Duncan v Bonta: second trip to the 9th Circus

[command_liner]

Careful. If billyclubs are arms the 9th will assert the core right is satisfied by issuance of a state approved billyclub.

I wonder what the 9th will do if the IL ban gets to SCOTUS first? What with Ray Guy having already died .....

If you take the Peel definiton of the police, then it follows that the police-issued billyclubs are *already* state-approved billyclubs.

[abinsinia]

Submitted (ECF) Answering Brief for review. Submitted by Appellees California Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., Virginia Duncan, Patrick Lovette, David Marguglio and Christopher Waddell. Date of service: 12/21/2023. [12840524] [23-55805] (Murphy, Erin) [Entered: 12/21/2023 11:44 AM]

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca9.345123/gov.uscourts.ca9.345123.36.0.pdf

[AlmostHeaven]

Has the Ninth Circuit en banc panel scheduled the Duncan v. Bonta oral argument yet?

[ritter]

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...45123.36.0.pdf

I love that they lead with and then pound away at the en banc panel being unlawfully constituted! Not only do the states merits arguments suck, but CA9 is breaking the law with how it's proceeding. Great stuff.

[abinsinia]

Has the Ninth Circuit en banc panel scheduled the Duncan v. Bonta oral argument yet?

In this order,

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca9.345123/gov.uscourts.ca9.345123.12.0.pdf

They said week of March 18, 2024.

[7.62mm_fmj]

They said week of March 18, 2024.

Let's hope this gets settled by June then.

[homelessdude]

That was a full on attack of the ninth and the state. Is there a time for the en banc court to reply. This could be interesting. They have laid out a pretty good reason for the SC to get involved on top of all the other reasons when it is appealed to them.

[ritter]

That was a full on attack of the ninth and the state. Is there a time for the en banc court to reply. This could be interesting. They have laid out a pretty good reason for the SC to get involved on top of all the other reasons when it is appealed to them.

Agree. Paul Clement knows his way around arguments to SCOTUS, precisely what this brief is (eventually).

[flyer898]

I read appellants' breif with pleasure; it is a priviledge to read such a lucid and thorough explanation of why this state is wrong. The part where it explains why the en banc panel lacks authority to decide the matter was masterful.

[Drivedabizness]

Detachable magazines do not have a historical dividing line that separates one class from another. Their capacities range greatly from one arm to another, stock vs aftermarket, and even from one caliber to another. This is why it's not a "ban" case that falls under "In Common Use", but a "regulation on capacity" that falls under a THT test, which the State will fail.

Now ask yourself what "standard capacity" means.

That term has been previously noted.

[AlmostHeaven]

Agree. Paul Clement knows his way around arguments to SCOTUS, precisely what this brief is (eventually).

Paul Clement argued NYSRPA v. Bruen itself in front of the Supreme Court. The gun rights community would benefit tremendously if he would ultimately represent the plaintiffs in either an assault weapons ban or high-capacity magazine ban constitutional challenge, once a case on either subject reaches the high court.

[TruOil]

That was a full on attack of the ninth and the state. Is there a time for the en banc court to reply. This could be interesting. They have laid out a pretty good reason for the SC to get involved on top of all the other reasons when it is appealed to them.

The en banc court does not submit a reply, it just rules on the issue. It is not unusual for a court to rule on its own jurisdiction in a given case, and the panel will do so here. Plaintiff's argument was solid, so it will be interesting to see how this pans out. I assume that ultimately the decision will turn on whether this is the "same case" or a new appeal.

The State may be allowed to file a reply.

[abinsinia]

Filed (ECF) Appellant Rob Bonta Unopposed Motion to extend time to file Reply brief until 01/25/2024. Date of service: 12/22/2023. [12840797] [23-55805] (Moore, Mica) [Entered: 12/22/2023 08:21 AM]

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca9.345123/gov.uscourts.ca9.345123.38.0.pdf

[AlmostHeaven]

The en banc court does not submit a reply, it just rules on the issue. It is not unusual for a court to rule on its own jurisdiction in a given case, and the panel will do so here. Plaintiff's argument was solid, so it will be interesting to see how this pans out. I assume that ultimately the decision will turn on whether this is the "same case" or a new appeal.

The State may be allowed to file a reply.

I cannot imagine any reality where an en banc panel that has already exercised unprecedented rulebending maneuvers to seize control of a case away from a 3-judge panel would decide that it does not, in fact, have the jurisdiction to decide the matter.

[madsend81]

Probably not, but it sets up a good argument to take the SC for a potential smack down. Aren't Roberts and Kavanaugh sticklers for following proper procedure?