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

Master Blaster said:

Eliminating a subjective test from NY CCW license law did nothing

Click to expand...

The Supreme Court's Bruen ruling (With elimination of the two-step approach and now only "text and history" approach is used for 2A cases) has had a historic and very profound effect on numerous Second Amendment cases across the nation, up and down the circuit/district courts.

And the latest Supreme Court's action on 8/3/22 indicates effects of Bruen ruling is a gift that keeps on giving now that two-step approach is eliminated and courts must rule using "text and history" only - https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/100322zor_fcgj.pdf


And this 8/4/22 AP News article clearly addresses what is now "open season" on gun control laws across the country.

So to me, the Supreme Court eliminating the two-step approach to now "text and history" approach for Second Amendment cases has definitely done more than "nothing".

Update to post #210 for Duncan v Bonta (CA magazine ban case) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...r-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-9#post-12421032

Attorney discusses latest attempt by CA to delay the case - https://rumble.com/v1ocpmd-order-to...y-magazine-ban-case-defied-by-california.html

• CA was given 45 days to file additional briefs (Due on 11/10/22) considering post Bruen ruling of using "text and history" only approach
• CA filed an ex parte motion (Emergency request) to push the filing of additional briefs out to March of 2023 to compile additional supporting information post Bruen ruling
• CA is trying to delay the case as long as possible in the hope "something" will happen before judge Benitez makes a ruling
• Judge Benitez's 9/26 order expands preliminary injunction to larger than 10 round capacity magazines obtained during "Freedom Week" of 3/29/19 - 4/5/19 making them legal for possession and use (Certain restrictions under "Assault Weapon" ban may still apply pending Miller/Rupp v Bonta cases)
• CA had 45 days to file additional briefs considering post Bruen ruling by the Supreme Court
• Plaintiffs have 21 days thereafter to file responsive briefs to CA's additional briefs
• All the briefs are due beginning of December and judge Benitez stated he will decide based on the additional briefs and prior documents filed for the case
• Additional hearings may be ordered (Not likely)
• Judge Benitez is expected to expedite the case and rule once the additional briefs are filed
• CA gun owners may receive Christmas surprise gift from "Saint" Benitez with another "Freedom Week" before CA files another stay request after the ruling

Update to post #192 on Miller v Bonta (CA assault weapon ban) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...r-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-8#post-12395096

Attorney provides an update for Miller v Bonta that judge Benitez may rule on the case within 2-3 weeks - https://rumble.com/v1hwl4i-california-assault-weapon-ban-decision-date-set-by-saint-benitez.html

• As requested by judge Benitez, both parties filed supplemental briefs
• Post Bruen ruling, CA now has to argue using "text as informed by history and tradition" approach only
• Judge Benitez held a hearing and set resolution date within 60 days of the hearing
• 60 days is within 2 weeks for judge Benitez to rule on the case or schedule another hearing if he deems necessary
• Indications are judge Benitez could rule within 2 to 3 weeks to resolve case at the district court level
• This is the first time state of CA had to argue using the post Bruen ruling approach of "text and history" only
• Absurd argument made by CA in the brief is the claim that "accessories" attached to AR-15 type rifle are not arms and not commonly used for self-defense and rifles of these types are not used, needed or commonly owned for self-defense purposes [Unless you have been under a rock the past several decades, AR-15s and derivatives such as PCCs have become very common]
• CA's argument is essentially trying to say AR-15 type rifles with accessories are not "in common use" and attempting to apply the "dangerous and unusual weapons test" but that is contrary to what judge Benitez already stated and Supreme Court ruling in Bruen case
• Judge Benitez already ruled that CA ban on "assault weapons" is based on features and prior to Bruen ruling, already used "Text of Second Amendment and history of nation" (Which the Supreme Court used for Bruen ruling) to determine ban on "modern rifles" was unconstitutional
• He stated in his ruling "... 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) - https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/20798017/ruling-in-miller-et-al-v-bonta-et-al.pdf
• Plaintiffs will file response brief to CA before judge Benitez decides on the case or schedule another hearing

Judge Benitez wrote these in his ruling (And I have a feeling how he may rule on Miller v Bonta case in 2-3 weeks):

luzyfuerza said:

This is the first time, to my knowledge, that a gun-grabbing heavyweight has had to try to justify its actions under Bruen's standards.

Click to expand...

