Miller v. Bonta, California AWB case

[gunuser17]

Look at it this way, at the start of a trial, a lawyer may have 1,000 documents on their exhibit list because they throw everything they might use on the list.  By the time the trial is over, they may only use 150 or fewer of those documents.  Here the judge is saying that he knows they listed a huge number of laws on their spreadsheet list - but on which one are they actually relying - its time for the state to put their best cards on the table.

Edited February 9, 2023 at 04:23 AM by gunuser17

[Upholder]

Plaintiff's Response Brief Re: Defendant's Historical Surveys Ordered by the Court:

 

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.642089/gov.uscourts.casd.642089.166.0.pdf

[steveTA84]

On 2/12/2023 at 4:22 PM, Upholder said:

Plaintiff's Response Brief Re: Defendant's Historical Surveys Ordered by the Court:

 

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.642089/gov.uscourts.casd.642089.166.0.pdf

Lol 

[Upholder]

Defendants' Brief in response to the Court's order entered on December 15, 2022:

 

 https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.642089/gov.uscourts.casd.642089.167.0.pdf

 

In skimming the order, the defense is putting a lot of weight on weapons only suitable for "self-defense" which is not the test.  The test is specifically "common use for lawful purposes such as self-defense", which is one example, not an exhaustive list like the defense would like the court to believe.

[Flynn]

On 2/12/2023 at 4:56 PM, steveTA84 said:

Lol 

 

We need more of this, the states need to be shamed and condemned to no end and relentlessly for actions like this trying use a blatently unconstitutional law to justify another unconstitutional law.  It's really too bad we don't have an honest MSM that would broadcast these type of antics to everyone.

[Upholder]

Plaintiffs' response to Defendant's Brief:

 

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.642089/gov.uscourts.casd.642089.169.0.pdf

[Upholder]

Defendant's Brief in Response to Plaintiffs' Brief Filed on February 10 2023:

 

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.642089/gov.uscourts.casd.642089.170.0.pdf

 

 

Among other things, it cites the Bevis v Illinois ruling from the other day, the hilariously inaccurate Col Tucker declaration and the recent rulings relating to Oregon measure 114:

Quote

A prohibition on the manufacture, sale, and possession of firearms defined as
“assault weapons” under Section 30515 is “constitutionally sound” because these
“particularly ‘dangerous’ weapons” are not in common use for self-defense. Bevis
v. City of Naperville, Ill., 2023 WL 2077392, at *9 & n.8 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 17, 2023)
(denying motion for preliminary injunction of Illinois’ assault weapons ban because
“particularly ‘dangerous’ weapons are unprotected”). Rather, AR-platform rifles
are extraordinarily lethal weapons and serve no legitimate self-defense purpose.
See Echeverria Decl. (Dkt. 167-1), Ex. 2 (Col. Tucker Decl.) ¶¶ 13–22. Indeed,
they are “like” the M16 or M4 and “may be banned.” E.g., Oregon Firearms, 2022
WL 17454829, at *10-11 & n.13 (same as to large-capacity magazines).5

 

 

[springfield shooter]

On 2/22/2023 at 10:17 AM, Upholder said:

Defendant's Brief in Response to Plaintiffs' Brief Filed on February 10 2023:

 

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.642089/gov.uscourts.casd.642089.170.0.pdf

 

 

Among other things, it cites the Bevis v Illinois ruling from the other day, the hilariously inaccurate Col Tucker declaration and the recent rulings relating to Oregon measure 114:

 

 

 

From what little I've read about him, I don't think the Hon. Roger T. Benitez will be impressed.

[davel501]

 

 

🍿 

 

[Flynn]

If it goes down like that video predicts that is some next level trolling!

[davel501]

For those keeping track: Assault weapons sales ban passes Washington state Legislature (axios.com)

 

Everything is on track for the bill to be signed tomorrow.

[JTHunter]

On 4/19/2023 at 6:35 PM, davel501 said:

For those keeping track: Assault weapons sales ban passes Washington state Legislature (axios.com)

 

Everything is on track for the bill to be signed tomorrow.

 

Okay, it is 7 p.m. CT on the 20th.  What happened with 1240 ?

[davel501]

On 4/20/2023 at 6:59 PM, JTHunter said:

 

Okay, it is 7 p.m. CT on the 20th.  What happened with 1240 ?

 

Been waiting all day for news that Inslee signed it. Doesn't seem to have signed it yet for some reason. 

