Jump to content

Miller v. Bonta, California AWB case


MrTriple
 Share

Recommended Posts

This was the AWB case originally heard by Judge Benitez, who struck the ban down. The 9th Circuit has vacated the case and remanded it back to the lower court, which means he'll be hearing the case again. I personally believe he'll rule the same way he did the first time, incorporating whatever changes are necessary to comply with Bruen.

 

Seems like a stall tactic on the 9th Circuit's part, but not an unforeseen outcome.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, he will rule the same way. If you read his original opinion closely he issued the opinion from two points of view. From the TTH single step approach and from the two step approach.

 

He will of course, update his opinion to reflect more closely with the Bruen opinion. Making reference to multiple sections of Bruen, and to those of Heller and McDonald that Bruen pointed out. He will also make more mention and use of the actual lack of history or tradition for massacre firearm bans.

 

The real trick, is will it have multiple hearings again, including discovery. Or will he just issue an opinion after both side issue their briefs and opposition briefs.

 

However, I also think that the plaintiffs Miller, will ask And request a TRO &/or injunction which after the required hearings he will grant. This time they won’t be stayed.

 

Suffice it to say, it all starts over from the beggining. Yet the outcome should be the same.

 

What will also be interesting is WHICH AWB case will make it back to the Supreme Court first, and and if one will make it there before the end of the year. Sadly I don’t think one will make it back to SCOTUS before the end of this year, other then a shadow emergency docket for a TRO/Injunction.

 

Even Bianchi v Frosh, have their hearings delayed and set for argument in December.

An intentional delay by the appeals court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the case has been sent back down, the defense has an opportunity to (try to) come up with an argument congruent with Bruen (which is probably why the appeals court sent it back). Unless the lower court receives instructions to rule a certain way, that's why remand pretty much always means a new trial or hearing (depending upon how far back down a case gets sent).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/2/2022 at 6:49 PM, Texasgrillchef said:

Yes, he will rule the same way. If you read his original opinion closely he issued the opinion from two points of view. From the TTH single step approach and from the two step approach.

 

He will of course, update his opinion to reflect more closely with the Bruen opinion. Making reference to multiple sections of Bruen, and to those of Heller and McDonald that Bruen pointed out. He will also make more mention and use of the actual lack of history or tradition for massacre firearm bans.

 

The real trick, is will it have multiple hearings again, including discovery. Or will he just issue an opinion after both side issue their briefs and opposition briefs.

 

However, I also think that the plaintiffs Miller, will ask And request a TRO &/or injunction which after the required hearings he will grant. This time they won’t be stayed.

 

Suffice it to say, it all starts over from the beggining. Yet the outcome should be the same.

 

What will also be interesting is WHICH AWB case will make it back to the Supreme Court first, and and if one will make it there before the end of the year. Sadly I don’t think one will make it back to SCOTUS before the end of this year, other then a shadow emergency docket for a TRO/Injunction.

 

Even Bianchi v Frosh, have their hearings delayed and set for argument in December.

An intentional delay by the appeals court.

A part of me wonders if any AWB case will make it to the Supreme Court without a lower court striking it down first. I would think that the GVR of Bianchi would be taken as a clear indication of the Court's thinking, and many judges won't want to issue a ruling they know SCOTUS would strike down on appeal.

 

For judges who want to "minimize the damage caused by Bruen," the strategic thing to do is strike the law down and leave it at that. I guarantee that the gun control movement now wishes that the lower courts had struck New York's good cause requirement in the first instance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/2/2022 at 7:21 PM, MrTriple said:

A part of me wonders if any AWB case will make it to the Supreme Court without a lower court striking it down first. I would think that the GVR of Bianchi would be taken as a clear indication of the Court's thinking, and many judges won't want to issue a ruling they know SCOTUS would strike down on appeal.

 

For judges who want to "minimize the damage caused by Bruen," the strategic thing to do is strike the law down and leave it at that. I guarantee that the gun control movement now wishes that the lower courts had struck New York's good cause requirement in the first instance.


Well all good thoughts and logic but let’s take a step back here and look at a somewhat prior case.

 

Wrenn v D.C. in which that lower court held in favor of wrenn against D.C. basically wha the Bruen decision did for carry outside the home. 
 

D.C. was about to file a petition for cert with SCOTUS, but was pressured by states like NY and California not to purse it as to force the issue on the other May Issue states at the time.

 
NY currently is the only state to give SCOTUS a big FU. With. The Gov. Calling the legislature back to pass a new law. No other state has done that yet. Hawaii Just has no started issuing permits yet. Soon maybe, just not yet. Ca is all dependent on where your at.

