Jump to content

Miller v. Bonta, California AWB case


MrTriple
 Share

Recommended Posts

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 by gunuser17
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Lol CBBE9F7A-1274-4D14-9C2B-13EB5B609321.thumb.png.b6fb6d2bdf3574774ccc04dc922fe93b.png

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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.) ¶¶ 1322. 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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 4 weeks later...

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...