[Upholder]

On 4/20/2023 at 7:16 PM, davel501 said:

Been waiting all day for news that Inslee signed it. Doesn't seem to have signed it yet for some reason. 

 

Reports from Washington Gun Law are that he will not sign it this week, expectations are now 4/27 or 4/28.

 

[davel501]

I wonder how much longer they are going to work on this ruling. We are solidly in that 3-4 month range at this point.

[Euler]

On November 11, 2022 at 05:04 PM, Euler said:→

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.

It took a while, but on August 25, Benitez denied Gifford's (and a few others) the opportunity to submit an amicus brief. ("The existing parties are well-equipped to present arguments and expertise." In other words, "You have nothing relevant to say that hasn't already been said.")

[C0untZer0]

I am confused about what is being reported in the media.  Didn't US District Judge Roger T. Benitez issue or re-issue his ruling last Friday?

 

There is a story that California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a notice of appeal.

 

What court is he appealing to?  This has been up to the Supreme Court and it was remanding to the lower court so where do you go from there?  Would it go the the full United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ?

[davel501]

On 9/26/2023 at 10:13 AM, C0untZer0 said:

I am confused about what is being reported in the media.  Didn't US District Judge Roger T. Benitez issue or re-issue his ruling last Friday?

 

There is a story that California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a notice of appeal.

 

What court is he appealing to?  This has been up to the Supreme Court and it was remanding to the lower court so where do you go from there?  Would it go the the full United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ?

 

It's the same appeal process. They basically started over from the beginning but now they know what answer they are not allowed to come up with.

[Upholder]

On 9/26/2023 at 10:13 AM, C0untZer0 said:

There is a story that California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a notice of appeal.

 

That was the Magazine Ban case, Duncan v. Bonta:

 

[C0untZer0]

I see why I was confused, CNN referenced the Miller case in the article:

 

Federal judge overturns California ban on high-capacity gun magazines

 

 

Thanks for the clarification

 

 

[Upholder]

Anytime.  For what it's worth, CNN appears to have removed reference to Miller in that linked article.  Maybe they figured out they had made a mistake.  The same judge did have 4 cases pending on various 2A questions so it's fairly easy to confuse them if you're not paying attention.

[Upholder]

79 page Opinion has been issued.  Struck down with 10 day stay to allow for appeal:

 

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/5381/attachments/original/1697737480/2023.10.19_175_OPINION.pdf?1697737480

[Upholder]

Quote

It is that similar rifles have been used in some mass shootings and that by
virtue of this law, the legislature hoped to keep these modern weapons out of the hands of
mass shooters. The California legislature, at a time in the past when the lower courts did
not recognize an individual’s right to keep firearms and in a state that has no
constitutional analogue to the Second Amendment, balanced that interest above and
against its law-abiding citizens who wanted these firearms for self-defense.

That was then. Today, the Supreme Court has very clearly ended modern interest
balancing when it comes to the Second Amendment.

 

[Upholder]

Quote

The Supreme Court carefully uses the phrase “dangerous and
unusual arms,” while the State, throughout its briefing, refers to “dangerous [or] unusual
arms.” That the State would advocate such a position is disheartening. Justice Alito took
pains to point out that this is a conjunctive test. “As the per curiam opinion recognizes,
this is a conjunctive test: A weapon may not be banned unless it is both dangerous and
unusual . . . . If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically
prohibited just because they are dangerous.”

 

[yurimodin]

they need to stop granting these stays and let freedom effing ring already.....

Edited October 19, 2023 at 06:12 PM by yurimodin

[Sweeper13]

The 7 tyrants on the 9th, will grab it like they did the mag ban decision. 

Edited October 19, 2023 at 06:23 PM by Sweeper13

[yurimodin]

On 10/19/2023 at 1:22 PM, Sweeper13 said:

The 7 tyrants on the 9th, will grab it like they did the mag ban decision. 

"EN BANC..............MOOOOOOOOOOOT!!!!!!!!"

[Matt B]

On 10/19/2023 at 1:22 PM, Sweeper13 said:

The 7 tyrants on the 9th, will grab it like they did the mag ban decision. 

Yup the 9th has no shame. They will pull this into the Duncan en banc panel as a related case and shut it down.

[Upholder]

Surprising exactly nobody, Bonta has filed a notice of appeal:

 

https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-appeals-misguided-district-court-decision-assault-weapons

 

 

[springfield shooter]

Up front, apologies if this has been asked:

 

Since the 9th is (or has been)giving SCOTUS precedent short shrift, is it possible for Miller to appeal directly to SCOTUS if the 9th agrees to hear this?