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

Status
Not open for further replies.
LiveLife said:
Supreme Court did it for Chevron Deference and it is no more ... Gone.;)
Click to expand...

That's not a good comparison. The breadth of that decision is far wider than the laser focus and specificity regarding bans on assault weapons/lcm.
The risk is real that as more and more of these cloned awb/lcm cases don't go our way, the less likely the supreme court will entertain the idea of intervening. As I said earlier, the post-Bruen strategy of the anti-rights contingent is clear (they literally spell this out in their documents): They intend to capitalize on the open-ended version of "text, history and tradition", rather than be saddled with finding exact matches to contemporary laws. Or worse, as is the case with this 4th circuit decision, they'll fall back on the big holes in Heller. And this strategy is gaining traction where it's being litigated.

It's a hard pill to swallow but there's no indicators that say we're closer than ever to resolution.
 
Basura Blanca said:
The risk is real that as more and more of these cloned awb/lcm cases don't go our way, the less likely the supreme court will entertain the idea of intervening.
Click to expand...
I disagree based on what justice Roberts, Kavanaugh has said along with in confirmation with justices Alito and Thomas while even justices Sotomayor and Jackson conceding along with what other judges have stated in post-Bruen lower court rulings.

From court rulings:
  • Justice Roberts stated in Rahimi for majority opinion, "... some courts have misunderstood the methodology of our recent Second Amendment cases ... As we explained in Heller, for example, the reach of the Second Amendment is not limited only to those arms that were in existence at the founding. Rather, it “extends, prima facie, to ALL instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not [yet] in existence.” ... Holding otherwise would be as mistaken as applying the protections of the right only to muskets and sabers." (Page 7)
  • More from Rahimi ruling, "In Bruen, we explained that when a firearm regulation is challenged under the Second Amendment, the Government must show that the restriction “is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” (Page 4)
  • And even justice Jackson conceded that Bruen methodology is now "binding law" of the land, "This case tests ... Bruen ... Bruen is now binding law. Today’s decision fairly applies that precedent"
  • Even CA attorneys at the 9th Circuit admitted, "We cannot ban all semi-auto weapons and Heller makes that clear" after judge Benitez gave them extra time to come up with "best" evidence of historical tradition evidence of firearm ban and they could not (And hence why anti-2A courts are now using other arguments like Military service/usage and "dangerous and unusual" arguments because they KNOW CA attorneys tried to find historical evidence to meet Bruen methodology but could not).
  • And judge Benitez ruled in Miller case (CA AW ban), "State was directed to create a list of relevant laws regulating arms dating from the time of the Second Amendment ... The Court has reviewed every law cited in the State’s list ... State cannot find a historic regulation of firearms ... Bruen teaches that a state’s burden is to identify a historical tradition of firearm regulation" (Page 23) ... there were no outright prohibitions on keeping or possessing guns. No laws of any kind. Based on a close review of the State’s law list and the Court’s own analysis, there are no Founding-era categorical bans on firearms in this nation’s history. Though it is the State’s burden, even after having been offered a clear opportunity to do so, the State has not identified any law, anywhere, at any time, between 1791 and 1868 that prohibited simple possession of a gun (Page 28) ... If the state cannot so prove, the challenged prohibition must be struck down. The presumption in favor of rightfully possessing a citizen’s arm was made during the adoption of the Second Amendment.” Guns that fall under the California definition of an “assault weapon” are presumptively covered by the text of the Second Amendment. (Page 71)
  • As to "in common use", that's been well established and even justice Sotomayor in Cargill ruling stated semi-auto magazine fed rifles are "commonly available, semiautomatic rifles"

Cheeseman and consolidated cases (NJ AW/magazine ban) is the latest test of Bruen methodology and stated the following - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-21#post-12950174

A. Bruen Standard ... the Supreme Court in Bruen repudiated a means end test, and it provided the lower courts with a new standard ... ''court determines whether 'the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct.' ... That 'textual analysis' focuses on the 'normal and ordinary' meaning of the Second Amendment's language .... If the text applies to the conduct at issue, 'the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct."'​
​
There are several limitations to this right, however. These are that the arm must be in ''common use'' and it must not be "dangerous and unusual." Heller. (Page 43)​

