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

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by LiveLife, May 8, 2022.

  1. LiveLife

    LiveLife Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    29,389
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
    Update to Bianchi v Frosh (MD assault weapon ban) - https://rumble.com/v1f21x6-supreme-court-decision-forces-assault-weapon-ban-hearing-by-end-of-year.html
    • Like Miller v Bonta (CA assault weapon ban) and Duncan v Bonta (CA magazine ban) cases, Bianchi v Frosh was also remanded back down to 4th Circuit after Supreme Court's Bruen ruling
    • State of Maryland banned certain rifles for having "features", 45 names/models with more than 10 round magazine capacity and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court on hold pending Bruen ruling
    • With the Supreme Court eliminating the "two step" process approach, now the 4th Circuit must use "Text as informed by relevant history" approach only for reconsideration of the case and 4th Circuit reopened the case
    • Briefs to be filed and finished by September 22, 2022
    • Oral arguments are tentatively scheduled for December 6 through December 9
    • Case is set to be resolved by end of December and Maryland's assault weapon ban may end by year's end
    • Case finding is crucial to the future of gun rights as together with Miller and Duncan case findings, will set persuasive (Not binding) precedents for other Circuits to follow in line with Bruen ruling
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2022
  2. LiveLife

    LiveLife Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    29,389
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
  3. The Glockodile

    The Glockodile Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2020
    Messages:
    1,460
  4. ilbob

    ilbob Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    20,533
    Location:
    Illinois
    Semi-automatic firearms have been around for over a hundred years. That by itself makes them pretty much in common use.

    There isn't all that much difference functionally.

    The only real difference is you can reload much faster with external magazine firearms.

    I think insignificant features like color and slings and plastic doodads that really don't change anything other than appearance and sometimes make it easier and safer to shoot are going to be tough to regulate since the government's never going to be able to substantiate any claims that these particular features are particularly horrendous.

    External magazines on the other hand can be argued allow you to shoot more rounds in the same amount of time, making them significantly more dangerous. I think there is a better chance that eventually the supreme Court decides high capacity magazines can be regulated or banned than any other features. I'm not sure how are they are going to draw a line in the sand though, especially considering there's probably 10 or more "high" capacity magazines for every AR-15 rifle that's out there. And that's even whether you can find some logical place to draw a line between a non-high capacity magazine and a high capacity magazine.

    I don't think you can make a very good argument that a 10 round magazine is twice as dangerous as a five round magazine, or 30 round magazine is three times more dangerous than a 10 round magazine, but it's easy to make the argument that a 30 round magazine allows you to fire more rounds in the same period of time than a 5 round magazine. I don't know what that means in real life or to the courts.
     
  5. LiveLife

    LiveLife Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    29,389
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
    I don't think so as Caetano v. Massachusetts already found "modern" ammunition holding devices like detachable/removable magazines as "arms" protected by 2A.

    Judge Benitez in his Duncan v Bonta ruling referenced Caetano 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.

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

    So with Supreme Court's Bruen ruling having remanded Duncan v Bonta back down to 9th Circuit and Judge Benitez having already ruled magazine capacity ban unconstitutional with judgement, it looks like regulation of magazine capacity is at death bed - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/scotus-considering-bianchi-v-frosh-duncan-v-bonta-the-turning-point-for-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-7#post-12373032
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2022
    Big Bore 44 and theotherwaldo like this.
  6. LiveLife

    LiveLife Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    29,389
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
    Update to post #166 on Miller v Bonta (CA assault weapon ban) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/scotus-considering-bianchi-v-frosh-duncan-v-bonta-the-turning-point-for-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-7#post-12371472

