DUNCAN V. BONTA 9-22 Magazines, STAYED until appeal, ORAL ARGS week of 3-24-24

[SpudmanWP]

No ban cases post-Bruen have made it back to SCOTUS in order to reiterate that Heller is the binding principle. A Per Curium decision would be the optimal path, just as they did in Caetano, as once the "In Common Use" test is satisfied the case is over.

[AlmostHeaven]

No ban cases post-Bruen have made it back to SCOTUS in order to reiterate that Heller is the binding principle. A Per Curium decision would be the optimal path, just as they did in Caetano, as once the "In Common Use" test is satisfied the case is over.

I think a few Justices want to avoid emergency motions and per curium decisions at all costs. Knock on wood and cross your fingers for the Seventh Circuit Illinois case or Fourth Circuit Maryland lawsuit to reach the Supreme Court in 2024.

[SpudmanWP]

Per Curium decisions are preferred, IMHO, due to them dealing with "settled" law. There is no need to go through another lengthy argument process. SCOTUS does not have the time to relitigate every issue, over and over again, when they already did the work.

Remember that Caetano was a Per Curium because there was no new legal standard to establish. It literally just pointed to Heller and said 'We already decided this'.

While there may be a few Justices that don't like them, Per Curium decisions do not have to be unanimous so if they are in the minority, they do not get veto power.

[AlmostHeaven]

Per Curium decisions are preferred, IMHO, due to them dealing with "settled" law. There is no need to go through another lengthy argument process. SCOTUS does not have the time to relitigate every issue, over and over again, when they already did the work.

Remember that Caetano was a Per Curium because there was no new legal standard to establish. It literally just pointed to Heller and said 'We already decided this'.

While there may be a few Justices that don't like them, Per Curium decisions do not have to be unanimous so if they are in the minority, they do not get veto power.

Justices Roberts and Barrett appear to disfavor per curium decisions. In combination with the three Democratic appointees, they would have a working majority.

In my opinion, a fully briefed and argued assault weapons and large-capacity magazine ban case decided on the merits in the 2024-2025 term is the best outcome.

[ar15barrels]

I think a few Justices want to avoid emergency motions and per curium decisions at all costs. Knock on wood and cross your fingers for the Seventh Circuit Illinois case or Fourth Circuit Maryland lawsuit to reach the Supreme Court in 2024.

I hope every case gets to ussc and they consolidate them or hold the similar cases and give orders based on whichever case they actually issue an opinion.

However, we need a specific decision on a CA case to actually change our CA laws.
A positive outcome in either the 4th or 7th circuit cases just becomes more precedent for us in CA as neither of those cases specifically deal with our CA laws and therefore the resulting orders won?t actually negate CA law.

Assuming the 9th ties up this case until after one of the other cases is resolved, we STILL have to get a case in our jurisdiction to negate the CA laws.
That means starting over in federal court and playing the 9th circuit games again because the 9th circuit is not going to follow any new USSC decisions any differently than they already follow the old USSC decisions.

[SpudmanWP]

SCOTUS does not have time to hold a fully briefed & argued session for every gun ban case that States come up with. At some point, they need to just point at "In Common Use" and say NO.

Imagine all the ways they will redefine a ban on the same types of arms:

--Named bans (Colt AR-15, Bushmaster, etc)
--Bans on accessories (handguards, flash hiders, handgrips, adjustable stocks, etc)
--Bans on features (semi-automatic with a detachable mag, a rifle of less than x lbs, less then x inches long, etc)
--Bans or RoF (more than 3 per second, etc)

[AlmostHeaven]

The situation is difficult. If the Ninth Circuit ties up Duncan v. Bonta and Miller v. Bonta for years, the rest of the country cannot pause their legal challenges and gamble on the Supreme Court conservative majority lasting through the decade.

The best outcome would be Republican victories in 2024 and a durable 6-3 composition, but this is a huge uncertainty in of itself.

[Bhobbs]

No ban cases post-Bruen have made it back to SCOTUS in order to reiterate that Heller is the binding principle. A Per Curium decision would be the optimal path, just as they did in Caetano, as once the "In Common Use" test is satisfied the case is over.

Duncan and Bianchi were both GVR?d post Bruen and should have actually been ruled on by SCOTUS.

[AlmostHeaven]

Duncan and Bianchi were both GVR'd post Bruen and should have actually been ruled on by SCOTUS.

Remanding the higher-profile controversies, high-capacity magazine bans and assault weapons bans, opting instead to only rule on concealed carry, was a mistake.

[ar15barrels]

SCOTUS does not have time to hold a fully briefed & argued session for every gun ban case that States come up with. At some point, they need to just point at "In Common Use" and say NO.

Imagine all the ways they will redefine a ban on the same types of arms:

--Named bans (Colt AR-15, Bushmaster, etc)
--Bans on accessories (handguards, flash hiders, handgrips, adjustable stocks, etc)
--Bans on features (semi-automatic with a detachable mag, a rifle of less than x lbs, less then x inches long, etc)
--Bans or RoF (more than 3 per second, etc)

The 9th circuit does not follow the USSC.

How do we negate a CA law with a court case if the 9th stands between CA citizens and freedom being dispensed by federal court that then gets appealed to the 9th?

[splithoof]

Remanding the higher-profile controversies, high-capacity magazine bans and assault weapons bans, opting instead to only rule on concealed carry, was a mistake.

As was allowing states to retain permitting systems. The ENTIRE COUNTRY should be constitutional carry. That would have ended some of this BS of waiting eighteen months to get a simple CCW permit from these crooks in places like Los Angeles.

[SpudmanWP]

Duncan and Bianchi were both GVR?d post Bruen and should have actually been ruled on by SCOTUS.

Appeals courts (to include SCOTUS) are not "courts of discovery" where new evidence is submitted. They generally rule on what is brought in front of them. The 4th even mentioned this directly in the oral arguments in Bianchi.

Since none of the GVR'd cases had any briefs that were applicable to the new Bruen standard, the proper course of action was to GVR them so lower courts could do all of the legwork. While Bianchi has been sitting on their decision, Benitez in Duncan did a superb job building a solid THT case against mag bans.

[SpudmanWP]

The 9th circuit does not follow the USSC.

How do we negate a CA law with a court case if the 9th stands between CA citizens and freedom being dispensed by federal court that then gets appealed to the 9th?

As more cases are decided by SCOTUS, they will be inclined to intervene. On top of that, as more cases are settled and the legal standards are set, an official will be opened up to civil rights lawsuits if they continue to pass laws, and LEOs try to enforce laws that are unambiguously violating our 2nd Amendment rights.

[Bhobbs]

Appeals courts (to include SCOTUS) are not "courts of discovery" where new evidence is submitted. They generally rule on what is brought in front of them. The 4th even mentioned this directly in the oral arguments in Bianchi.

Since none of the GVR'd cases had any briefs that were applicable to the new Bruen standard, the proper course of action was to GVR them so lower courts could do all of the legwork. While Bianchi has been sitting on their decision, Benitez in Duncan did a superb job building a solid THT case against mag bans.

Bruen didn’t need to be applied to arms bans cases, like Duncan and Bianchi. Their failure has set us back years.

[SpudmanWP]

You still need evidence to disprove "In Common Use" for the government to be able to ban in Bianbchi. Since Bianchi was just a motion and not a ruling on a complete case, the briefs were never made.

As to Duncan, there has not been the THT test as to the limiting of capacity.