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

[abinsinia]

In the Benitez court California argued that assault weapons are no different from featureless rifles except additional plastic.

Now they are going hard that assault weapons are extremely deadly, and they have explosive bullets.

[Librarian]

"dangerous [or] unusual"

"not in common use for self defense"

"X are not even considered arms"

"does not even fall under the second amendment at all because..."

"especially dangerous/deadly"

"public safety"


These are some of my personal favorites in all the recent anti-2A briefs in different circuits. Can't wait to see all of these in various forms in this opening brief from CA. [shakes head and rolls eyes]

Time for Bingo? https://bingobaker.com/

[Oneaudiopro]

These liberal anti-gun attorneys need to go back to school and take an English 101 course! Bruen and Heller stated "In common use for LAWFUL PURPOSES" NOT In common use for self defense! Sorry, I have a difficult time dealing with "stupid" smh

[AlmostHeaven]

In the Benitez court California argued that assault weapons are no different from featureless rifles except additional plastic.

Now they are going hard that assault weapons are extremely deadly, and they have explosive bullets.

Anti-gun lawyers say and write whatever gets them closer to the objective of civilian disarmament, without regard for consistency, logic, or precedent.

[rplaw]

Anti-gun lawyers say and write whatever gets them closer to the objective of civilian disarmament, without regard for consistency, logic, or precedent.

The problem is that the courts have consistently looked the other way in this regard.

If someone continually misstates the law, then they are subject to being sanctioned. This isn't the same as arguing that the law says one thing and not the other while the courts determine the issue, it's where an attorney misstates the law intentionally in order to try and make a frivolous argument sound reasonable.

The State is engaging in this type of advocacy every time they assert that they can regulate the RKBA on the basis of "not commonly used in self defense." It is a knowing and deliberate falsehood perpetrated upon the court.

[Bhobbs]

I was not aware of this. I wonder what other things I will learn in this brief.

Some rounds fired by the AR and AK would tumble. 55 grain 5.56 through a 12 twist barrel and 53 grain 5.54 do tumble.

[WithinReason]

Anti-gun lawyers say and write whatever gets them closer to the objective of civilian disarmament, without regard for consistency, logic, or precedent.

Agreed. I do think the anti-gun lawyers say things to evoke an emotional response. They do not want people (judges) thinking with their rational minds.

Fight or flight emotional thinking bypasses the frontal cortex. If they can evoke fear, some people will simply ignore the facts.

[BobB35]

From the filing

In applying that concept to determine whether a weapon is within the scope
of the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court has examined the objective
characteristics of the weapon. And the assault weapons at issue here are defined
by tactical and combat-oriented features that make them especially lethal as
offensive weapons, but ill-suited for ?ordinary self-defense needs.? Id. at 2156.


So every AR in a LEO vehicle is an offensive weapon? This crap is so hypocritical it just writes itself. It's almost as if they have no idea what is being used by who. Oh wait they don't.

This '"In common use" for Self Defense" misstated argument really needs to be addressed also. Because if that is the true test...then all hunting specific or sport specific firearms can be banned.

Also that throw away line from Heller about the M16 and the like being bannable needs to be addressed and is a prime example of unintended consequences of verbose justices adding crap they didn't need to.

And at the very end they get to the real point....delay, delay, delay. They claim that since this case and Duncan are so similar..this case should be put on hold until Duncan is decided and the orals are 2 months after these orals...

[Spyder]

Has there ever been a response to these that just says "So and so who wrote the appellant's opening brief is lying." and then list out all of the lies? I know that using that word is darn near verboten in court, but sometimes blunt is the answer.

[Rickybillegas]

From the filing

In applying that concept to determine whether a weapon is within the scope
of the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court has examined the objective
characteristics of the weapon. And the assault weapons at issue here are defined
by tactical and combat-oriented features that make them especially lethal as
offensive weapons, but ill-suited for ?ordinary self-defense needs.? Id. at 2156.


So every AR in a LEO vehicle is an offensive weapon? This crap is so hypocritical it just writes itself. It's almost as if they have no idea what is being used by who. Oh wait they don't.

This '"In common use" for Self Defense" misstated argument really needs to be addressed also. Because if that is the true test...then all hunting specific or sport specific firearms can be banned.

Also that throw away line from Heller about the M16 and the like being bannable needs to be addressed and is a prime example of unintended consequences of verbose justices adding crap they didn't need to.

And at the very end they get to the real point....delay, delay, delay. They claim that since this case and Duncan are so similar..this case should be put on hold until Duncan is decided and the orals are 2 months after these orals...

What bothers me most is that the courts perpetuate rhetoric such as 'not suitable for self defense'. The second amendment, nor Heller, nor Bruen do not restrict the right to keep and bear for self defense or port or hunting. Offensive weapons are part of the common use category, and necessary for a 'well trained militia'

How did we let the gun control movement usurp the original intent and meaning of the 2nd amendment?

[Bhobbs]

What bothers me most is that the courts perpetuate rhetoric such as 'not suitable for self defense'. The second amendment, nor Heller, nor Bruen do not restrict the right to keep and bear for self defense or port or hunting. Offensive weapons are part of the common use category, and necessary for a 'well trained militia'

How did we let the gun control movement usurp the original intent and meaning of the 2nd amendment?

Because they control major population centers, and get to dictate the judges in those population centers. The areas favorable to gun rights don?t pass gun control laws, so they can?t build pro 2A case law.

The real issue is SCOTUS allows anti gun lower courts to dictate what their gun rulings mean, instead of the other way around.

[AlmostHeaven]

What bothers me most is that the courts perpetuate rhetoric such as 'not suitable for self defense'. The second amendment, nor Heller, nor Bruen do not restrict the right to keep and bear for self defense or port or hunting. Offensive weapons are part of the common use category, and necessary for a 'well trained militia'

How did we let the gun control movement usurp the original intent and meaning of the 2nd amendment?

The majority of Americans have long ago lost touch with the original foundational values of the nation, far beyond only the right to keep and bear arms.

[Bolt_Action]

How did we let the gun control movement usurp the original intent and meaning of the 2nd amendment?

Because when they do, all we do is sit around and complain on Internet forums.

[chris]

What bothers me most is that the courts perpetuate rhetoric such as 'not suitable for self defense'. The second amendment, nor Heller, nor Bruen do not restrict the right to keep and bear for self defense or port or hunting. Offensive weapons are part of the common use category, and necessary for a 'well trained militia'

How did we let the gun control movement usurp the original intent and meaning of the 2nd amendment?

repeat a lie enough times it becomes the truth.

[Mithrandir13]

didn't the founding fathers enumerate a freedom US Citizens have to deal with Tyranny??