Yes and it's going to be interesting how CA tries to justify "assault weapon" and larger than 10 round capacity magazine bans post Bruen ruling - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/constitutional-crisis.911598/#post-12438531

Judge Benitez already used "Text of Second Amendment and history of nation" (Which the Supreme Court used for Bruen ruling) to determine ban on "modern rifles" was unconstitutional.

In Miller v Bonta ruling, he stated "... 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."

In his Duncan v Bonta ruling, he referenced Caetano v Mass and reaffirmed magazines are "arms" protected by 2A and already used the Heller test to find that magazine capacity ban lacks historical 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.

He 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 historical pedigree for 2A and CA ban on larger than 10 round capacity magazines was unconstitutional.

Update to post #227 for Duncan v Bonta (CA magazine ban case) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-10#post-12437061

Attorney discusses an update in the Duncan v. Bonta California magazine ban case - https://rumble.com/v1q34x5-elimination-of-californias-large-capacity-magazine-ban-is-coming.html

• CA was given 45 days to file additional briefs (Due on 11/10/22) considering post Bruen ruling of using "text and history" only approach
• CA filed an ex parte motion (Emergency request) to push the filing of additional briefs out to March of 2023 to compile additional supporting information of expert analysis post Bruen ruling
• Plaintiffs filed responsive brief arguing that expert discovery is not necessary because even the Supreme Court looked at history and tradition for the Bruen case and deemed there was no historical tradition and that "Bruen test" did not require expert analysis
• While CA misquoted "dangerous OR unusual", plaintiffs pointed out the actual language used was "dangerous AND unusual" and like Miller v Bonta case, larger than 10 round capacity magazines along with "modern rifles" have been in common use and not unusual and have been lawfully sold/owned all across the country
• It is unlikely judge Benitez will grant CA's request to push the case out to March of next year as judge Benitez already ruled for Duncan v Bonta (using text, history and tradition) that there is no historical support for banning larger than 10 round capacity magazines which are "arms"

Update to post #228 on Miller v Bonta (CA assault weapon ban) -
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-10#post-12437128

Attorney breaks down how the Miller v Bonta California "Assault Weapon" ban case is now in the hands of judge Benitez for a decision - https://rumble.com/v1qk0qt-supreme-court-decision-forcing-ca-assault-weapon-ban-to-end.html

• It's been 60 days and both parties have filed supplemental briefs
• Judge Benitez now has complete control of the case
• In the original ruling, judge Benitez found that Miller v Bonta was about "an average case, about average guns, used in average ways, for average purposes" using "text and history" approach
• Judge Benitez held a hearing and set resolution date within 60 days of the hearing
• CA requested case be pushed out to March of 2023 but that request was denied
• CA presented various absurd arguments but they are irrelevant under Bruen test
• Judge Benitez may write his opinion by middle of next month but may decide sooner
• Indications are judge Benitez will likely rule quickly to resolve case at the district court level

Update to post #232 for Duncan v Bonta (CA magazine ban case) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-10#post-12446121

This is interesting - https://michellawyers.com/duncan-v-becerra/


And on the same day, status conference is docketed for Rhode v Bonta (CA ammunition ban) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-ammo-restriction.907903/page-2#post-12459028

I wonder if judge Benitez is planning something significant for Christmas as he is in full control of all three Duncan v Bonta, Rhode v Bonta and Miller v Bonta (CA assault weapon ban) cases - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-10#post-12449145

You may want to get your credit cards out and get ready to go shopping for another freedom to the max week, month, etc.

LiveLife said:

AP News: “After Supreme Court ruling, it’s open season on US gun laws” - https://apnews.com/article/gun-viol...ngs-politics-f919b74dc95062f322389349f35c0e93

Click to expand...

And here we go!