... the government bears the burden of identifying a 'founding-era' historical analogue to the modern firearm regulation. ... Under Heller, while the Supreme Court stated that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, the Supreme Court forbade a complete prohibition on a class of gun ownership ... Bruen analysis, whether the Second Amendment' s plain text covers Plaintiffs' proposed course of conduct - the possession and use of AR15s within the home for self-defense - the answer is yes. (Page 45)​
​
... when undertaking this common use for lawful purposes inquiry, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied their burden with respect to the AR-15. Plaintiffs have shown that the weapon is "overwhelmingly chosen by American society for [a] lawful purpose." ... AR-15 firearms are produced by a multitude of manufacturers and are commonly owned throughout the United States (Page 48)​
​
... Court's understanding of Supreme Court precedent, a categorical ban on a class of weapons commonly used for self-defense is unlawful ... State Defendants' argument fails because, like in Heller, the Assault Firearms Law categorically bans a type of weapon that is commonly used for self-defense (Page 55)​
​
Based upon the Supreme Court's clear direction on this point, the AR-15 Provision of the Assault Firearms Law is unconstitutional ...​


And in GVR of PICA cases, justice Thomas wrote - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-19#post-12934358

... if the Seventh Circuit ultimately allows Illinois to ban America’s most common civilian rifle, we can—and should—review that decision once the cases reach a final judgment. The Court must not permit “the Seventh Circuit [to] relegat[e] the Second Amendment to a second-class right.​
​

To this layperson, all of these statements from justices and judges indicate Supreme Court is ready and will likely review and rule in favor of expanding Second Amendment protection to "modern" types of arms like semi-auto rifles and magazines.
 
Adding to post #522 regarding Bianchi v Frosh now Brown (MD AW ban) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...oint-for-aw-magazine-ban.905531/post-12955504

LiveLife said:
... all of these statements from justices and judges indicate Supreme Court is ready and will likely review and rule in favor of expanding Second Amendment protection to "modern" types of arms like semi-auto rifles and magazines.
Click to expand...
Ex FPC attorney Anthony Miranda discuss at 6:00 minute of video why the Supreme Court will likely review and rule on Bianchi case.
  • 4th Circuit en banc panel issued their decision upholding the Maryland rifle ban as constitutional and that was a final merits decision, exactly what the Supreme Court said they needed
  • You have pockets of judges who are applying Bruen differently and who take different approaches when it comes to the Second Amendment
  • We knew that was going to happen but now this sets up the perfect case for Supreme Court review
  • In many ways, the Supreme Court backed themselves into a corner, almost tricked themselves, maybe even some of the conservative justices like Thomas tricked the court at large of having to address this issue because their position for so long has been none of these cases are final merits decision
  • You know, we just want a final merits decision. We want a conflict that's final merits. Once we get that, we'll review it
  • Well, now they have that and it will be directly in front of them during this next term
  • So although this was an immediate loss when it comes to the 4th Circuit, again not surprising, because we knew that would happen; long term, this is setting us up for the perfect case that we've all wanted to have heard by the Supreme Court
www.youtube.com

The Supreme Court Was Just Forced to Review "Assault Weapon" Bans Nationwide!

In this video I break down how a recent decision on an "assault weapon" ban just set the stage for the Supreme Court to settle the issue nationwide!Check out...
www.youtube.com www.youtube.com
 
Tinman357 said:
Since its the USSC and they overturn MD assault weapon ban, how does that affect to other states that have bans?

Like WA.
Click to expand...
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, just a random layperson posting on THR.

Usually, federal circuit court decisions will be referenced by other states/federal district courts within the circuit - https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/court-role-and-structure

Ordinarily, US Supreme Court rulings will be adhered to by lower courts unless lower courts "defy" the highest court of the land. So when Supreme Court ruled in Heller that "modern" types of magazine fed arms cannot be banned, even in CA they are not banned rather "regulated". ;)

Since the term "Assault Weapon" is an arbitrary term chosen by states to "regulate" or ban certain category of arms and restriction on number of ammunition kept/carried grabbed out of thin air (What makes 30/15/11 round magazines "dangerous and unusual" but not 10/7/5 round magazines? :rofl:) as stated by judge Benitez in Miller/Duncan cases (CA AW/magazine ban), there's been multiple legal challenges headed for the Supreme Court.

