Yes. Both generically and succinctly, it's what they want in every other state.For people in other states, its a good read with a lot of helpful information.
Yes. Both generically and succinctly, it's what they want in every other state.For people in other states, its a good read with a lot of helpful information.
At least Judge Benitez believes the 2nd Amendment means something.
There's not going to be a window of opportunity similar to what has become known as "Freedom Week" in the large-capacity magazine case that was before the same judge a couple of years ago.Will be interesting to see if there is a 'window' that pops open, between this stay and the acceptance of the filing of the Appeal. That's what created the 8-9 day "window" for ordinary-capacity magazines, before.
The CA AG may feel the need to act faster than last time, but that may not be possible.
In the unlikely event of an en blanc decision that finds the AWB is unconstitutional, I don't see the states appealing to SCOTUS, not when they think it's a 6-3 conservative majority. They would only do it if they know the appeal would give them what they want.Odds are it will be like the mag ban, if we win in the 9th the the State will request a rehearing en blanc in the 9th, if we lose the en blanc it will go to SCOTUS who may or may not take it.
If we win en blanc then it will be interesting to see if the state tries to take it to SCOTUS. (who again may or may not take it).
Still a long road ahead but at least a step in the right direction.
You love to see itSeen on P-F
I am sure the state will appeal, but it looks like a Naughty Gun Holiday like the brief magazine de-ban there.
BOOM. Judge Benitez ruled California AWB unconstitutional.
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.ne...pdf?1622850514
Judge Benitez is in "senior status," which means that he's essentially retired. The reason he got the case is that there's a scarcity of judges (5 vacancies) in that District.The Times article mentions that under Fed. judiciary rules, a judge who has tried a similar legal issue, in this case the magazine capacity case, will get all similar cases because it is assumed they now have expertise in that area.
Judge Benitez is an outlier in CA in the 9th circuit, I don’t expect his ruling to be confirmed by his appeals court. If by chance they do, this will also affect HI, which is also in the 9th.
Or pulling them out of attics and crawlspaces, either . . .so don't go shopping for a new AR just yet.
It's almost certain that the decision will be reversed by the 9th Circuit.
LA Times had an analysis the the decision was reasonable as based on the law and Constitution. https://www.latimes.com/california/...ssault-weapon-ban-appeal-benitez-newsom-bonta
From the LA Times article:What I'm saying is, this is a potentially slippery slope if the whole argument hangs on or turns into defining too narrowly the meaning of common. You see this happening in that LAT piece when it comes to the Chemerinsky quotes.
From the LA Times article:
UC Berkeley law school dean Erwin Chemerinsky, a widely respected constitutional scholar, believes that the Supreme Court has only protected firearms that were common when the 2nd Amendment was adopted in 1791.
“No one can argue that AR-15-style weapons existed, let alone were in common use, in 1791,” Chemerinsky wrote.
This argument was completely dismissed in Heller:
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications,... and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, ... the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. DC v Heller, page 8
There's no way that "constitutional scholar" Chemerinsky is unaware of this quote. Nor would he apply it to any other amendment, unless he thinks the First Amendment only applies to documents written with a quill pen.
People who respect him because he tells them what they want to hear.The rhetorical elephant question in the room is..... Chemerinsky is widely respected by who?
Lawyers. He has long been known as one of the country's top constitutional scholars.The rhetorical elephant question in the room is..... Chemerinsky is widely respected by who?
Lawyers. He has long been known as one of the country's top constitutional scholars.
ETA: I was shocked to see just how wrong he was in the recent LA Times article, but lots of lawyers will buy into what he says, because he's Erwin Chemerinsky.