Duncan v Bonta (Becerra) - CA mag ban (continued)

[davel501]

I give them credit. Why wait around? Let's get this fight started. 

 

I predict scotus from the top rope with the people's elbow for the victory. 

[steveTA84]

 

[Upholder]

 

[Upholder]

The order where the 9th accepts this case en banc in a highly unusual way, with two judges dissents, which are worth reading:

 

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.533515/gov.uscourts.casd.533515.153.0.pdf

[davel501]

This could be really good, especially if St Benitez gets the other rulings out quickly. The 9th hammers the rulings and scotus smacks them down and suddenly we've got national rulings. Whats left of pica after that? 

[Matt B]

I imagine the 9th was faced with the choice of either 

 

1) Letting the three judge panel take the case and potentially let the injunction take effect and open the floodgates on magazines, but delay scotus from getting the case for another year or two

 

2) doing this and en banc right away to head off the injunction but accept this gets to scotus a lot faster now.

 

The first option may have been the smarter move for them but they just couldn’t accept another freedom week (months?)

 

This is a frustrating short term setback but if this doesn’t bait scotus to start actually taking action on the shadow docket for pro 2a emergency motions, nothing will. 

[springfield shooter]

On 9/28/2023 at 11:24 PM, Matt B said:

I imagine the 9th was faced with the choice of either 

 

1) Letting the three judge panel take the case and potentially let the injunction take effect and open the floodgates on magazines, but delay scotus from getting the case for another year or two

 

2) doing this and en banc right away to head off the injunction but accept this gets to scotus a lot faster now.

 

The first option may have been the smarter move for them but they just couldn’t accept another freedom week (months?)

 

This is a frustrating short term setback but if this doesn’t bait scotus to start actually taking action on the shadow docket for pro 2a emergency motions, nothing will. 

 

I have to believe that SCOTUS is watching. And I have to believe the 9th Circuit knows that they are.

Edited September 29, 2023 at 07:48 PM by springfield shooter
Bad proofreading

[Flynn]

On 9/29/2023 at 12:41 PM, springfield shooter said:

I have believe that SCOTUS is watching. And I have believe the 9th Circuit knows that they are.

 

I believe it's naive to think otherwise, the SCOTUS laid it out in plain text in Bruen and many of these inferior courts are for all intent ignoring Bruen because they don't like it...  IMO the reason the SCOTUS took the Rahimi case (that is a loaded case) is that they are going to use it as a billboard to tell the inferior courts to pull their heads out of their collective you know whats and follow Bruen even if they don't like it and explain once again means end and emotions are entirely moot and possibly even explain that using racist and sexist laws that are unconstitutional in premise are a moot historical analog...

 

I honestly believe Rahimi is going to be Bruen with the gloves entirely off...

[springfield shooter]

On 9/29/2023 at 1:17 PM, Flynn said:

.......I honestly believe Rahimi is going to be Bruen with the gloves entirely off...

 

[JTHunter]

On 9/29/2023 at 1:31 PM, springfield shooter said:

 

 

Always did like that "glare".

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

Shenanigans...

 

 

[Upholder]

He calls out the court as "offensive and a naked power grab."

 

 

[Euler]

On October 11 in a vote of 11-2, the 9th Circuit en banc granted an emergency stay to the district court injunction against the ban (i.e., the ban is back on). Oral arguments on the case itself are tentatively scheduled for the week of 18 March 2024.

Docket

Edited October 12, 2023 at 03:43 AM by Euler

[ryr8828]

On 10/11/2023 at 10:40 PM, Euler said:

On October 11 in a vote of 11-2, the 9th Circuit en banc granted an emergency stay to the district court injunction against the ban (i.e., the ban is back on). Oral arguments on the case itself are tentatively scheduled for the week of 18 March 2024.

Docket
 

I believe it was an 11 judge panel and there were 4 dissents. 7-4.

