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

[tacticalcity]

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.

They used to promote and exalt other rights, but they've turned that into suppressing the rights they once exalted. Freedom of speech being a key example. When they were in the minority both culturally and politically, they promoted the idea that all viewpoints were valid and worth hearing, and that no speech was free unless all speech was free. Now that they are the cultural and political majority they suppress and even criminalize the expression of views that are not their own. Another example is criminalizing the free exercise of religion in the name of religious tolerance. They've become experts at suppressing freedom in the name of freedom.

[AlmostHeaven]

They used to promote and exalt other rights, but they've turned that into suppressing the rights they once exalted. Freedom of speech being a key example. When they were in the minority both culturally and politically, they promoted the idea that all viewpoints were valid and worth hearing, and that no speech was free unless all speech was free. Now that they are the cultural and political majority they suppress and even criminalize the expression of views that are not their own. Another example is criminalizing the free exercise of religion in the name of religious tolerance. They've become experts at suppressing freedom in the name of freedom.

Nothing demonstrates the sinister authoritarian turn of progressives over the past two decades more clearly than the alarming rise in acceptance of "freedom from" types of invented upside-down rights. Democrats have an entire collection of nebulous abstract concepts, such as freedom from violence, freedom from poverty, freedom from homelessness, and freedom from inequity, which entirely invert the term freedom into a warped cancerous version of itself that actually deems massive expansions of state power and encroachment into individual behaviors as advancing liberty.

[tacticalcity]

Nothing demonstrates the sinister authoritarian turn of progressives over the past two decades more clearly than the alarming rise in acceptance of "freedom from" types of invented upside-down rights. Democrats have an entire collection of nebulous abstract concepts, such as freedom from violence, freedom from poverty, freedom from homelessness, and freedom from inequity, which entirely invert the term freedom into a warped cancerous version of itself that actually deems massive expansions of state power and encroachment into individual behaviors as advancing liberty.

The latest quirk in language is declaring voting for anyone but them, or anything but what they espouse as "a threat to Democracy". As if socialism is Democracy. Another is calling anyone who believes in America's core values an "extremist" while promoting a very radical and extreme agenda themselves. So radical, that 10 years ago no mainstream Democrat would have supported it. It's all very scary stuff. Makes me wonder what nut-ball thing will be considered mainstream 10 years from now.

[Bhobbs]

Orals have been scheduled for January 24th.

[AlmostHeaven]

Which judges have the Ninth Circuit drawn to sit on the 3-judge panel hearing the oral arguments?

I maintain the attitude that having all Democratic-appointed progressive activists would allow for a faster appeal to the Supreme Court rather than deal with another 2 years of en banc purgatory.

[bwiese]

Which judges have the Ninth Circuit drawn to sit on the 3-judge panel hearing the oral arguments?

I maintain the attitude that having all Democratic-appointed progressive activists would allow for a faster appeal to the Supreme Court rather than deal with another 2 years of en banc purgatory.

In some ways, I think you are right - "Fail Forward Faster"!

[Bhobbs]

Which judges have the Ninth Circuit drawn to sit on the 3-judge panel hearing the oral arguments?

I maintain the attitude that having all Democratic-appointed progressive activists would allow for a faster appeal to the Supreme Court rather than deal with another 2 years of en banc purgatory.

An anti gun ruling doesn?t necessarily prevent an en banc hearing, does it?

Can they just stay these cases pending Rahimi?

[7.62mm_fmj]

I maintain the attitude that having all Democratic-appointed progressive activists would allow for a faster appeal to the Supreme Court rather than deal with another 2 years of en banc purgatory.

It seems SCOTUS may not have any interest in addressing an AW ban case. They already ruled on gun bans in Heller, reiterated the test methodology in Bruen, and they GVRed Miller and Duncan. These would have been simple, ten-page rulings if they wanted to settle things once and for all...but they don't seem to want to. Perhaps Judge Thomas isn't confident the marginal judges will concur if one lands in his lap.

[AlmostHeaven]

An anti gun ruling doesn?t necessarily prevent an en banc hearing, does it?

