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

[Silence Dogood]

I appreciated that in addition to clarifying the distinction between SD and lawful purposes with respect to common use, plaintiff counsel also conveyed that according to studies presented by the defense, SD is still a major factor for those surveyed.

I also liked how he came back to common use when Nyguen tried to equate M16 to AR15. Like abinsinia, my mind immediately went to THEY ARE SAME too, though I thought his argument was great and adequately redirected the line of thought to where it out to be.

Ultimately, I mean a hundred years from know, we need to push the needle back to Miller (1939): arms used for military service are protected including MGs and F-16s. Everything.

Does anyone know how long it usually takes for the 9th to put up the recordings here on YT or elsewhere?

A work call came in while we were waiting for the session to begin interfering with my ability to listen so I missed all of the defense arguments and some of the plaintiff argument too (I got another call after I listened for a bit) so while I caught the panel queries about a stay until en banc decides Duncan (and I agree with those who expect that will happen), I want to catch the whole session.

[riderr]

I somewhat agree no left judge will kill AWB. The likehood is they stay it till Duncan. Berzon clearly spelled it out.

[otteray]

[Bhobbs]

Duncan was one on SCOTUS docket, sent back for rehearing. SCOTUS made it clear they want these cases to be expedited. 2CA has to expedite Antonyuk-2

SCOTUS sent it to the 9th and they sent back to the district court. If they didn?t want delays, they would have stepped in when it was remanded back to Benitez.

[marcusrn]

Justice delayed is truly justice denied! Miller lawyer pleaded well but he was talking to a wall.

[7.62mm_fmj]

This is really a simple case. Only ignorance, inability to understand SCOTUS jurisprudence, and willingness to defer to the state are at play here.

[CGZ]

This will likely put this on hold till after Duncan is decided.

The state is still trying to argue the standard is "in common use for self defense"

Judges are jumping hoops to justify siding with the state

[Oneaudiopro]

This will likely put this on hold till after Duncan is decided.

The state is still trying to argue the standard is "in common use for self defense"

Judges are jumping hoops to justify siding with the state

^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^

They should have made it perfectly clear about firearms used for LAWFUL purposes, had the judge agree, and move on from there. smh

[tast101]

Saying an M16 is similar to a AR15 based on its ability to be semiautomatic, is then saying handguns are the same as well. The state?s attorney is trying to put in the mind of the panel full auto y saying rapid semiautomatic fire. I was like I see what you are doing here, but that speaks the same for semiautomatic handguns. Laying the foundation here, very sneaky.

[AlmostHeaven]

As expected, I came away disgusted. The Democratic appointees already knew the outcome before the hearing even began. The Second Amendment advocacy group lawyer argued well but for naught. The progressive activists in black robes clearly telegraphed that the court intends to hold Miller v. Bonta unnecessarily to generate further delays while the en banc panel takes years to decide Duncan v. Bonta.

The institutionalists on the Supreme Court care more about the shallow appearance of impartiality than substantively enforcing the Second Amendment. Electing Republicans to the House of Representatives, Senate, and White House in order to flip the Fourth and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals to conservative majorities constitutes the only effective path forward for the right to keep and bear arms.

[IronsightsRifleman]

The degree of misstatements of law and convoluted arguments needed at support the State's position is truly appalling. The idea that when the SCOTUS made a distinction between 2A's prefatory clause and its operative clause to deny arguments that weapons were only protected for militia service, can then be interpreted to mean that weapons can be banned if they share characteristics with weapons used in military service, is not only self-contradictory, it's outright absurd. Still, it seems this court is fully on board with all of that, and more. Their questioning of the appellant over how many millions of weapons should be needed to constitute 'common use' were clearly a ploy by the justice to consume the appellant's time. Still, he argued concisely and authoritatively in the time he was allowed.

[Dvrjon]

I am a supporter of neither the panel nor the State.

As a side note, unless you have stood in front of an inquiry panel with a complete presentation ready to go, and were interrupted immediately to answer scripted questions not in your presentation and survived, then griping about what the presenters did/should not have done is irrelevant. As the old saying goes:

If you find yourself waist deep in the swamp surrounded by alligators, it is difficult to remember that your initial objective was to drain the swamp.

I thought that, given the environment, our attorney did well as one of the justices actually acknowledged his counter position that in common use for defense was simply in common use. I thought our guy did well to make the point that this is not about the guns in use in CA, but the SCOTUS based its opinion of common use through out the land. That looked like the judges were trying to de-scope the range of common use. Our guy pounded them with statistics.

In the end, this panel seems reluctant to make any move which might establish a precedent (conflict) with an en banc panel seated to review Duncan. Based solely on that, and not the merits, I expect the panel to give the state what it wants and avoid the controversy should the panel rule in a way which might influence (or piss off) the en banc, or create a decision which the panel members might be reminded of if the panel members were, in future, called to serve en banc on a similar issue.

[splithoof]

What did y’all expect? That some court would uphold the constitution and correct the evil wrongs of this Leftist state? All these hearings and other drama are nothing more than farts in the wind. The Eunuchs of SCOTUS could care less, and the state takes full advantage. Meanwhile all the chumps who value their labels as law-abiding citizens squeeze their ankles ever harder as Bonta rams them hard with no lube. You had better smile, because if you protest you will get red-flagged and suffer a visit from some DOJ wannabe warrior. Sucks, does it not?

[IronsightsRifleman]

I thought that, given the environment, our attorney did well as one of the justices actually acknowledged his counter position that in common use for defense was simply in common use.

Except that they didn't. At 40:33, the court goes on, "I understand your opponent says it can be for any lawful purpose, but let's assume it has to be for self defense." And, again at 42:45.

And then, at 44:08, the court say Bruen allows some amount of interest balancing! Unbelievable.

[tenemae]

Nobody in that room - not the lawyers, not even the judges - were able to provide the correct statutory definition of "semiautomatic". They're ruling on things they are completely ignorant of. That's where we are right now.