    Update after 9th Circuit remanded the case back to District Court and judge "Saint" Benitez for reconsideration in light of Supreme Court's ruling on Bruen - https://rumble.com/v1ffcqo-saint-benitez-moves-to-rapidly-resolve-the-assault-weapon-ban-case.html
    • Judge Benitez has full control of the case
    • Judge Benitez ordered parties to file supplemental briefs
    • CA ban on "assault weapons" is based on features
    • Judge Benitez 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
    • On 8/1/22, 9th Circuit remanded the case back to District Court and judge Benitez
    • Judge Benitez gave 20 days for CA to file supplemental briefs to justify the ban based on "text and history" only [Rupp v Bonta (CA ban on certain assault weapon) was also remanded back down to District Court but judge for that case has not moved on the case]
     
    theotherwaldo and irishlad like this.
  7. ilbob

    ilbob Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    20,533
    Location:
    Illinois
    I am inclined to agree on this BUT, as I mentioned in my previous post, that while I think the chance that some kind of semi-auto firearm ban is ruled constitutional approaches zero, some kind of restrictions on magazine capacity has a better chance.

    But the bad guys are going to have to put forth a much better argument than they have in the past about why they want to ban magazines.
     
  8. LiveLife

    LiveLife Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    29,389
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
    And I am very curious what that argument is going to be from AG Bonta (who BTW just breached personal privacy of every gun owner in the state along with every law enforcement officer and judges among others and sued with class action lawsuit) as judge Benitez already stated CA's magazine capacity ban causes "lethal pause" for gun owners defending their lives in a gun fight during magazine change (If it can be done at all) because firearm ran out of ammunition or there were multiple attackers.
     
  9. LiveLife

    LiveLife Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    29,389
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
    Me too.

    From judge now justice Kavanaugh - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/scotus-considering-bianchi-v-frosh-duncan-v-bonta-the-turning-point-for-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-7#post-12371908

    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

    And I am glad to see (actually surprised) Associated Press discouraging the use of "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" as they are "highly politicized terms ... convey little meaning about the actual functions of the weapon" and encouraging the use of "semi-automatic rifle" - https://twitter.com/APStylebook/status/1547309549488640000

    Perhaps this shift is adding to the distinction between full-auto/select-fire "assault rifle" used by the military which are different from semi-auto "modern rifle" (As clarified by judge Benitez in Miller v Bonta compared to "traditional rifle") used by civilians "in common use" for lawful/sporting/self defense purposes to better support gun rights under the Second Amendment.

    Maybe 2022 is the "turning point for AW/magazine ban?"

    FXkl1dvWAAA_1Vc?format=png&name=small.png
     
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2022
  10. GEM

    GEM Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    10,592
    Location:
    WNY
    I would have to look it up but there are studies that show that states with mag capacity bans have 'rampages' with lower casualty counts than states without.

    As far as hunting, many states have mag bans on semis used for hunting and shotgun capacity limits.

    Saying that a limited gun is as dangerous or that someone can reload with lesser capacity very fast, just leads to them being banned also - see Australia for example.

    Given past Scotus blather on dangerous weapons, I can see a mag ban surviving a court challenge. The reason to have higher capacity mags is for ease in their lethal intent and that may not be popular.
     
    Bfh_auto likes this.
  11. LiveLife

    LiveLife Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    29,389
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
    But SCOTUS bench of 2022 with 6 pro-gun/2A justices is very different from SCOTUS bench make up of past years and likely rule more pro-gun/2A as demonstrated in recent historic Bruen ruling. ;)

    I think what's significant and different now is the elimination of the "two step" approach used in past years by courts and now post Bruen ruling, only "text and history" approach is to be used in determining gun rights/2A cases, particularly for AW/magazine ban cases (as courts already ruled magazines are arms), and why cases were remanded back to various Circuit Courts.

    And the remanded cases sent back to various Circuit Courts are going through their reconsiderations and we may get a ruling on Bianchi v Frosh (MD assault weapon ban) by end of the year - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/scotus-considering-bianchi-v-frosh-duncan-v-bonta-the-turning-point-for-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-8#post-12374752

    So before too long, we should see how things actually play out in courts regarding AW/magazine ban.

