SCOTUS considering Bianchi v Frosh/Duncan v Bonta the turning point for AW/magazine ban?

With Supreme Court's recent NYSRPA v Bruen ruling, looks like this is going to be the starting year for states' assault weapon/magazine ban and carry permit reversal:

LiveLife said:
update for Miller v Bonta (CA assault weapon case) affecting Rupp v Bonta (CA ban on certain assault weapon) ... A motion has been filed to lift the 9th Circuit stay on the purchase and possession of banned "featured" rifles.
Click to expand...

https://rumble.com/v1cwso6-supreme-...ifornia-assault-weapon-ban-into-a-corner.html
 
As a Californian, it's going to be a long, slow slog here to regain our rights. Newsom is getting ready to sign SB918 which is similar to the NY CCW restrictions that basically make it impossible to carry in most places legally. This is a direct violation of the NYSRPA SCOTUS ruling but the tyrants here in California simply don't care about SCOTUS and will do whatever they want. Who is going to hold them accountable? Biden's FBI? Biden's justice department?

We will win all of these cases here eventually and all of the idiotic and Unconstitutional laws will be struck down in the 9th, but California and the 9th will have to be beaten into submission to capitulate to not enforcing new tyranny against law abiding gun owners. Newsom and the legislature are drunk with power and hubris and know they can get away with anything for the time being, the rule of law doesn't apply to them. As a California CCW holder, the state AG, Rob Bonta just intentionally doxxed me and most other California CCW holders as punishment for the NYSRPA ruling and for daring to exercise our legal and civil rights to carry outside the home. We're literally in a war here folks. Don't just write it off as "Fruits and Nuts in California". The Dems will run Newsom for 2024. If somehow elected, Newsom will make a run to turn the rest of the United States into California. Mark my words. Imagine the rest of America with the insanity and PC Woke Nanny State idiocy that we are tortured with here on a daily basis.
 
The Supreme Court's recent NYSRPA v Bruen ruling is starting to affect district court rulings for assault weapons, large capacity magazines and concealed/open carry.

US District Court judge Raymond Moore (An Obama appointee) on Friday (7/22/22) issued the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners a temporary restraining order (TRO) preventing the town of Superior, CO from enforcing its recently enacted ordinance against certain types of assault weapons, large capacity magazines, carrying of conceal weapons, etc. - https://autos.yahoo.com/judge-grants-gun-ownership-group-144000230.html

the RMGO Executive Director Taylor Rhodes called the temporary restraining order "a massive win for gun rights in the State of Colorado ... Today the judge affirmed what we already knew to be true, under the Second Amendment and the Bruen ruling, the Town of Superior doesn't have a leg to stand on".

The U.S. Supreme Court's Bruen ruling in June overturned a New York State law requiring that gun owners show "proper cause" to get a license to carry a concealed firearm in public.​


Attorney's review and discussion of District Court's TRO ruling - https://rumble.com/v1dr6he-assault-...ed-unconstitutional-by-u.s.-district-cou.html


Dudley Brown from Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and National Association for Gun Rights discuss TRO ruling.

​
 
Here in Washington state, I don't see Sullivan v. Ferguson going anywhere very soon. Dictator, er... Gov. Jay and AG Ferguson have doubled down on the hysterical anti-gun rhetoric and are indicating the next step is banning all semi-auto-rifles and pistols here (on the heels of the standard capacity mag ban). They're gonna go down swinging, apparently. Will this be enough for the voters to depose Governor for Life Inslee? Tune in again in November 2024.
 
Old Dog said:
LiveLife said:
The Supreme Court's recent NYSRPA v Bruen ruling is starting to affect district court rulings for assault weapons, large capacity magazines and concealed/open carry.
Click to expand...
I don't see Sullivan v. Ferguson going anywhere very soon
Click to expand...
The Supreme Court ruling for Bruen is just starting to affect various district court level cases and many states have already started the switch from "may issue" to "shall issue".

Let's be patient and let the courts do their thing.

Of course, in the meantime, we can bet our anti-gun law makers will do whatever they can do to draft/pass bills but "We the People" will vote in 2022/2024 on the "enforcement" of Supreme Court ruling. And there's growing number of gun owners who will likely vote for gun rights in future elections (Hundreds of millions of guns sold the past decade says A LOT :cool:).

