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

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...