    With the Supreme Court/justice Thomas, justice Kavanaugh and judge Benitez having already stated there is no historical basis for semi-auto rifle/magazine ban, how will states now argue? (And judge Benitez gave only 20 days for CA to file supplemental briefs for Miller and there's about a week left of the 20 days and I am curious how CA will now support the ban post Bruen ruling).
     
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2022
  12. LiveLife

    LiveLife Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    29,389
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
    This is what judge Benitez wrote in his Duncan v Bonta ruling regarding mass shooting - https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Duncan-2019-03-29-Order-Granting-Plaintiffs-MSJ.pdf

    Few would say that a 100 or 50-round rifle magazine in the hands of a murderer is a good idea. Yet, the “solution” for preventing a mass shooting exacts a high toll on the everyday freedom of ordinary law-abiding citizens. Many individual robberies, rapes, and shootings are not prevented by the State. Unless a law-abiding individual has a firearm for his or her own defense, the police typically arrive after it is too late ... victim, nevertheless, is dead, or raped, or robbed, or traumatized (Page 7)

    ... The Second Amendment protects the would-be American victim’s freedom and liberty to take matters into one’s own hands and protect one’s self and family until help arrives. (Page 8)

    Some say that the use of “large capacity magazines” increases the lethality of gun violence. They point out that when large capacity magazines are used in mass shootings, more shots are fired, more people are wounded, and more wounds are fatal than in other mass shootings ... Nothing in the Second Amendment makes lethality a factor to consider because a gun’s lethality, or dangerousness, is assumed (Page 21)

    If the “too lethal” standard is followed to its logical conclusion, the government may dictate in the future that a magazine of eight rounds is too lethal. And after that, it may dictate that a gun with a magazine holding three rounds is too lethal since a person usually fires only 2.2 rounds in self-defense. This stepped-down approach may continue until the time comes when government declares that only guns holding a single round are sufficiently lacking in lethality. (Page 22)

    If preventing mass shootings is the state’s interest, it is not at all clear that it would be compelling since such events are exceedingly rare. If the state’s interest is in forcing a “pause” during a mass shooting for a shooter to be apprehended, those events are even more rare.

    The State’s theoretical and empirical evidence is not persuasive. Why 10 rounds as a limit? The State has no answer. Why is there no thought given to possession in and around a home? It is inconclusive at best ... Mass shootings are tragic. But they are rare events. And of these rare events, many are committed without large capacity magazines. (Page 46-47)

    The findings from the Mayors Against Illegal Guns survey 2009-2013 ... “To sum up, of the 92 mass killings occurring across the 50 states between 2013 and 2009, only ten occurred in California. Of those ten, the criminalization and dispossession requirements of § 32310 would have had no effect on eight of the shootings, and only marginal good effects had it been in effect at the time of the remaining two shootings. On this evidence, § 32310 is not a reasonable fit. It hardly fits at all. It appears on this record to be a haphazard solution likely to have no effect on an exceedingly rare problem, while at the same time burdening the Constitutional rights of many other California law-abiding responsible citizen-owners of gun magazines holding more than 10 rounds.” (Page 48)

    ... the state attempts to bolster the data from the Mayors’ survey with a Mother Jones Magazine 36-year survey of mass shootings from 1982 to 2018. The Mother Jones findings are even less convincing ... 98 mass shooting events in the last 36 years ... 17 took place in California ... prohibition on magazines holding more than 10 rounds would have done nothing to keep a shooter from shooting more than 10 rounds. That is because normally the perpetrator brings multiple weapons. (Page 49)

    The more weapons, the greater the firepower and the greater the potential for casualties. In 14 of the 17 California mass shooting events, multiple weapons were brought. For example, in the 1988 mass shooting event in Sunnyvale, the shooter brought two pistols, two revolvers, two shotguns, and a bolt action rifle (all obtained legally). No large capacity magazines were used. (Page 50)