I am with "We the People" protecting the rights of minority gun owners who are growing in numbers. ;)

And we now have "Originalist" core group of Supreme Court justices who will continue to rule pro-2A on future gun rights cases for decades to come. :thumbup:
 
Last edited:
LiveLife said:
With Supreme Court's recent NYSRPA v Bruen ruling, looks like this is going to be the starting year for states' assault weapon/magazine ban and carry permit reversal
Click to expand...
After losing the Duncan v Bonta case where judge Benitez ruled CA's larger than 10 round capacity magazine ban unconstitutional, the case was elevated to the Supreme Court but it was remanded back down to 9th Circuit after the Bruen ruling and we are waiting on the 9th Circuit to lift the stay that was placed on 4/5/19 after the "Freedom Week" - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/happy-days-in-ca.849757/page-4#post-11102503

According to an email, LAPD has stopped enforcing CA's ban on larger than 10 round capacity magazines (email obtained by the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project) - https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/b...nt-of-californias-high-capacity-magazine-ban/

Screen-Shot-2022-07-21-at-4.08.32-PM-1536x735.png ​

The email was sent Wednesday morning to all LAPD personnel by Commander Ernest Eskridge, assistant commanding officer of the department’s Detective Bureau.

Eskridge noted that on June 23, the “United States Supreme Court vacated the ruling in Duncan v. Bonta and remanded the case back to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal for further consideration in light of its recent decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.”

Because of this ruling, Eskridge said in the email, all sworn LAPD personnel shall not “investigate, detain or arrest” anyone for possessing a magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds, unless they are already legally barred from possession ammunition in the state.
​

Attorney's review and discussion of email pertaining to Duncan v Bonta.

https://rumble.com/v1dzpoa-supreme-...police-enforcing-california-magazine-ban.html
 
LiveLife said:
With Supreme Court's recent NYSRPA v Bruen ruling, looks like this is going to be the starting year for states' assault weapon/magazine ban and carry permit reversal ...
Click to expand...
9th Circuit just remanded Miller v Bonta (CA assault weapon ban) back to District Court and judge Benitez - https://rumble.com/v1ekva2-assault-weapon-ban-forced-back-down-to-saint-benitez-by-9th-circuit.html

So what happens now?
  • Judge "Saint" Benitez has oversight of the case
  • Judge Benitez already found the case to be "average" case, with "average" guns, used in "average" ways, for "average" purposes
  • Judge Benitez used standard review just used by the Supreme Court for the Bruen decision of text and history to determine if CA ban of these "average" guns were unconstitutional
  • Judge Benitez determined ban on "modern" rifles has no historic pedigree and same/similar "modern" rifles were lawfully sold and possessed in other states
  • State of CA appealed the case to the 9th Circuit and eventually sent to the Supreme Court but was put on hold due to backlog of cases pending Bruen
  • Supreme Court struck down the "two step" process approach for Bruen and ruled the text and history analysis was the proper approach for 2A
  • After Bruen ruling, FPC filed a motion to lift the 9th Circuit stay on the case
  • CA opposed the motion to lift the stay and requested the 9th Circuit remand the case back to judge Benitez for review once again in light of Bruen ruling
  • With the two step process gone, 9th Circuit hands are now tied and only option left for CA is to request the case be remanded back to judge Benitez who already ruled on the case and now will be bound to only use "text and history" :p
  • This week, 9th Circuit remanded the case back to District Court and judge Benitez consistent with Bruen ruling :thumbup:
I cannot wait to see how judge "Saint" Benitez will reconsider Miller v Bonta as he already ruled using text and history and now with Supreme Court's clear guidance of Bruen which validated judge Benitez original ruling ... :rofl:

Judge Benitez can fast track the case and FPC can request a Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction to provide immediate relief for CA gun owners. (Of course CA can still appeal the TRO/PI to 9th Circuit which can ultimately end up back in Supreme Court).

Things are looking up for ban on "modern" rifles (I think we should stop using the term "assault weapon" collectively).
 
I have always resented and rejected the term "assault weapon" as currently applied. Its inaccurate, divisive, and manipulative. It's just plainly dishonest.

The term "Modern Sporting Rifle" (MSR) is accurate, correct, and honest.