[springfield shooter]

If I've got this wrong, please tell me.

 

Did not SCOTUS GVR this back to the 9th? Which in turned kicked it back down to the District Court? So......other than the 9th's en banc refusal to follow SCOTUS precedent (and apparently SCOTUS' direction), what has changed? And can this now be directly appealed to SCOTUS?

 

A number of years ago, I read that the 9th was the most overturned of the 12 US Circuit Courts of Appeal. Without checking, I will speculate that this hasn't changed.

[gunuser17]

The 9th Circuit has not directly ruled on the case this time around.  The only thing that they have done is agree with the state to keep a stay in place so that the mag law in california stays in place for now.  However, given the way their order was worded, it sure looks like they have prejudged the case and the antis will like win some time in the next year or so..  Right now, I expect they are just delaying everything they can hoping for some supreme court retirements/deaths so that a democratic president can shift the balance in the supreme court.

[Upholder]

On 10/12/2023 at 8:52 AM, springfield shooter said:

Did not SCOTUS GVR this back to the 9th? Which in turned kicked it back down to the District Court? So......other than the 9th's en banc refusal to follow SCOTUS precedent (and apparently SCOTUS' direction), what has changed? And can this now be directly appealed to SCOTUS?

 

You are not wrong.  This case started in 2017:

• District court found for Duncan using history and tradition as the primary factor in advance of NYSPRA v Bruen.
• 3 Judge Panel upheld.
• 11 Judge En Banc panel overturned 7-4
• SCOTUS sat on it until after NYSRPA v Bruen was handed down, then GVR'd it (Granted Cert, Vacated the ruling, Remanded to the 9th to do it right in light of Bruen)
• 9th circuit declined to rehear or decide the case at that point, remanded it back down to the District judge
• District Judge issued a 71 page ruling that amounted to "Did I stutter"
• California appealed to the 9th
• The En Banc panel that heard it initially took the stay appeal up as an initial matter, which is extremely unusual and the 4 judges that initially dissented pointed this out in no uncertain terms both as the administrative stay was issued and then again as this stay throughout the appeal process.
• The En Banc panel now wants the litigants to tell the panel if they even have the authority to do what they did, with a hearing scheduled for March 18, 2024.

Kostas Moros, one of the laywers involved in the case, speculates that the en banc panel will after a few months of stalling deliberation, will decide that they do not have the authority to do what they just did, and return it to the 3 judge panel... and then pick it back up en banc and sit on it some more.. stretch it out into 2026 if they can..

 

[steveTA84]

On 10/12/2023 at 9:30 AM, Upholder said:

 

You are not wrong.  This case started in 2017:

• District court found for Duncan using history and tradition as the primary factor in advance of NYSPRA v Bruen.
• 3 Judge Panel upheld.
• 11 Judge En Banc panel overturned 7-4
• SCOTUS sat on it until after NYSRPA v Bruen was handed down, then GVR'd it (Granted Cert, Vacated the ruling, Remanded to the 9th to do it right in light of Bruen)
• 9th circuit declined to rehear or decide the case at that point, remanded it back down to the District judge
• District Judge issued a 71 page ruling that amounted to "Did I stutter"
• California appealed to the 9th
• The En Banc panel that heard it initially took the stay appeal up as an initial matter, which is extremely unusual and the 4 judges that initially dissented pointed this out in no uncertain terms both as the administrative stay was issued and then again as this stay throughout the appeal process.
• The En Banc panel now wants the litigants to tell the panel if they even have the authority to do what they did, with a hearing scheduled for March 18, 2024.

Kostas Moros, one of the laywers involved in the case, speculates that the en banc panel will after a few months of stalling deliberation, will decide that they do not have the authority to do what they just did, and return it to the 3 judge panel... and then pick it back up en banc and sit on it some more.. stretch it out into 2026 if they can..