    California’s large capacity magazine prohibition also had no effect on the three single weapon mass shooting events. In the Fresno event in April 2017, a revolver was used. For those unschooled on firearms, a revolver does not use a magazine of any size. In the next mass shooting event in Oakland in April 2012, the shooter used a pistol with four California-legal 10-round magazines. In the third mass shooting event in Goleta in January 2006, the shooter did use a pistol with a 15-round magazine. However, the shooter resided in New Mexico. She purchased the firearm and its 15-round magazine legally in New Mexico. She then traveled into California to Goleta to the postal facility where she had been employed three years prior. By 2006, California already prohibited a person from bringing into the state a large capacity magazine, but it did not prevent the Goleta tragedy from taking place. (Page 50)

    Santa Monica June 2013 event where the shooter was armed with multiple firearms and 40 large-capacity magazines ... AR-15 and the illegal magazines may have been illegally imported from outside of California. Receiving and importing magazines holding any more than 10 rounds was already unlawful under California law at the time ... criminalizing possession of magazines holding any more than 10 rounds likely would not have provided any additional protection from gun violence for citizens or police officers. Nor would it have prevented the crime.

    The AG’s evidence demonstrates that ... criminalization of large capacity magazine acquisition and possession has had no effect on reducing the number of shots a perpetrator can fire. (Page 51)

    Where did this idea come from, the idea that a court is required to fully credit evidence only “reasonably believed to be relevant?” ... This is federal court. The Attorney General has submitted two unofficial surveys to prove mass shootings are a problem made worse by firearm magazines holding more than 10 rounds.

    Do the surveys pass the Federal Rule of Evidence Rule 403 test for relevance? Yes.

    Are the surveys admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence Rule 802? No.

    They are double or triple hearsay. No foundation has been laid. No authentication attempted.

    Are they reliable? No.

    Are they anything more than a selected compilation of news articles – articles which are themselves inadmissible? No.

    Are the compilers likely to be biased? Yes. (Page 52-53)

    This case is about a muscular constitutional right and whether a state can impinge and imprison its citizens for exercising that right. This case is about whether a state objective is possibly important enough to justify the impingement. (Page 54)

    No case has held that intermediate scrutiny would permit a state to impinge even slightly on the Second Amendment right by employing a known failed experiment. Congress tried for a decade the nationwide experiment of prohibiting large capacity magazines. It failed. California has continued the failed experiment for another decade and now suggests that it may continue to do so ad infinitum without demonstrating success. That makes no sense. (Page 59)

    Ten years of a federal ban on large-capacity magazines did not stop mass shootings nationally. Twenty years of a California ban on large capacity magazines have not stopped mass shootings in California. (Page 62)

    The reason for the adoption of the Second Amendment was to protect the citizens of the new nation from the power of an oppressive state ... With Colonists still hurting from the wounds of war, the Second Amendment guaranteed the rights of new American citizens to protect themselves from oppressors foreign and domestic. So, now it is ironic that the State whittles away at the right of its citizens to defend themselves from the possible oppression of their State. (Page 62)

    The State relies on expert witness, Professor Louis Klarevas. Professor Klarevas says that banning large capacity magazines will reduce violence and force shooters to take a critical pause. However ... Tucson shooting would have likely still happened with a ban on high capacity magazines ... Moreover, even if Loughner showed up with a six-bullet revolver as opposed to a 30-round Glock, he likely still would have shot people. What’s more, a person set on inflicting mass casualties will get around any clip prohibitions by having additional clips on his person (as Loughner did anyway) or by carrying more than one fully loaded weapon. (Page 65)

    The State argues that smaller magazines create a “critical pause” in the shooting of a mass killer. “The prohibition of LCMs helps create a “critical pause” that has been proven to give victims an opportunity to hide, escape, or disable a shooter.” This may be the case for attackers. On the other hand, from the perspective of a victim trying to defend her home and family, the time required to re-load a pistol after the tenth shot might be called a “lethal pause,” as it typically takes a victim much longer to re-load (if they can do it at all) than a perpetrator planning an attack.