Can they just stay these cases pending Rahimi?

The losing side, in this scenario Second Amendment advocacy groups, would appeal to the Supreme Court instead of requesting en banc review. This would constitute a final judgment and not an interlocutory emergency motion.

[RickD427]

The losing side, in this scenario Second Amendment advocacy groups, would appeal to the Supreme Court instead of requesting en banc review. This would constitute a final judgment and not an interlocutory emergency motion.

^^^Kinda This^^^

Please keep in mind that the "en banc" process was intended to allow a Circuit Court to correct erroneous rulings by a three-judge panel. It is not a regular component of the appellate "Pipeline."

The parties in a case have no right to an "en banc" rehearing. A rehearing is only granted upon a majority vote of the non-recused regular judges of the court and that only occurs after a judge of the court makes a request for their colleagues to vote.

But there is nothing that stops a dissatisfied plaintiff from making a request for a rehearing, with the hope that a judge would make the request to the court. It's just that the effort would be pretty much wasted unless the three-judge panel ruling was really out of line. It's pretty much worse than wasted, since that action would only delay an inevitable Supreme Court review.

The regular exercise of the appellate process is for a party to seek Supreme Court review of a non-favorable Circuit Court decision.

[Sgt Raven]

It seems SCOTUS may not have any interest in addressing an AW ban case. They already ruled on gun bans in Heller, reiterated the test methodology in Bruen, and they GVRed Miller and Duncan. These would have been simple, ten-page rulings if they wanted to settle things once and for all...but they don't seem to want to. Perhaps Judge Thomas isn't confident the marginal judges will concur if one lands in his lap.

SCOTUS GVR'd Duncan. Miller was held by the 9th C-A Chief Judge, pending Bruen, before a 3 Judge panel was empaneled.
The AWB case GVR'd was Bianchi in the 4th C-A.

[AlmostHeaven]

^^^Kinda This^^^

Please keep in mind that the "en banc" process was intended to allow a Circuit Court to correct erroneous rulings by a three-judge panel. It is not a regular component of the appellate "Pipeline."

The parties in a case have no right to an "en banc" rehearing. A rehearing is only granted upon a majority vote of the non-recused regular judges of the court and that only occurs after a judge of the court makes a request for their colleagues to vote.

But there is nothing that stops a dissatisfied plaintiff from making a request for a rehearing, with the hope that a judge would make the request to the court. It's just that the effort would be pretty much wasted unless the three-judge panel ruling was really out of line. It's pretty much worse than wasted, since that action would only delay an inevitable Supreme Court review.

The regular exercise of the appellate process is for a party to seek Supreme Court review of a non-favorable Circuit Court decision.

Correct my understanding if necessary, but I believe that if the Ninth Circuit 3-judge panel issues a final decision upholding the assault weapons ban, the gun rights organization plaintiffs would appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court. If the panel affirms the district court decision and strikes down the laws, the State of California would seek en banc review to further stall and delay.

[Bhobbs]

The losing side, in this scenario Second Amendment advocacy groups, would appeal to the Supreme Court instead of requesting en banc review. This would constitute a final judgment and not an interlocutory emergency motion.

Can?t a judge request an en banc hearing?

[RickD427]

Correct my understanding if necessary, but I believe that if the Ninth Circuit 3-judge panel issues a final decision upholding the assault weapons ban, the gun rights organization plaintiffs would appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court. If the panel affirms the district court decision and strikes down the laws, the State of California would seek en banc review to further stall and delay.

I think that you have a pretty good understanding of the strategy. The loser in a Three-Judge Panel decision normally would move on to seek a Supreme Court review.

But given the political, and practical, considerations here, IMHO, it's more advantageous to Mr. Bonta to seek an en banc rehearing, and that's the likely route that he will take.

Should the Three Judge Panel rule against Mr. Miller, then, also IMHO, his most advantageous course of action would be to seek Supreme Court Review.

[CAL.BAR]

Every day it become clearer than the courts will never secure our rights. Noncompliance is the only way forward.

You bet John Adams. Just remember the "?nglish" are not a 2 month sail away and can be in your living room in 15 minutes.