know about.

We had this,

NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT on Friday, December 8, 2023 - 09:00 A.M. - PO 2nd Floor Ctrm - Scheduled Location: Portland OR

Then it was motions for remote, and motions of for various attorneys.

Then order filed to change the oral argument date, signed by a clerk in San Diego.

From the pacer docket.

[abinsinia]

You are correct that the Clerk cannot do that--which means that a judge or judges simply transferred the case. yes, the panel probably changed, but which would you prefer, judges from down in So.Cal. or judges from Portland?

We never knew who the judges were. We can infer that something happened because an expedite case suddenly is not expedited any more. The 9th circuit is too corrupt not to wonder what rules they are breaking now.

[AlmostHeaven]

You are correct that the Clerk cannot do that--which means that a judge or judges simply transferred the case. yes, the panel probably changed, but which would you prefer, judges from down in So.Cal. or judges from Portland?

Who cares where the judges are from? The motions panel at least contained a Clinton judge, Bush judge, and Trump judge. Now, perhaps we will get three Obama judges and be completely screwed.

[Bhobbs]

You are correct that the Clerk cannot do that--which means that a judge or judges simply transferred the case. yes, the panel probably changed, but which would you prefer, judges from down in So.Cal. or judges from Portland?

The 3 judge panel is irrelevant because any positive ruling will be immediately obliterated by the en banc. An anti gun ruling may be the only way to avoid the en banc panel.

[ritter]

I've pretty much given up on any meaningful change for the next couple of years.

[ExuberantRaptorZeta]

I've pretty much given up on any meaningful change for the next couple of years.

Next couple of years still seems pretty optimistic.

[Sgt Raven]

Once again WGL has confused the history of Miller with Duncan.

[AlmostHeaven]

Two years for either the Seventh Circuit Illinois or Fourth Circuit Maryland assault weapons case to climb through appeals to the Supreme Court seems reasonable. Bianchi v. Frosh releasing in early 2024 followed by two years for en banc review should be a realistic timetable.

[sparky1979]

Two years for either the Seventh Circuit Illinois or Fourth Circuit Maryland assault weapons case to climb through appeals to the Supreme Court seems reasonable. Bianchi v. Frosh releasing in early 2024 followed by two years for en banc review should be a realistic timetable.

Nothing "reasonable" about taking that long. I think the word you were looking for is "likely "

Sent from my SM-S908U1 using Tapatalk

[AlmostHeaven]

Nothing "reasonable" about taking that long. I think the word you were looking for is "likely"

Indeed, I meant "reasonable" as in reasonable expectation. The Supreme Court should have ruled on the issue of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines years ago.

[Bhobbs]

Just look at how differently gay rights are treated by the courts. Once SCOTUS ruled gay marriage was a right, that was it. No questions asked. Licenses were issued and were accepted nation wide. People that refused to issue licenses were arrested.

The fact we can?t secure an injunction for our rights shows how this is a bias issue.

Miller is a pure common use issue. It?s the Heller test at its core.

Are assault weapons bearable arms? Yes. Are assault weapons in common use? Yes. Then it?s done. No more work needed.

Instead, we have to go through this charade of playing their games and hoping we win. It?s a joke.

[Rickybillegas]

Just look at how differently gay rights are treated by the courts. Once SCOTUS ruled gay marriage was a right, that was it. No questions asked. Licenses were issued and were accepted nation wide. People that refused to issue licenses were arrested.

The fact we can?t secure an injunction for our rights shows how this is a bias issue.

Miller is a pure common use issue. It?s the Heller test at its core.

Are assault weapons bearable arms? Yes. Are assault weapons in common use? Yes. Then it?s done. No more work needed.

Instead, we have to go through this charade of playing their games and hoping we win. It?s a joke.

We are the poor cousin of the bill of rights, because the illuminated people hate us. They promote and exalt almost every right except ours.
It wasn't always so, but it certainly is now.