    In other words, the re-loading “pause” the State seeks in hopes of stopping a mass shooter, also tends to create an even more dangerous time for every victim who must try to defend herself with a small-capacity magazine. The need to re-load and the lengthy pause that comes with banning all but small-capacity magazines is especially unforgiving for victims who are disabled, or who have arthritis, or who are trying to hold a phone in their off-hand while attempting to call for police help.

    The good that a re-loading pause might do in the extremely rare mass shooting incident is vastly outweighed by the harm visited on manifold law-abiding, citizen-victims who must also pause while under attack. This blanket ban without any tailoring to these types of needs goes to show § 32310’s lack of reasonable fit. (Page 74)

    CONCLUSION - Magazines holding more than 10 rounds are “arms.” California Penal Code Section 32310, as amended by Proposition 63, burdens the core of the Second Amendment by criminalizing the acquisition and possession of these magazines that are commonly held by law-abiding citizens for defense of self, home, and state ... California Penal Code § 32310 is hereby declared to be unconstitutional in its entirety and shall be enjoined. (Page 84)​
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2022
  13. theotherwaldo

    theotherwaldo Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2008
    Messages:
    5,259
    Location:
    In the Wild Horse Desert of Texas
    I would argue that the current SCOTUS is merely pro-Constitution/Bill of Rights.
    The Constitution and Bill of Rights is pro-Second Amendment... .
     
  14. LiveLife

    LiveLife Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    29,389
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
    Update to post #173 for Duncan v Bonta (CA magazine ban case) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/scotus-considering-bianchi-v-frosh-duncan-v-bonta-the-turning-point-for-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-7#post-12373032

    9th Circuit en banc panel had 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-circuit-forcing-magazine-ban-decision-to-be-reheard-by-saint-benitez.html

    Attorney discuss the recent effort by CA to get the Duncan v. Bonta (California magazine ban case) thrown back down to Judge Benitez - https://rumble.com/v1h940c-supreme-court-6-3-ruling-backs-californias-magazine-ban-into-a-corner.html
    • This is same delay/stall tactic 9th Circuit used for Miller v Bonta (CA assault weapon ban case) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/scotus-considering-bianchi-v-frosh-duncan-v-bonta-the-turning-point-for-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 were 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.
    Supplemental briefs were filed by CA and the plaintiffs:
    • CA is essentially begging the en banc panel to vacate and remand the case back down to District Court for judge Benitez to reconsider the case ... Stall tactic CA has used for other cases like Miller/Rupp and HI used for Young (all cases under 9th Circuit)
    • CA knows reconsideration of case using "Text, history and tradition" approach of Bruen will result in unconsitutional ruling (AGAIN) by judge Benitez and simply delaying/stalling the case
    • CA's brief points out other cases have been remanded back down to District Courts like Miller, Rupp and Young and based on this, Duncan should be remanded back down also
    • Plaintiff (CRPA - CA wing of NRA) also filed brief stating magazines are protected by 2A as already ruled in Duncan by judge Benitez and by other courts/cases
    • Plaintiff/CRPA brief stated there is no history and tradition of banning magazine capacity over 10 rounds and 9th Circuit should find CA's ban invalid
    • Plaintiff/CRPA brief stated it's time for the 9th Circuit to definitively rule once for all and stop stalling out as it's already been 5 years because it's glaringly obvious now that two step process approach has been eliminated, there is no "historical pedigree" of magazine capacity ban.
     
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2022
    theotherwaldo likes this.
  15. LiveLife

    LiveLife Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    29,389
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
    Update to post #181 on Miller v Bonta (CA assault weapon ban) -
    https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/scotus-considering-bianchi-v-frosh-duncan-v-bonta-the-turning-point-for-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-8#post-12377036