The National Foundation for Gun Rights recently filed seven lawsuits in five federal court circuits to eliminate unconstitutional magazine and gun bans everywhere! This nationwide legal blitz aims to take out every single ban on semi-automatic weapons and standard capacity magazines for good - https://gunrightsfoundation.org/awb-mag-ban-lawsuits/

• Massachusetts “Assault Weapon” and Magazine Ban Lawsuit
• Connecticut “Assault Weapon” and Magazine Ban Lawsuit
• Highland Park, IL “Assault Weapon” and Magazine Ban Lawsuit
• Naperville, IL “Assault Weapon” Sale Ban
• Hawaii “Assault Pistol” and Magazine Ban Lawsuit
• Colorado Magazine Ban Lawsuit
• Lawsuit Against Superior, CO “Assault Weapon” and Magazine Ban
• Lawsuit Against Boulder, CO “Assault Weapon” and Magazine Ban
• Lawsuit Against Louisville, CO “Assault Weapon” and Magazine Ban
• Lawsuit Against Boulder County, CO “Assault Weapon” Possession, Sale, and Transfer Ban

Tinman357 said:

I wonder what it would take to get WA on that list? Or is Judge Benitez in CA going to take care of it?

Click to expand...

Judge "Saint" Benitez is a district court and he already ruled Duncan v Bonta unconstitutional in March of 2019 with judgement and is anticipated to rule post-Bruen reconsideration as unconstitutional again giving CA gun owners another "Freedom Week", maybe longer this time before stay is granted.

But CA appealing the case to 9th Circuit would be good news for Oregon, Washington and other 9th Circuit states and US territories because the 9th Circuit now must use "Text and history" approach only and there's a good chance with Trump appointed judges, panel make up could be pro-2A and rule with judge Benitez.

So looks to me, we either win at 9th Circuit or back up to the Supreme Court.

But it will be win-win, either case ... just time.

Update to post #233 Miller v Bonta (CA assault weapon ban) and post #234 Duncan v Bonta (CA magazine ban) and Rhode v Bonta (CA ammunition ban) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-10#post-12459595

Q&A session with attorney - https://rumble.com/v1u90ij-an-end-to-the-assault-weapon-and-magazine-capacity-ban.html

• Judge Benitez could make a ruling for Miller case on 12/12/22
• If Miller case "Assault Weapon" ban is ruled unconstitutional, judge Benitez may not grant a stay post Bruen ruling and a window of time will exist before the case is appealed to the 9th Circuit (Perhaps few hours for "featureless" firearms to be converted with banned "feature" items to be "legal" before the appeal)
• Those with "featureless" firearms may want to obtain/buy "feature" items to install
• On 12/12/22, judge Benitez will hear CA's motion to reconsider and extend the Duncan case out to next year but likely judge Benitez will deny the motion
• On 12/12/22, judge Benitez also docketed status conference for Rhode case

As anticipated, OFF v Brown (OR magazine ban) lawsuit was filed on 11/18/22 by Portland attorney John Kaempf representing Oregon Firearm Federation, Sherman County Sheriff Brad Lohrey and Keizer gun store owner Adam Johnson in Pendleton federal court against Oregon governor Kate Brown and AG Ellen Rosenblum to block Measure 114.

Gun rights group, sheriff file federal lawsuit to block Measure 114, call it unconstitutional - https://ktvz.com/news/government-po...o-block-measure-114-call-it-unconstitutional/

• Measure 114 expands background checks, bans larger than 10 round capacity magazines and requires local entities to offer a training course and a permit process before a firearm can be purchased. The ban on magazines would not apply to current owners, law enforcement or the military.

• To qualify for a permit under the measure, an applicant would need to complete an approved, in-person firearm safety course, pay a fee, provide personal information, submit to fingerprinting and photographing and pass a federal criminal background check. The permits would be processed by local police chiefs, county sheriffs or their designees.

• Lawsuit states "millions of law-abiding Americans own firearms equipped with magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition," ... "in a confrontation with a violent attacker, having enough ammunition can be the difference between life and death." ... "[Measure] 114 violates multiple constitutional provisions ... impermissibly burdens Plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights," also violating the "Takings Clause" by panning possession, along with sales and use, of magazines that were legally acquired before the measure's approval.

Update to Bianchi v Frosh (MD assault weapon ban) - Oral argument calendared for 12/6/22.

Supplemental brief filed with 4th Circuit court of appeal by FPC on 10/31/22 - https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...Frosh_Supplemental_Reply_Brief.pdf?1667254577

Update to post #241 regarding efforts to block Oregon's Measure 114 - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-10#post-12468841

OFF v Brown (OR magazine ban) lawsuit update:

• U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut on Thursday scheduled a hearing on the motion for Dec. 2. The state has until next Wednesday to file a response to the emergency motion for preliminary injunction - https://www.foxnews.com/us/activists-sue-block-oregon-gun-control-law
  
• The preliminary injunction seeks to stop the state from enforcing the new law while the lawsuit is considered by the court.