The same reason that I don't refer to my car as a "teen killer" even though far more teen are killed by cars than "assault weapons"

JMHO
 
Tinman357 said:
I have always resented and rejected the term "assault weapon" as currently applied. Its inaccurate, divisive, and manipulative. It's just plainly dishonest.
Click to expand...
Although the current "assault weapon" usage doesn't track the original meaning of the term (an intermediate-cartridge, selective fire weapon), the meaning has evolved. And the gun community itself was largely responsible for this evolution. Just look at ads from the 70's and 80's. It was a marketing ploy! I remember the covers of news stand gun magazines, with issues dedicated to the latest "assault rifles." The antigunners just conveniently latched onto it. The industry was hoisted on its own petard.
Tinman357 said:
The term "Modern Sporting Rifle" (MSR) is accurate, correct, and honest.
Click to expand...
No. It's a transparent ploy, in the opposite direction. It's inaccurate, incorrect, and dishonest. And anybody with half a brain sees right through it. What we are dealing with are military-substitute weapons. Which are fine, because those are precisely what the 2nd Amendment was designed to protect !

Let's deal with the reality as it exists. "Assault weapon" has become the established terminology. We should embrace "weapons of war." Those are our birthright. Not "sporting weapons." The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting or target shooting.
 
AlexanderA said:
What we are dealing with are military-substitute weapons. Which are fine, because those are precisely what the 2nd Amendment was designed to protect!

Let's deal with the reality as it exists. "Assault weapon" has become the established terminology. We should embrace "weapons of war." Those are our birthright. Not "sporting weapons." The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting or target shooting.
Click to expand...
And the term "military grade weapon" has been used too.

It's interesting how "terminologies" the antis chose to use over the decades as knives, axes, revolvers, lever actions, bolt actions and shotguns have been used for war so they are also "weapons of war, military grade weapons and assault weapons". ;)

But what ultimately matters is what "terminologies" the Supreme Court chooses to use and this is from judge Kavanaugh, now justice Kavanaugh of his dissent in Heller II - https://reason.com/volokh/2018/07/09/judge-kavanaugh-and-the-second-amendment/

There is no meaningful or persuasive constitutional distinction between semi-automatic handguns and semi-automatic rifles. Semi-automatic rifles, like semi-automatic handguns, have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens for self-defense in the home, hunting, and other lawful uses ... A ban on a class of arms is not an "incidental" regulation. It is equivalent to a ban on a category of speech.
​
In the recent Supreme Court's Bruen ruling, justice Thomas used historic terminologies of "arm, weapon and firearm" while using "modern arms" and "modern firearms" referencing Caetano v. Massachusetts (Page 19-20 of ruling) - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

And justice Thomas also wrote, "The constitutional right to bear arms in public for selfdefense is not 'a second-class right'" meaning just as First Amendment protection applies to "modern" forms of communication, Second Amendment protection applies to "modern" types of firearms.


In Miller v Bonta (CA assault weapon ban case) ruling, judge Benitez wrote - https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/20798017/ruling-in-miller-et-al-v-bonta-et-al.pdf

... the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect ... home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment. Good for both home and battle, the AR-15 is the kind of versatile gun that lies at the intersection of the kinds of firearms protected under District of Columbia v. Heller ... State of California makes it a crime to have an AR15 type rifle. Therefore, this Court declares the California statutes to be unconstitutional ... California’s complex definition of the ignominious “assault weapon.” (Page 1)

... the “assault weapon” epithet is a bit of a misnomer. These prohibited guns, like all guns, are dangerous weapons. However, these prohibited guns, like all guns, can be used for ill or for good. They could just as well be called “home defense rifles” or “anti-crime guns.” (Page 8)
​
And judge Benitez used the term "Modern Rifle" (Page 10) compared to "Traditional Rifle" (Page 15):

The Second Amendment protects modern weapons. Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. 411, 412 (2016). The firearms banned by California Penal Code § 30515 and deemed “assault weapons” are modern weapons. They are principally AR-15 type rifles ...

AR-15 platform in particular, is an “open source” design and includes firearms made by numerous manufacturers under different product names with countless variations and adaptations ... When the term “modern rifle” is used in this opinion, it principally refers to a rifle built on the AR-15 platform with prohibited features. (Page 11)

In Caetano ... common modern arms useful for selfdefense in the home ... Second Amendment protection includes both common arms and weapons that may also be useful in warfare. (Page 12)

The Heller Test ... The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and keep the popular AR-15 rifle and its many variants do so for lawful purposes, including selfdefense at home. Under Heller, that is all that is needed. Using the easy to understand Heller test, it is obvious that the California assault weapon ban is unconstitutional. Under the Heller test, judicial review can end right here. (Page 13)