 

That being said though….

 

The courts in certain areas are granting extension of time to prolong the case. One strange exception is an Obama appointed judge in Colorado issuing a TRO.

 

Bianchi v Frosh though is being set for oral argument but not at district court level. The 3 judge panel wants to rule on this one for some reason.

 

Then again too… one has to consider the courts they are in, and who the judges are at what levels, and what procedures are available to be followed.

 

When Judge St Bonitez rules the same way… Bonta can still appeal back to the 3 judge panel. Giving the 3 judge panel an additional opportunity to find another chance to reverse the district courts opinion. 9th circuit En Banc will deny En Banc. Then a petition for cert with SCOTUS will be filed. 
 

SCOTUS is aware that there are over 8 different AWB cases still pending. So they will either hold Miller, or they will Grant. Which AWB will be the best to grant cert on is all a matter of opinion.

 

Even though those who are fighting to keep the AWB know they will eventually LOSE, they still want to delay that outcome as much as possible, and cost us as many dollars as possible, even though they will have to pay it in the end.

 

They aren’t playing to minimize damage… they are playing an ALL or NOTHING game. They are all in, playing for all the marbles.

 

This was evident in NY. They could have MOOTED the case, like they did with NYC in 2020. They could have put the new law they have now back in 2021. They didn’t. They decided to wait till after to see what and how they could change to meet the new decision. They know the new Bruen or Hochul case if not both will end back up in front of SCOTUS. They know they will loose though too.

 

However… one big thing that is driving all of the politicians, because this year is an election year. They have to show they are trying to fight, even if they loose later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

This isn’t as bad news as everyone thinks it is. 
 

St Benitez isn’t going to change his ruling.

 

The only thing this does is delay the inevitable. Ca will appeal this back to the 9th Circuit. Then on to the En Banc. Which if they don’t uphold Judge St. Benitez. They know SCOTUS will overturn their ruling. If it end up in front of SCOTUS with an improper ruling they will end giving the 9th circuit an opinion they won’t like.

 

So all the 9th circuit is trying to do is delay it for as long as they can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/23/2022 at 4:52 PM, Texasgrillchef said:

This isn’t as bad news as everyone thinks it is. 
 

St Benitez isn’t going to change his ruling.

 

The only thing this does is delay the inevitable. Ca will appeal this back to the 9th Circuit. Then on to the En Banc. Which if they don’t uphold Judge St. Benitez. They know SCOTUS will overturn their ruling. If it end up in front of SCOTUS with an improper ruling they will end giving the 9th circuit an opinion they won’t like.

 

So all the 9th circuit is trying to do is delay it for as long as they can.

Are there rules for how long the circuit could delay an en banc hearing, for example? I could see them delaying scheduling a hearing for many, many months as a means of delaying the proceedings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well there are time limits for filing appeals, and filing for an En Banc hearing.

 

However, as far as I can tell there are no time limits for a Justices issuing opinions. That being said though. They can’t indefinitely hold off an opinion without just cause. 
Staying cases is also another tactic. Such as many cases here stayed and held in abeyance due to the NYSPRA v Bruen case. 
 

I will do some research and see how long they can hold opinions before someone can take action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Docket for the Federal District Court of Southern California

 

On August 8, Judge Benitez ordered the parties to file briefs within 20 days addressing the case with regard to NYSRPA v Bruen.

 

On August 29, Bonta et al. responded that they needed more time for discovery. Miller et al. responded that their case was unchanged and that NYSRPA v Bruen vindicated the original decision. Benitez gave the parties 45 more days, to be followed by 15 days to respond.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone wants to keep up with this case, Armed Scholar on YouTube watches it and many other cases in CA and elsewhere. Quick to respond, he's an attorney and not just a random commentator and his videos are thorough and in-depth. 

 

There's a common theme with most of the 2A cases out of CA right now. The gov't knows they can't win in light of Bruen, so they're just using stall tactics.

 

Edit: Just saw someone posted a link to his video above. Still worth subscribing for updates and other cases.

Edited by alco0203
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...
On 10/20/2022 at 8:35 PM, Euler said:

On January 24, 2020, Gifford's Law Center and Everytown asked for permission to submit amici curae briefs. On August 3, 2020, Judge Benitez denied them permission.

 

On October 20 (today), Gifford's asked Benitez to reconsider.