Yes, when the Supreme Court ruled on First Amendment violations by some states repeatedly, few states have repeatedly defied and the Supreme Court kept ruling these state laws unconstitutional until ultimately, they received permanent enforcement by the way of federal/state laws (Like in recent NRA v Vullo 1A case ruled against NY represented by ACLU for NRA) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...eme_Court_cases_involving_the_First_Amendment

But states writing and passing laws that violate the Constitution and Bill of Rights is not new as many states have done it since the founding. Just as "modern" forms of communication/free speech like email/text are protected by the First Amendment, so will "modern" types of arms and accessories like magazine fed semi-auto arms, etc. And the Supreme Court will see to it that is how they rule because justice Thomas said the Second Amendment is not a "second class right" and gun owners are not second class citizens.
 
LiveLife said:
To this layperson, all of these statements from justices and judges indicate Supreme Court is ready and will likely review and rule in favor of expanding Second Amendment protection to "modern" types of arms like semi-auto rifles and magazines.
Click to expand...

That's a bit cherry-picked and you're missing the context behind some of those statements of the ussc justices who aren't normally friendly to our cause. But that said, I certainly want the high court to weigh in on this. However, I also want them to issue an opinion that is definitive and lacks any ambiguity about AWBs and such too.

The supreme court tends to rule along very narrow lines and it seems like AWBs are a bit outside that comfort zone. We'll see, I guess. As for a second class right, the 2A will remain one as long as we lack clarity on the meaning of multiple controversies. The current make-up is probably the best we'll ever get but it's a big all-or-nothing dice roll here because there won't ever be a do-over in this particular political climate.

Real gains would come faster if gun owners, and gun groups put a little more effort into the public image campaign. No massive civil rights movement has ever succeeded without broad public opinion favoring it. We don't have that. From the perspective of the normal world, we are a fringe group pushing an agenda through the judicial branch. The day it's no longer politically feasible to write crappy gun laws, because the public at large hates them, is the day we win --no litigation necessary.
 
Thanks to retirement, since 2022 I have followed various 2A/ATF related cases:
What I have noticed following these cases was prevalence of a new trend.

The new trend was a reversal in decades long erosion of Second Amendment protection and now EXPANSION of 2A protection to "modern" types of arms and accessories very much like First Amendment protection expanding to protect "modern" forms of communication/free speech like email/text, which have become "in common use"; like magazine fed semi-auto firearms and various accessories/adaptive devices like scopes, red dot sights, fiber optic sighs, etc.

What decades of erosion of Second Amendment protection of "modern" types of arms and accessories did was turn the Second Amendment into "second class right" and made gun owners into second class citizens. Founders specifically framed the nation and government with Electoral College/Equal representation in Senate not based on population size to veto House bills and separation of powers with the judicial branch and the Supreme Court having the final say on what is constitutional to protect minority rights from the imposition by the majority mob rule when states wrote and passed unconstitutional laws that violated Bill of Rights of minority groups.

So just like black slaves being freed with their votes now counted as whole instead of 3/5 and women allowed to vote (Women's vote didn't count until 1920 :oops:) along with rights of minorities protected by the Bill of Rights, Supreme Court is once again tasked to defend the rights of latest minority group imposed by majority mob rule ... gun owners.