... a ban on modern rifles has no historical pedigree. Prior to the 1990’s, there was no national history of banning weapons because they were equipped with furniture like pistol grips, collapsible stocks, flash hiders, flare launchers, or barrel shrouds. In fact, prior to California’s 1989 ban, so-called assault weapons were lawfully manufactured, acquired, and possessed throughout the United States. (Page 19)

In the end, the Court finds that the prohibited features do not change an AR-15 rifle from a benign weapon into an “incredibly effective killing machine.” Another commonly espoused myth is that the caliber of these centerfire semiautomatic weapons are more lethal. In fact, the evidence proves otherwise. The usual ammunition for an AR-15, the .223/5.56 round, is designed to cause wounding, much more than death. Dr. Margulies, M.D., testified that the 5.56 round was a NATO choice to inflict non-lethal wounds. (Page 43)​
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Update to post #165 - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...r-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-7#post-12366383

9th Circuit en banc panel just issued an order requesting additional briefings on Duncan v Bonta (CA magazine ban case) and also considering sending the case back to judge "Saint" Benitez for reconsideration in light of Supreme Court's ruling on Bruen - https://rumble.com/v1et7ji-9th-circ...-decision-to-be-reheard-by-saint-benitez.html
  • This is same delay/stall tactic 9th Circuit used for Miller v Bonta (CA assault weapon ban case) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...r-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-7#post-12371472
  • Judge Benitez will likely rule CA magazine ban unconstitutional after reconsideration as the whole rationale used by the 9th Circuit was reversed by Bruen ruling.
  • In March of 2019, judge Benitez ruled CA's larger than 10 round capacity magazine ban unconstitutional with judgement which allowed "Freedom Week" where millions of larger than 10 round capacity magazines were sold/imported until stay was put in place on 4/5/19.
  • The case got appealed to the Supreme Court but was put on hold pending Bruen ruling which threw out the "two step" process as inappropriate and instead "text informed by history" was the proper process approach for 2A.
  • Case got remanded back down to 9th Circuit in light of Bruen ruling and supplemental briefs are requested by the en banc panel along with consideration whether the case should be sent back to the District Court with case oversight of judge Benitez.
  • Judge Benitez already used the Heller test in his ruling and found that magazine capacity ban lacks historic pedigree. Earliest restriction on detachable magazine capacity was in 1990 where New Jersey restricted capacity to 15 rounds and 8 other states followed then came the 1994 "Assault Weapons" ban which limited magazine capacity to 10 rounds but that sunsetted in 2004.
  • Judge Benitez stated in his ruling that while detachable magazine has been common for more than a century, government regulation on magazine capacity is recent and magazines without limits on capacity are allowed in 4/5th of the states which supports lack of historic pedigree for 2A and CA ban on larger than 10 round capacity magazines unconstitutional.
  • If case is sent back to the District Court, judge Benitez will have complete control and will most likely rule in line with recent Supreme Court's Bruen ruling with potential request for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)/Preliminary Injunction (PI) which will be appealed by CA possibly back to the Supreme Court.
  • Judge Benitez could halt the entire enforcement of CA's penal code on magazine capacity and issue summary judgement against the state of CA.
 
Last edited:
Findings of Miller and Duncan cases are crucial to the future of gun rights as they will set persuasive (Not binding) precedents for other Circuits to follow in line with Bruen ruling
 
Last edited:
Tinman357 said:
I have always resented and rejected the term "assault weapon" as currently applied. Its inaccurate, divisive, and manipulative. It's just plainly dishonest.

The term "Modern Sporting Rifle" (MSR) is accurate, correct, and honest.

The same reason that I don't refer to my car as a "teen killer" even though far more teen are killed by cars than "assault weapons"

JMHO
Click to expand...

upload_2022-8-7_15-44-30.png

Well, here you go! :rofl:

Picher's a clickey one!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Bianchi v. Frosh - Twenty-five states urge SCOTUS to hear case fighting Maryland firearms ban
Replies
10
Views
1K
jdc1244
jdc1244
N
  • Locked
Supreme court to take on the DC gun case!
Replies
8
Views
1K
romma
R
LiveLife
  • Locked
Effects of DC v Heller and subsequent case rulings on gun rights/modern firearms and accessories
Replies
1
Views
382
AlexanderA
A
W
  • Locked
Supreme Court Takes Gun Case
Replies
1
Views
654
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
LiveLife
  • Locked
Update to CA DOJ data breach and Doe v Bonta and Barba v Bonta regarding AB 173
Replies
10
Views
539
BreechFace
BreechFace
Back
Top