    After 9th Circuit remanded the case back to District Court, judge "Saint" Benitez scheduled a hearing for next Monday and attorney reviews and discusses the case - https://rumble.com/v1hd58y-game-changing-ca-assault-weapon-ban-hearing-happening-next-week.html
    • Judge Benitez has full control of the case
    • Judge Benitez ordered parties to file supplemental briefs
    • CA ban on "assault weapons" is based on features
    • Judge Benitez 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
    • On 8/1/22, 9th Circuit remanded the case back to District Court and judge Benitez
    • Judge Benitez gave 20 days for CA to file supplemental briefs to justify the ban based on "text and history" only [Rupp v Bonta (CA ban on certain assault weapon) was also remanded back down to District Court but judge for that case has not moved on the case]
    With 20 days coming to an end, judge Benitez ordered a hearing set for Monday, August 29 at 9:30 AM in courtroom 5A.
    • John Dillon, one of attorneys on the case was contacted and based on his response, hearing could be procedural clean up but it will be up to judge Benitez as to exactly what will happen at the hearing
    • Judge Benitez will likely take the rein of the case and set the ground rules for the case moving forward
    • Since judge Benitez already ruled on the case and other related cases like Duncan v Bonta CA's ban unconstitutional, things may move rather quickly
     
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2022
    Golfanaticshooter and Tinman357 like this.
  16. Tinman357

    Tinman357 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    542
    Location:
    Puget Sound
    :):) Fingers crossed. I know the judge will do the right thing, but as CA has already proved it doesn't care what judges think. I hope it invalidates WA laws that just went into effect here.
     
    Golfanaticshooter and DoubleMag like this.
  17. LiveLife

    LiveLife Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    29,389
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
    Update to post #190 on Miller v Bonta (CA assault weapon ban) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/scotus-considering-bianchi-v-frosh-duncan-v-bonta-the-turning-point-for-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-8#post-12392159

    Attorney provides an important update in the Miller v. Bonta California "AW" ban case from this morning's hearing after an order from judge Benitez - https://rumble.com/v1hwl4i-california-assault-weapon-ban-decision-date-set-by-saint-benitez.html
    • Judge Benitez rejected CA's argument to drag out the case until at least March of 2023 to come up with evidence to justify the ban
    • John Dillon, attorney for FPC reported that judge Benitez instead wants to close out the case much sooner with 45 days for filing of supplemental briefs of historical evidence of firearms regulations and 15 days for response briefs
    • After response briefs are filed, judge Benitez is anticipated to make a decision on the case
    • When asked, John Dillon reported judge Benitez gave the impression that he wants to resolve the case as soon as possible
     
  18. LiveLife

    LiveLife Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    29,389
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
    New case - Rocky Mountain Gun Owners v Boulder County (Boulder County, CO assault weapon/magazine/carry ban)

    Adding to post #162 Rocky Mountain Gun Owners v Town of Superior (Town of Superior, CO assault weapon/magazine ban) where Rocky Mountain Gun Owners (RMGO)/National Association of Gun Rights (NAGR) were granted Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) by Obama appointed judge against town of Superior, CO from enforcing recently enacted ordinance against certain types of assault weapons, large capacity magazines, carrying of conceal weapons, etc. - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/scotus-considering-bianchi-v-frosh-duncan-v-bonta-the-turning-point-for-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-7#post-12365517

    Now RMGO/NAGR were granted TRO by Biden appointed district court judge against Boulder county ordinance 2020-5 that ban "assault weapons" and large capacity ammunition feeding devices (magazines) - https://rumble.com/v1i1h4c-assault-weapon-and-magazine-ban-ruled-unconstitutional-by-district-court.html
    • On 8/2/22, Boulder county adopted ordinance 2020-5 which prohibits the sale and purchase of assault weapons, large capacity magazines and trigger activation devices
    • On 8/18/22, Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and National Association of Gun Rights filed a complaint that the county ordinance violates 2nd Amendment and 14th Amendment specific to assault weapons and large capacity magazines and requested TRO and Preliminary Injunction
    • Biden appointed district court judge Charlotte Sweeney granted TRO which is significant fallout of the recent Supreme Court's Bruen ruling
    • Judge to rule on Preliminary Injunction in 14 days
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2022
    theotherwaldo likes this.
  19. LiveLife