Now there's a third lawsuit backed by NRA to block OR's Measure 114 Eyre v Rosenblum (OR magazine ban/permit to purchase) filed on 12/1/22 - https://www.foxnews.com/us/blatantl...trol-law-faces-new-nra-backed-legal-challenge

• Plaintiffs are two former Oregon lawmakers, a sporting goods store, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and the Oregon State Shooting Association — the NRA's state affiliate
• Measure 114 takes effect on 12/8/22 when all gun sales by dealers, at gun shows and most private transfers in Oregon will immediately stop as new permitting process will be implemented
• But Oregon does not have a permitting process in place and no firearms training course that has been certified by the state, which means no one can lawfully obtain a permit-to-purchase
• Oregon State Police previously stated they were working to get a permit-to-purchase system in place by the deadline, but as of now, a permitting process will not be in place by 12/8/22
• Lawsuit seeks a permanent injunction against Measure 114, arguing that both the permit-to-purchase requirement and ban on magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds violate the Second Amendment.

Second lawsuit filed by Firearms Policy Coalition Fitz v Rosenblum (OR magazine ban) - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-...rge-capacity-magazine-ban-as-unconstitutional

• Plaintiffs are FPC and Second Amendment Foundation
• Requesting a temporary restraining order to prevent the ban from being enforced while the case continues

Attorney for FPC discuss Measure 114 and lawsuits - https://rumble.com/v1yeqn9-urgent-n...-ban-and-mandatory-purchase-permit-comin.html

Measure 114 overview:

• Measure 114 expands background checks, bans larger than 10 round capacity magazines and requires local entities to offer a training course and a permit process before a firearm can be purchased
• The ban on magazines would not apply to current owners, law enforcement or the military
• To qualify for a permit under the measure, an applicant would need to complete an approved, in-person firearm safety course, pay a fee, provide personal information, submit to fingerprinting and photographing and pass a federal criminal background check. The permits would be processed by local police chiefs, county sheriffs or their designees.
• Guns owned prior to 12/8/22 will not need permit for ownership
• Permit is good for 5 years with $50 renewal fee
• Measure 114 also banned the manufacture/import/sale/transfer/purchase/possession/use of larger than 10 round capacity magazine
• Violation is a misdemeanor with penalty of 364 days in jail and/or fine of $6250
• Gun stores who have larger than 10 round capacity magazines have 180 days from 1/15/23 to sell them to out-of-state gun dealers or destroy them
• After 180 days, gun stores are only allowed to sell newly manufactured larger than 10 round capacity magazines marked with special stamp that indicates "Military or Law Enforcement Use Only"

Legal challenge:

• As expected, immediate lawsuits were filed (OFF v Brown / Fitz v Rosenblum / Eyre v Rosenblum ) seeking preliminary injunction, permanent injunction and temporary restraining order
• State of OR has filed response to emergency request for preliminary injunction for OFF v Brown
• State of OR claimed in their response that larger than 10 round capacity magazines are not "arms" and not protected by "text" of Second Amendment because they are used for military application, not for self-defense; therefore not "arms" and also claimed larger than 10 round capacity magazines do not have benefit to civilians for lawful purposes quoting from 9th Circuit En Banc panel ruling
• State of OR's statements are very very wrong and misrepresented - Just because an "arm" is used by the military does not mean it's not protected by the "text" of Second Amendment. In fact, "history and tradition of our nation" point to the exact opposite.
• State of OR response did not factor post-Bruen ruling by the Supreme Court and the 9th Circuit En Banc panel ruling is now no longer relevant as Duncan v Bonta case has been vacated and remanded back down to District Court for reconsideration (and judge Benitez is expected to make a ruling on 12/12/22)
• 9th Circuit En Banc panel used the wrong test of "two-step" approach which was eliminated by the Supreme Court's Bruen ruling and now only "text and history" approach is to be used for Second Amendment cases
• Supreme Court's Bruen decision dealt with concealed carry permit, not permit to purchase, which is different as permit to conceal carry in public is not the same as permit to purchase/acquire for ownership
• Burden falls on the state of OR to prove there is text and historic tradition of permitting scheme for purchase of firearm (and magazine ban) as state of OR is claiming permit to carry is same as permit for purchase
• State of OR is arguing emergency preliminary injunction should not be granted because magazines are not "arms"