Through Supreme Court's rulings we can see progression of Second Amendment protection expanding:
  • In Heller to remove Militia involvement requirement and expand Second Amendment protection to commonly used "modern" magazine fed semi-auto firearms at home
  • In Caetano to expand Second Amendment protection to "modern" types of arms "in common use"
  • In Bruen to expand Second Amendment protection to RKBA outside of home, elimination of two-step approach of interest balancing of greater society's good over imposition on individual right, burden shifting to the state/government to provide historical tradition evidence
  • In Cargill to limit executive branch administrative agency overreach in exceeding statutory authority of Congress by writing law/expanding interpretation
  • In Loper to eliminate Chevron Deference and courts took back interpretation authority
  • In Rahimi to maintain RKBA protection of "We the People" even if "the People" are not good all the time and government to disarm "the People" only "temporarily" when violent
  • And soon in Range to maintain RKBA protection of "We the People" for non-violent not so good "the People"
In the next term, I am quite certain the Supreme Court will clarify Bruen methodology so lower courts won't misapply the Bruen methodology which is now "binding law" of the land for future Second Amendment cases in expanding Second Amendment protection to "modern" types of arms and accessories like magazine fed semi-auto firearms and pistol braces, forced reset trigger, etc.

We are seeing what happened for the First Amendment that eventually led to permanent enforcement by the way of federal/state laws happen for the Second Amendment because the Second Amendment is not a "second class right" and gun owners are not second class citizens - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...eme_Court_cases_involving_the_First_Amendment

And words of Supreme Court justices give us good indication of what they intend to do on their next term - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...oint-for-aw-magazine-ban.905531/post-12955909

... some courts have misunderstood the methodology of our recent Second Amendment cases ... As we explained in Heller, for example, the reach of the Second Amendment is not limited only to those arms that were in existence at the founding. Rather, it “extends, prima facie, to ALL instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not [yet] in existence.” ... Holding otherwise would be as mistaken as applying the protections of the right only to muskets and sabers.​
​
... In Bruen, we explained that when a firearm regulation is challenged under the Second Amendment, the Government must show that the restriction “is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation" ... Bruen is now binding law.​
​
... if the Seventh Circuit ultimately allows Illinois to ban America’s most common civilian rifle, we can—and should—review that decision once the cases reach a final judgment. The Court must not permit the Seventh Circuit [to] relegat[e] the Second Amendment to a second-class right.​
 
Last edited:
LiveLife said:
Thanks to retirement, since 2022 I have followed various 2A/ATF related cases:
What I have noticed following these cases was prevalence of a new trend.

The new trend was a reversal in decades long erosion of Second Amendment protection and now EXPANSION of 2A protection to "modern" types of arms and accessories very much like First Amendment protection expanding to protect "modern" forms of communication/free speech like email/text, which have become "in common use"; like magazine fed semi-auto firearms and various accessories/adaptive devices like scopes, red dot sights, fiber optic sighs, etc.

What decades of erosion of Second Amendment protection of "modern" types of arms and accessories did was turn the Second Amendment into "second class right" and made gun owners into second class citizens. Founders specifically framed the nation and government with Electoral College/Equal representation in Senate not based on population size to veto House bills and separation of powers with the judicial branch and the Supreme Court having the final say on what is constitutional to protect minority rights from the imposition by the majority mob rule when states wrote and passed unconstitutional laws that violated Bill of Rights of minority groups.

So just like black slaves being freed with their votes now counted as whole instead of 3/5 and women allowed to vote (Women's vote didn't count until 1920 :oops:) along with rights of minorities protected by the Bill of Rights, Supreme Court is once again tasked to defend the rights of latest minority group imposed by majority mob rule ... gun owners.

Through Supreme Court's rulings we can see progression of Second Amendment protection expanding:
  • In Heller to remove Militia involvement requirement and expand Second Amendment protection to commonly used "modern" magazine fed semi-auto firearms at home
  • In Caetano to expand Second Amendment protection to "modern" types of arms "in common use"
  • In Bruen to expand Second Amendment protection to RKBA outside of home, elimination of two-step approach of interest balancing of greater society's good over imposition on individual right, burden shifting to the state/government to provide historical tradition evidence
  • In Cargill to limit executive branch administrative agency overreach in exceeding statutory authority of Congress by writing law/expanding interpretation
  • In Loper to eliminate Chevron Deference and courts took back interpretation authority
  • In Rahimi to maintain RKBA protection of "We the People" even if "the People" are not good all the time and government to disarm "the People" only "temporarily" when violent
  • And soon in Range to maintain RKBA protection of "We the People" for non-violent not so good "the People"
In the next term, I am quite certain the Supreme Court will clarify Bruen methodology so lower courts won't misapply the Bruen methodology which is now "binding law" of the land for future Second Amendment cases in expanding Second Amendment protection to "modern" types of arms and accessories like magazine fed semi-auto firearms and pistol braces, forced reset trigger, etc.