 

Whispers of CRPA appealing this BS to SCOTUS in short order 

[davel501]

On 10/12/2023 at 9:53 AM, steveTA84 said:

Whispers of CRPA appealing this BS to SCOTUS in short order 

 

Surprised they haven't already to be honest although it would suck if SCOTUS was like "We'll allow it".

[THE KING]

Mark Smith explains what has happened and the games the 9th circuit is playing. 

 

 

https://youtu.be/ZMVZrLjO_SY?si=8uVq65or86UjRYv1

[Euler]

On November 22, CA filed its appellant brief.

On December 21, plaintiffs filed their response.

On December 22, CA asked for an extension until January 25 to file its reply. The court (clerk?) granted the extension.

[Euler]

On January 25, CA met its deadline for a reply brief.

On February 22, CA9 scheduled oral arguments for March 19.

Edited February 24, 2024 at 01:28 AM by Euler

[Euler]

Oral arguments were held today. Audio/video are not available as I post. They should be at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/ eventually.

[Euler]

CA9 audio (MP3)

[Euler]

On June 21, the en banc 9th Circuit ruled that the interests in this case tip toward the state in banning magazines. The district injunction on the magazine ban is stayed pending appeal.

Previously the 9th Circuit had issued an emergency stay. The appeal itself has not yet been heard on the merits.

The 9th Circuit said that the stay is consistent with Bruen, because Bruen reiterated that "the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."

[Flynn]

On 6/22/2024 at 8:47 PM, Euler said:

On June 21, the en banc 9th Circuit ruled that the interests in this case tip toward the state in banning magazines. The district injunction on the magazine ban is stayed pending appeal.

Previously the 9th Circuit had issued an emergency stay. The appeal itself has not yet been heard on the merits.

The 9th Circuit said that the stay is consistent with Bruen, because Bruen reiterated that "the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."

 

Since Rahimi didn't shut it down, I expect every anti-gun district court to rule the same, they will go right back to government interest bearing and the 'not unlimited' wording to justify every gun control measure...

[MrTriple]

On 6/22/2024 at 9:06 PM, Flynn said:

 

Since Rahimi didn't shut it down, I expect every anti-gun district court to rule the same, they will go right back to government interest bearing and the 'not unlimited' wording to justify every gun control measure...

Let's be honest with ourselves: SCOTUS could've struck the law on its face, granted cert and summary judgement on every AWB and 2A case pending before it, before ending with a rockin' rendition of the Star Spangled Banner with the Chief on guitar and Alito on drums with a fireworks display and screaming eagles flying through the sky, and (some) of the lower courts would still find ways to defy them.

 

Rahimi or not, some of these lower courts will only stop when SCOTUS steps in.

[MrTriple]

This isn't just about the law, but the culture of law. Some of these judges came up in a professional environment where the Second Amendment was a constitutional oddity, not an actual right, something that even a few conservative judges believe. That's something that takes time to change.

Edited June 23, 2024 at 02:44 AM by MrTriple

[Flynn]

On 6/22/2024 at 9:40 PM, MrTriple said:

Let's be honest with ourselves: SCOTUS could've struck the law on its face, granted cert and summary judgement on every AWB and 2A case pending before it, before ending with a rockin' rendition of the Star Spangled Banner with the Chief on guitar and Alito on drums with a fireworks display and screaming eagles flying through the sky, and (some) of the lower courts would still find ways to defy them.

 

Rahimi or not, some of these lower courts will only stop when SCOTUS steps in.

 

I agree, but there is a difference between putting your foot down and saying "no" vs stepping aside and saying "maybe"

 

Thomas got it right, the rest kicked the can down the road...

[Euler]

On August 12, CA filed Bianchi v Brown (CA4 Maryland AWB case, now captioned Snope v Brown at the Supreme Court) as a supplemental authority. (i.e., look at this other case, which is just like our case.)

On August 16, plaintiffs filed a response to the citation, pointing out what a poor decision it is.