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

[abinsinia]

I think we had an expedited hearing in Oregon but plaintiffs asked for a venue in California, hence the delay

I don't recall this kind of request happening. It was just delayed without request.

[7.62mm_fmj]

I don't recall this kind of request happening. It was just delayed without request.

First order expedited the appeal and a date was set in Oregon:

We sua sponte expedite this appeal. The opening brief is due November 9, 2023. The answering brief is due November 22, 2023. The optional reply brief is due November 29, 2023. No streamlined extensions of time will be approved. See 9th Cir. R. 31-2.2(a)(1). The Clerk will place this appeal on the calendar for December 2023. See 9th Cir. Gen. Ord. 3.3(g).

I can't find the scheduling order for Oregon (just remembering) or Plaintiff's request to appear remotely, but this was the response from the court:

Oral argument for this case is vacated. The Court intends to schedule oral argument during the week of January 22, 2024 in Pasadena, California. Appellees? motion to appear remotely (Docket Entry No. 20) is thus denied as moot. In addition, the briefing schedule is modified as follows: the opening brief is due December 1, 2023; the answering brief is due December 22, 2023; the reply brief is due January 8, 2024.

So it looks like Plaintiff's asked to appear remotely in Oregon (I believe)...then rather than just deny the request, the 9th denied AND vacated the original hearing, and set a new hearing in Pasadena much later.

[Bhobbs]

I think we had an expedited hearing in Oregon but plaintiffs asked for a venue in California, hence the delay

I don?t really care who asked to move it, it should have been denied. They were ordered not to delay, and they delayed anyways.

[yacko]

To apply that to modern times, anyone remember Christopher Dorner? He was an ex-cop who went on a rampage in 2013. He killed several police officers and holed up in Big Bear. The police threw everything they had to find him. While they eventually got him, he terrorized everyone (but mostly the police), and showed what one determined individual could do to create havoc. Now imagine two Chis Dorners. Three. Ten. THAT'S the power individuals have. Which is why politicians hate guns so much. If a politician wants to take away your gun, it's because they plan on doing something that will make you want to kill them!!

That was nothing.

You forgot about the 'dc sniper'-

1 lunatic and an impressionable minor used a single scoped AR-15 and brought the entire DC area to a grinding halt for over 3 weeks.

Search for dc sniper and find the documentary. If you are too young to remember that.

[abinsinia]

Oral argument for this case is vacated. The Court intends to schedule oral argument during the week of January 22, 2024 in Pasadena, California. Appellees? motion to appear remotely (Docket Entry No. 20) is thus denied as moot. In addition, the briefing schedule is modified as follows: the opening brief is due December 1, 2023; the answering brief is due December 22, 2023; the reply brief is due January 8, 2024.

So it looks like Plaintiff's asked to appear remotely in Oregon (I believe)...then rather than just deny the request, the 9th denied AND vacated the original hearing, and set a new hearing in Pasadena much later.

This doesn't mean it was request to be delayed and moved. Appearing remotely can be approved or denied ,it's not a reason to delay an expedited case. The 9th circuit made the choice for some other reason.

[Batman]

That was nothing.

You forgot about the 'dc sniper'-

1 lunatic and an impressionable minor used a single scoped AR-15 and brought the entire DC area to a grinding halt for over 3 weeks.

Search for dc sniper and find the documentary. If you are too young to remember that.

Too young? Heck, I'm OLD!! I'm so old I remembered Paul Revere!! LOL!

I do remember the DC sniper case. The difference is that there, the shooters weren't targeting cops. If they had, I wouldn't be surprised if had called out the National Guard (but then again, does DC have the National Guard, or would it be from Virgina or Maryland?).

[Sgt Raven]

Too young? Heck, I'm OLD!! I'm so old I remembered Paul Revere!! LOL!

I do remember the DC sniper case. The difference is that there, the shooters weren't targeting cops. If they had, I wouldn't be surprised if had called out the National Guard (but then again, does DC have the National Guard, or would it be from Virgina or Maryland?).

The Beltway sniper hit many different areas in Maryland and Virginia. For most of the time, they didn't have many clues of who was doing it. At one point they thought the shooter was in a white van. Calling out the NG would have done nothing for that situation.


With Christopher Dorner, they knew who they were looking for and had a good idea what he was driving.

[darkwater34]

You also have to remember if it were not for a truck driver and not a Leo they probably would have never caught the Beltway Snipers.