We are seeing what happened for the First Amendment that eventually led to permanent enforcement by the way of federal/state laws happen for the Second Amendment because the Second Amendment is not a "second class right" and gun owners are not second class citizens - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...eme_Court_cases_involving_the_First_Amendment

And words of Supreme Court justices give us good indication of what they intend to do on their next term - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...oint-for-aw-magazine-ban.905531/post-12955909

... some courts have misunderstood the methodology of our recent Second Amendment cases ... As we explained in Heller, for example, the reach of the Second Amendment is not limited only to those arms that were in existence at the founding. Rather, it “extends, prima facie, to ALL instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not [yet] in existence.” ... Holding otherwise would be as mistaken as applying the protections of the right only to muskets and sabers.​
​
... In Bruen, we explained that when a firearm regulation is challenged under the Second Amendment, the Government must show that the restriction “is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation" ... Bruen is now binding law.​
​
... if the Seventh Circuit ultimately allows Illinois to ban America’s most common civilian rifle, we can—and should—review that decision once the cases reach a final judgment. The Court must not permit the Seventh Circuit [to] relegat[e] the Second Amendment to a second-class right.​
Click to expand...
You got a new case to track.;)

GOA v. Pearson (my case)

GOA's lawsuit against FL's Open Carry and Under-21 Carry Ban.
 
Update to Nguyen v Bonta (CA 1-in-30 day pistol/rifle purchase ban) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...oint-for-aw-magazine-ban.905531/post-12865212

Did anti-2A 9th Circuit just rule in favor of Second Amendment? It took only 24 hours for the 9th Circuit to reach their ruling after hearing arguments day before! :rofl:

Somebody pinch me and wake me up! :oops::oops:😁

California "1-in-30" Firearm Ban Block Following Ninth Circuit Order - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/california-1-in-30-firearm-ban-blocked-following-ninth-circuit-order

SAN FRANCISCO (August 15, 2024) – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued an order reversing the previously issued stay in FPC’s Nguyen v. Bonta lawsuit, which challenges California’s “one-gun-per-month” gun ban law. With the stay reversed, the final judgment and injunction FPC secured at the district court is now in effect, which prevents the state from enforcing its “1-in-30” ban unless and until further order from the Court. The order, along with other case documents, can be viewed at firearmspolicy.org/nguyen.​
​
“This order allows our hard-won injunction to take effect and, unless the Ninth Circuit issues a new stay, Californians may now apply to purchase multiple firearms within a 30-day period,” explained FPC President Brandon Combs. “FPC intends to make Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta respect Second Amendment rights whether they like it or not.”​
​

California Struggles to Defend Gun Rationing Law Before Ninth Circuit - https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/...n-rationing-law-before-ninth-circuit-n1225933
  • CA attorney first claimed reason for the gun rationing law was to "disrupt" gun trafficking and straw purchasing, but when Judge Bridget Bade asked if CA had any evidence that a 30-day wait between purchases actually does prevent illegal trafficking, Wen could only cite unnamed "some studies" and point to the fact that other states had previously adopted one-gun-a-month statutes.
  • CA attorney then tried to argue that the right to purchase a firearm isn't protected in the text of the Second Amendment :oops: , but conceded that the Ninth Circuit has already concluded the right to purchase a firearm is an "ancillary" right. 😆 After all, if you don't have the right to acquire a firearm, then you can't keep or bear it.
​
  • Judge Danielle Forrest wondered if someone doesn't own any firearms, and it's impossible for them to legally purchase more than one at a time, how their core Second Amendment right to possess arms for self-defense wouldn't be implicated if they, for instance, wanted to have a gun in their primary residence and a vacation home, or one for their home and another for their business. ;)👍
  • CA attorney response was that the individual in question could "borrow" a firearm [Really? Seriously? From whom? :rofl:] until they were allowed under California law to purchase another; a circumstance that could only take place if the individual a) knows someone else who owns a handgun and b) is willing to part with it, even temporarily.
  • Interestingly, CA attorney also suggested that while 30 days isn't too long to wait, asking gun owners to twiddle their thumbs for a year would be more likely to be unconstitutional. Given that some counties in California are taking a year or more to process concealed carry applications, Wen's comments will be very helpful to the attorneys litigating the lengthy delays in issuing carry permits.
  • Throughout Wen's time before the panel, both Bade and Forrest seemed very skeptical of the government's stance that limiting gun purchases to one every thirty days isn't an imposition or infringement on the Second Amendment.