 

On November 7, Benitez scheduled a hearing on December 12 to consider Gifford's request.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

At the December 12 hearing, the judge issued the following order to both parties:

 

The state defendants shall create, and the plaintiffs shall meet and confer regarding, a survey or spreadsheet of relevant statutes, laws, or regulations in chronological order. The listing shall begin at the time of the adoption of the Second Amendment and continue through twenty years after the Fourteenth Amendment. For each cited statute/law/regulation, the survey shall provide:

 

(a) the date of enactment;

(b) the enacting state, territory, or locality;

(c) a description of what was restricted (e.g., dirks, daggers, metal knuckles, storage of gunpowder or cartridges, or use regulations);

(d) what it was that the law or regulation restricted;

(e) what type of weapon was being restricted (e.g., knife, Bowie Knife, stiletto, metal knuckles, pistols, rifles);

(f) if and when the law was repealed and whether it was replaced;

(g) whether the regulation was reviewed by a court and the outcome of the courts review (with case citation).

 

Defendants may create a second survey covering a time period following that of the first list. If opposing parties cannot agree on the inclusion of a particular entry on the survey, the disagreement shall be indicated and described on a separate list. The survey list shall be filed within 30 days.

 

Parties may file a brief up to 25 pages within 30 days thereafter focusing on relevant analogs. Parties may file a responsive brief within 10 days thereafter.

 

Basically judges, not just this judge, are asking parties to come to court having done a historical analysis, instead of expecting the judges to do it themselves. Asking the parties to attempt agreement on the historical analysis is an interesting twist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/16/2022 at 8:01 PM, Euler said:

At the December 12 hearing, the judge issued the following order to both parties:

 

The state defendants shall create, and the plaintiffs shall meet and confer regarding, a survey or spreadsheet of relevant statutes, laws, or regulations in chronological order. The listing shall begin at the time of the adoption of the Second Amendment and continue through twenty years after the Fourteenth Amendment. For each cited statute/law/regulation, the survey shall provide:

 

(a) the date of enactment;

(b) the enacting state, territory, or locality;

(c) a description of what was restricted (e.g., dirks, daggers, metal knuckles, storage of gunpowder or cartridges, or use regulations);

(d) what it was that the law or regulation restricted;

(e) what type of weapon was being restricted (e.g., knife, Bowie Knife, stiletto, metal knuckles, pistols, rifles);

(f) if and when the law was repealed and whether it was replaced;

(g) whether the regulation was reviewed by a court and the outcome of the courts review (with case citation).

 

Defendants may create a second survey covering a time period following that of the first list. If opposing parties cannot agree on the inclusion of a particular entry on the survey, the disagreement shall be indicated and described on a separate list. The survey list shall be filed within 30 days.

 

Parties may file a brief up to 25 pages within 30 days thereafter focusing on relevant analogs. Parties may file a responsive brief within 10 days thereafter.

 

Basically judges, not just this judge, are asking parties to come to court having done a historical analysis, instead of expecting the judges to do it themselves. Asking the parties to attempt agreement on the historical analysis is an interesting twist.

 

I personally think the judge should have also added another step to flag any such laws that were enacted based on protected class critera, aka if it was enacted against an ethinic group, a racial group, free/slave status or other social status and so it should be flagged and noted.

 

IMO any 2nd infringing law that was enacted based on a protected class criteria should be moot entirely upon arrival.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
On 1/12/2023 at 12:14 PM, Upholder said:

 

 

LOL translation "We provided you with what are clearly race driven unconstitutional laws to justify our new unconstitutional laws, will the court pretty please ignore the fact that our justification for unconstituional laws is backed by historicaly unconsitutional laws"?  🤡🌎

 

 

Also in regards to this  "because its current "commonsense" laws are designed to be just and equitable"

 

If there are any cut outs for mlitary, law enforcement (both federal and local), security agencies/personal, ex-law enforcement, elected officials or anyone else, then they are not justy and equitable at all...

 

Edited by Flynn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/12/2023 at 1:14 PM, Upholder said:

California says its listing of numerous racist gun laws in support of current ones "should in no way be construed as an endorsement of such laws by the Attorney General or his counsel in this matter" because its current "commonsense" laws are designed to be just and equitable

— Rob Romano (@2Aupdates) January 12, 2023

 

Remember that this is a list that the judge ordered the state to produce, with the agreement of the plaintiffs, of relevant statutes. "Relevant" isn't limited to "helps the state's case." I'll say again that the judge is basically making the litigants do a historical analysis so that he doesn't have to do it himself.

 

I think he's got the right approach. Lay out all the laws, then decide once what it all means. That way there's little to no wiggle room if/when the case goes up to appeal (or the Supreme Court). No one can argue that something got overlooked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...