Well, I guess state of OR is not aware of Supreme Court's Caetano v Mass ruling where it was stated, "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" and the term "bearable arms" was defined in District of Columbia v. Heller, and includes any "'weapon of offence' or 'thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands,' that is 'carried . . . for the purpose of offensive or defensive action.'” - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts

Update to post #242 - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-10#post-12480317

Emergency measures to block Oregon's Measure 114 before going into effect on 12/8/22 - https://rumble.com/v1ywrr1-supreme-...ine-ban-and-purchase-permit-into-a-corne.html

• Plaintiffs for OFF v Brown are seeking emergency temporary restraining order (TRO) and judge is set to decide either on Monday or Tuesday
• At the last hearing, attorney for Oregon stated permit to purchase system will be in place by 12/8/22
• If the emergency TRO is not issued, no one in the state of Oregon will be able to purchase firearms as permit to purchase system is not in place
• Oregon police stated application for firearm purchase for the new permit to purchase will be available on 12/8/22 but background checks have experienced unprecedented volume increase never before seen in the 26 year history

Thanks to @12Bravo20 for the fourth lawsuit to block Measure 114.

Update to post #242 regarding efforts to block Oregon's Measure 114 - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-10#post-12480317

In addition to three federal lawsuits, a fourth state lawsuit was granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) to block Oregon's Measure 114 until a preliminary injunction hearing next Tuesday - https://www.gunowners.org/goa-and-gof-secure-comprehensive-tro-against-oregon-gun-law/

Arnold v Brown (OR magazine ban/permit to purchase) plaintiffs are Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) who filed amicus brief for OFF v Brown.

Update to post #244 on OFF v Brown (OR magazine ban/permit to purchase) case - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-10#post-12481715

While the requested temporary restraining order (TRO) was denied, the same federal judge issued a 30 day stay as state of Oregon does not have the new permit to purchase system in place - https://rumble.com/v1zbsnj-supreme-...e-capacity-magazine-ban-and-purchase-per.html

However, a state judge granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) to block Oregon's Measure 114 until a preliminary injunction hearing next Tuesday for Arnold v Brown (OR magazine ban/permit to purchase) case - https://www.gunowners.org/goa-and-gof-secure-comprehensive-tro-against-oregon-gun-law/

With four lawsuits filed against state of Oregon to block Measure 114 from being implemented, the situation is going to be very dynamic and fluid in coming days and weeks.

And on top of all these lawsuits, federal district judge Benitez is expected to rule again on Duncan v Bonta (CA magazine ban) on 12/12/22 and Oregon and Washington states being part of 9th Circuit, may have profound effect. (With hearings for Rhode v Bonta (CA ammunition ban) and Miller v Bonta (CA AW ban) scheduled for the same day)

Update to Arnold v Brown (OR magazine ban/permit to purchase) ... I can picture truck loads of magazines heading towards Oregon this week.

Oregon's Measure 114 remains blocked and won't go into effect on Thursday, 12/8/22 - https://www.opb.org/article/2022/12...new-gun-laws-remain-blocked-court-challenges/

• On Tuesday, Harney County Circuit Court Judge Robert Raschio issued a temporary restraining order saying the law violated the Oregon state constitution’s right to bear arms and Oregonians would be “unable to lawfully purchase a firearm or bear a magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition in the State of Oregon.” Oorder is temporary to allow time for a more careful hearing scheduled for next week.
  
  
• On Wednesday morning, Oregon DOJ filed a petition asking the Oregon Supreme Court to review the Harney County ruling and vacate the lower court’s decision.

• But later on Wednesday, Oregon Supreme Court denied DOJ petition asking the court to throw out a lower court’s temporary restraining order blocking the law from taking effect.

• Judge Raschio scheduled more in depth arguments for 12/13 to consider a preliminary injunction against the law.

• In federal court, U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut plans to hear arguments on whether to grant a preliminary injunction against the new law

Update to post #242 on Eyre v Rosenblum (OR magazine ban/permit to purchase) case - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-10#post-12480317

NRA-ILA | Judge Stays Measure 114’s Permit-to-Purchase Requirement for 30 Days in NRA-ILA Backed Case - https://news.aroutfitting.com/2022/...quirement-for-30-days-in-nra-ila-backed-case/