Video of CA attorney struggling to argue "1-in-30" ban at the 9th Circuit
www.youtube.com

California 1 in 30 Firearms Law Gets Wrecked At 9th Circuit Today, Nguyen v Bonta

This is a commentary for oral arguments that were heard this morning at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in the Case of Nguyen v. Bonta. A case that challen...
www.youtube.com www.youtube.com
 
Last edited:
Right now, I am pretty sure being CA attorneys defending various 2A cases is likely least popular state job ...

Can you imagine being asked by the 9th Circuit judges why CA is violating Californians' Second Amendment right and AGREEING with the judges? :oops: I mean, we are talking about 9th Circuit judges here, not 5th Circuit. :rofl:

I cannot wait to hear how CA attorneys will explain why a 10 round magazine is safe and legal while 11 round magazine is "dangerous and unusual" and must be banned in violation of Bruen methodology, which is now "binding law" of the land. (And all other Circuit Courts have now abandoned historical analogue approach because CA attorneys proved there was no historical tradition evidence in Duncan/Miller ... and waving their hands with military usage and knife ban/regulation approach ... Wow, really?)

I could imagine cases of Tums being bought by CA attorneys.

Rough times ahead for them, along with ATF attorneys who keeps losing case after case. :)
 
Adding to post #536 regarding Nguyen v Bonta (CA 1-in-30 day pistol/rifle purchase ban) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...oint-for-aw-magazine-ban.905531/post-12961018

US Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit in California enters an order lifting the stay of lower court that had found California's "1 in 30 day" rule to be unconstitutional under 2A. Mark Smith Four Boxes Diner explains.
  • Major news out of 9th Circuit a decision that declared that CA's one in 30 rule that says you're only allowed to buy one firearm every 30 days or if it's your first firearm you've ever bought you have to wait 30 days is unconstitutional
  • Happy to report the 9th Circuit basically has brought back to life the lower court decision that says the 1 in 30 CA law is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment
  • There is no opinion yet that's being written now but there's a huge oral argument
  • Now guess what, an order today allowed the stay entered by the lower court to go into effect. This means the 1 in 30 rule right now has been stayed. It is not enforceable because of a decision by the District Court for CA. 9th Circuit panel reversed the stay meaning they allowed the lower court order to go into effect
  • This is a very big deal. The argument between CA and FPC that this was unconstitutional because there is no historical analogue law that allowed government to limit one gun every 30 days. If you draw an analogy, it's no different than saying you can only buy one book every 30 days. Hey you got a whole library already, why do you need another book? Same idea.
  • Now this is a big deal because textually to find this decision that you have a right to acquire a gun more than every 30 days obviously implies or necessarily implicates the fact that you have a right to acquire guns. This is very good because the right to keep and to bear arms presupposes that you have somehow acquired the gun since we're not born with them.
  • So that's a very good decision by the 9th Circuit that's going to be written up that says you have a right to acquire, which by the way, will likely have a ripple effect in the ghost gun fight because one of the ways one acquires firearms in addition to being able to buy one from an FFL is of course the ability to make one. So again, this is a very big deal
  • There was an attempt by CA to say hey this is about stopping gun trafficking, we don't want people to buy multiple guns and then be able to gun trafficking. And then be able to gun traffic it to other people but guess what happened?
  • That really blew up an argument because there's an exception to the rule for Hollywood. So if you work in Hollywood, you can buy as many guns as you need to; but if you don't work in Hollywood, if you're not a special snowflake, guess what you could only buy one gun every 30 days. :oops:
  • So this is a very big deal. We don't have an opinion yet but it's pretty clear what's going to happen
  • This CA law is going to be knocked out as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment which is the exact same decision that lower court decided a while back
  • I'm happy to report this will be a big court of appeals win
  • All right folks, going a little fast today because I'm down here in Knoxville, Tennessee for the Gun Owners of America conference
www.youtube.com