[7.62mm_fmj]

This doesn't mean it was request to be delayed and moved. Appearing remotely can be approved or denied ,it's not a reason to delay an expedited case. The 9th circuit made the choice for some other reason.

Yes, the 9th is pulling shenanigans as always, and the plaintiffs' motion was their first opportunity.

The venue change had to be discussed before their order. One can imagine something along the lines of, "Hey, we got your motion to appear remote here. So um you all can either reschedule whatever else you were doing in SoCal that week and go up and appear in person in Oregon when we said to...or um we'll just have to add you to the 'next available' opening in Pasadena...which is in late January. Watcha wanna do?"

[AlmostHeaven]

The two liberal partisan hacks on the 3-judge panel will do everything in their power to at least sabotage the progress of Miller v. Bonta until after the November 2024 elections.

If Democrats retain control of the presidency and win Congress, expect even more outrageous machinations to ensure that the composition of the Supreme Court changes during the resulting second Biden term. If Republicans win the White House and Senate, the left-wing circuit courts may actually acquiesce to advancing gun rights cases to the high court.

[7.62mm_fmj]

The two liberal partisan hacks on the 3-judge panel will do everything in their power to at least sabotage the progress of Miller v. Bonta until after the November 2024 elections.

Couldn't find much info on Nguyen. Wiki says she was confirmed with a 91-3 vote in the senate. Perhaps she is moderate or at least will follow SCOTUS precedent.

Question: Does it really matter if we win or lose at this panel? If we win, it will go en banc. If we lose, don't we still have to ask for en banc review before we're "ripe" for SCOTUS, which the 9th would jump at the opportunity to grab onto this case and delay more years?

[pMcW]

...

Question: Does it really matter if we win or lose at this panel? If we win, it will go en banc. If we lose, don't we still have to ask for en banc review before we're "ripe" for SCOTUS, which the 9th would jump at the opportunity to grab onto this case and delay more years?

Although en banc reconsideration has become commonplace in 2A cases, it is supposed to be rare in theory, and parties need not request en banc reconsideration before filing a petition for writ of cert with SCOTUS.

https://cafc.uscourts.gov/home/case-information/case-filings/petitions-for-rehearing-rehearing-en-banc/

Petitions for Hearing or Rehearing En Banc
En banc consideration is rare. Each three-judge merits panel is charged with deciding individual appeals under existing Federal Circuit law as established in precedential opinions.

Because each merits panel may enter precedential opinions, a party seeking en banc consideration must typically show that either the merits panel has (1) failed to follow existing decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court or Federal Circuit precedent or (2) followed Federal Circuit precedent that the petitioning party now seeks to have overruled by the court en banc.

Federal Circuit Internal Operating Procedure #13 identifies several reasons when the Federal Circuit may opt to hear a matter en banc.

Petitions for Writ of Certiorari
Parties do not need to file a petition for rehearing with the Federal Circuit before filing a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. A petition for a writ of certiorari may be filed once the Federal Circuit has entered final judgment in a case.

[pMcW]

The general consensus seems to be that a quick 2A loss in the three-judge panel would be helpful in Miller because it opens up plaintiff's immediate appeal to SCOTUS. But if that happens, what stops some clever anti-2A Ninth Circuit judges from requesting en banc rehearing anyway??

...based on vague concerns that the three-judge panel "failed to correctly apply Heller/Bruen precedent," and yet confident that the en banc panel will eventually uphold the AWB, or sit on the decision for a very long time, or both!!

Anything to keep that sweet, sweet "interlocutory" status on the plaintiff's appeals to SCOTUS as long as possible, right?!

[Bhobbs]

There’s nothing stopping the 9th from taking it en banc, no matter the 3 judge ruling.

[AlmostHeaven]

Couldn't find much info on Nguyen. Wiki says she was confirmed with a 91-3 vote in the senate. Perhaps she is moderate or at least will follow SCOTUS precedent.

Question: Does it really matter if we win or lose at this panel? If we win, it will go en banc. If we lose, don't we still have to ask for en banc review before we're "ripe" for SCOTUS, which the 9th would jump at the opportunity to grab onto this case and delay more years?

Losing fast in front of the 3-judge panel is the best outcome because gun rights organizations would thereby gain the ability to appeal an assault weapons ban final judgment to the Supreme Court. Liberals equally comprehend the situation, which explains why every Second Amendment issue moves at the speed of molasses in left-wing jurisdictions.