GREAT 2A NEWS: FEDERAL APPEALS COURT RULES AGAINST CALIFORNIA GUN CONTROL LAW

US Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit in California enters an order lifting the stay of lower court that had found California's "1 in 30 day" rule to be unco...
www.youtube.com www.youtube.com
 
Nguyen is a solid win (unintentional rhyme there).
The 1 in 30 law was a nuisance, but the reason this is so good is because the court rejected not only the "more nuanced" approach to Bruen, which attempts to muddy the history part of T,H&T, but also because the court called out the state's lack of evidence that the law has actually achieved its goal of preventing straw purchases.

But it's once again important to look at the approach the other side is taking in the post-Bruen world. The state propped up a large part of their argument on a premise that leans heavily into "unprecedented societal concerns or dramatic technological changes" mentioned in Bruen. Further, their arguments dwell on using generalized post-reconstruction era (14th amendment) analogues, which if left unchecked would mean *anything* (like the Bowie knife argument) could be construed satisfactory to check the box on such. We need more decisions that wholly reject this flawed methodology.
 
Basura Blanca said:
it's once again important to look at the approach the other side is taking in the post-Bruen world. The state propped up a large part of their argument on a premise that leans heavily into "unprecedented societal concerns or dramatic technological changes" mentioned in Bruen
Click to expand...
Yes, Supreme Court in Heller/Caetano/Bruen tossed out decades long practice of allowing interest balancing consideration of greater society's good over individual rights of "We the People" to uphold the RKBA not just at home but outside of home with "modern" types of bearable arms and accessories "in common use" not connected with Militia service.

In Nguyen, CA state made the wrong argument as restriction on Second Amendment right of "We the People" somehow would benefit greater society's good, which Bruen tossed out and tested in Rahimi as "binding law" of the land.

And as clearly pointed out by the 9th Circuit (Yes, that anti-gun 9th Circuit) judges told CA attorney 1 in 30 restriction is direct infringement of the Second Amendment, which CA attorney ended up agreeing with (Oh my :)) because it was plainly obvious even to 9th Circuit judges. 👍

I am sure CA will appeal the case all the way to the Supreme Court but my sentiment is Bruen methodology will prevail that individual right to keep and bear arms in and outside of home for lawful purposes including self defense with "modern" types of arms and accessories will prevail even though greater society of majority mob rule "prefer" to disarm "We the People".

To me, that's what Heller/Caetano/Bruen/Rahimi/Range cases are all about, majority mob rule greater society's desire to disarm "We the People" (ALL people from good and bad, even "temporarily" for violent) and founders specifically said that right "shall not be infringed", even extending to "modern" types of arms and accessories.

And Nguyen case will reaffirm that right applies now, not 30 days later or a year later and certainly not restricted in number of arms.

Imagine if "We the People" are restricted to fill up the gas tank or charge EV only once a month? :rofl:
 
Very discouraging to me; the antis trying every form of restriction and repression they think will slide around court decisions, every little thing having to be litigated.
 
Jim Watson said:
Very discouraging to me; the antis trying every form of restriction and repression they think will slide around court decisions, every little thing having to be litigated.
Click to expand...
But this is nothing new.

The majority mob rule anti-Bill of Rights have been writing and passing state laws for a long time until Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional and eventually permanent enforcement kicked in by the way of federal/state laws - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...eme_Court_cases_involving_the_First_Amendment

And Supreme Court will not allow Second Amendment to become "second class right" and latest minority group imposed by the majority mob rule (gun owners) to become second class citizens.

Just as "modern" forms of communication/free speech were protected by EXPANDED First Amendment, same must happen for "modern" types of arms and accessories by EXPANDED Second Amendment, which is happening through Heller/Caetano/Bruen/Rahimi ... 👍
 
Last edited:
As a California resident, I fully expect the state to request a hearing enbanc very soon. Along with that enbanc request, a emergency stay to be placed, because the state will find “nuanced” evidence in light of other pending cases. However, AG Bonta must carefully weigh doing that, because if the Eunuchs of SCOTUS eventually get the case resolved in our favor, he will have to take the blame for the loss, and will be seen as responsible for screwing up the program of the gun control Nazis.
 
IMHO, since all these 2A cases will be appealed to the Supreme Court, sooner we get these cases proceeded to the Supreme Court the better as majority justices already indicated and clearly expressed how they would rule to prevent Second Amendment from becoming "second class right".

So at this juncture, it really doesn't matter much whether we win at district/circuit court level as some judges obviously expressed their defiance to Supreme Court rulings and sooner majority justices get to rule and "clarify" these cases, sooner we can EXPAND Second Amendment protection to "modern" types of arms and accessories.

I am quite certain the next Supreme Court term will be VERY exciting indeed, to both sides of Second Amendment isle. :)👍
 
Jim Watson said:
Very discouraging to me; the antis trying every form of restriction and repression they think will slide around court decisions, every little thing having to be litigated.
Click to expand...
It's why we need more than just a court ruling. If you go back to the civil rights era, the most important decision didn't come from any court - it was Eisenhower deploying the 101st Airborne to impose Brown v Board of Education by force of arms. No more legal games, obey or die.

Start arresting state legislators out in handcuffs, toss them into prison, and charge them for Conspiracy to Violate Civil Rights, and things will clear right up.
 
LiveLife said:
IMHO, since all these 2A cases will be appealed to the Supreme Court, sooner we get these cases proceeded to the Supreme Court the better as majority justices already indicated and clearly expressed how they would rule to prevent Second Amendment from becoming "second class right".

So at this juncture, it really doesn't matter much whether we win at district/circuit court level as some judges obviously expressed their defiance to Supreme Court rulings and sooner majority justices get to rule and "clarify" these cases, sooner we can EXPAND Second Amendment protection to "modern" types of arms and accessories.

I am quite certain the next Supreme Court term will be VERY exciting indeed, to both sides of Second Amendment isle. :)👍
Click to expand...
I sincerely hope you are correct. The fact that every single minute detail ends up going through the appellate industry on its way up to the Eunuchs of SCOTUS, and then is somehow openly defied is frustrating to say the least. Look at how long the Duncan case out of California has been going; it’s around ten years at this point.
Bigger problem is that the next White House occupant will most certainly appoint some Justices at The Eunuchs; this will be a game changer if it doesn't go our way. Even so, with more open defiance by lower courts, legislatures, and all sorts of local governments, it seems that without actual, physical consequences the bad laws will continue to be enacted, and more than a few LE agencies will be happy to enforce such.
Looks like the need for The Great Reset is closer yet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Bianchi v. Frosh - Twenty-five states urge SCOTUS to hear case fighting Maryland firearms ban
Replies
10
Views
2K
jdc1244
jdc1244
A
  • Locked
Illinois could pass the perfect AWB & High-Capacity Magazine ban case for SCOTUS
Replies
20
Views
2K
Master Blaster
Master Blaster
LiveLife
  • Locked
Effects of DC v Heller and subsequent case rulings on gun rights/modern firearms and accessories
Replies
1
Views
518
AlexanderA
A
A
  • Locked
Landmark 2nd Amendment victory at SCOTUS in NYSRPA Inc. v. Bruen!!!
2 3 4 5 6 7
Replies
165
Views
11K
Insignificant bill
Insignificant bill
N
  • Locked
Supreme court to take on the DC gun case!
Replies
8
Views
1K
romma
R
Back
Top Bottom