    LiveLife Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    29,389
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
    Update to post #189 for Duncan v Bonta (CA magazine ban case) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/scotus-considering-bianchi-v-frosh-duncan-v-bonta-the-turning-point-for-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-8#post-12391171

    Attorney discuss 9th Circuit Warned Not To Defy The Supreme Court In The Magazine Ban Case - https://rumble.com/v1iudns-9th-circuit-warned-not-to-defy-the-supreme-court-in-the-magazine-ban-case.html
    • Case is at 9th Circuit en banc level
    • Supplemental briefs were filed by CA and the plaintiffs
    • CA wants the case vacated and sent back down to the district court for judge Benitez to reconsider ... Stall tactic by CA
    • Plaintiffs want the case kept at the 9th Circuit level to be reviewed using post-Bruen ruling of "text and history" to finally resolve the issue
    • Other 2A organizations such as GOA filed amicus brief arguing with the plaintiffs that 9th Circuit finally needs to resolve this issue
    • These new groups are arguing it's time for 9th Circuit to rule the magazine ban unconstitutional [Especially since courts have ruled ammunition storage devices/magazines modern "arms" and protected by the 2A reaffirmed by Supreme Court's Bruen ruling that eliminated the two step process approach and now the judicial system must only use "text and history" approach]
    • 9th Circuit en banc panel requested supplemental briefs factoring Supreme Court's Bruen ruling using only "text and history" approach
    • Amicus briefs filed by these new groups point out post Supreme Court's Bruen ruling, lower courts now must change how they approach 2A cases and reject the application of two step process traditionally used by the 9th Circuit and should instead rule on the case using only "text and history" approach
    • If en banc panel rules on the case at the 9th Circuit level, it will provide judicial guidance to lower district courts and current active 2A cases
    • GOA and other 2A organizations strongly warned the 9th Circuit that under Supreme Court's Caetano v. Massachusetts justices Thomas/Alito stated, "lower courts ... defied Heller's reasoning ... lower courts' ill treatment of Heller cannot stand ... posed a grave threat to fundamental right to self defense ..." and not needed post Bruen ruling
    • GOA/2A organizations warned that if 9th Circuit openly defy the Supreme Court's ruling of using only "text and history" approach, Supreme Court could, just like in Caetano case, make a final ruling for the entire country to overrule lower court's ruling
    • If 9th Circuit and other lower courts continue to defy Supreme Court's ruling, Supreme Court will ultimately rule on their own for the entire country (And anti-2A states may not want that to happen with current 6-3 pro-2A make up of the Supreme Court bench)
    • The stall tactic employed by anti-2A states are being done in the hopes that 6-3 pro-2A make up of Supreme Court bench will change in time (Not likely in coming decade) BUT keep in mind that even the previous more liberal make up of Supreme Court bench ruled against lower courts' finding in Caetano v. Massachusetts because they were openly defying the Supreme Court
    • Supreme Court does not like when lower courts openly defy Supreme Court rulings
     
  20. Tinman357

    Tinman357 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    542
    Location:
    Puget Sound
    LIVELIFE

    Thank you for the updates. It is very much appreciated.

    Hopefully, the 9th will squash this in accordance with USSC ruling. Open, blatant defiance of the Supreme Court should have dire, and direct consequences. And rapidly.
     
    theotherwaldo and irishlad like this.
  21. LiveLife

    LiveLife Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    29,389
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
    For decades, anti-2A law makers and executives at state and federal levels passed bills and signed them into laws in violation of the Constitution with anti-2A judges not honoring the promise of the Bill of Rights.

    But just as our founders framed, "We the People" in 2016 elected a president who (perhaps through fate and destiny) appointed hundreds of federal judges and three justices who are "Orinialists" in the application of the Constitution to rule 6-3 in favor of 2A cases and 9-0 in favor of the Constitution/BOR (Yes, there have been a lot of cases Supreme Court reviewed and ruled unanimously. Even late justice Ginsberg said, "These [justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh] are smart individuals with impeccable reasoning ..." in how they approached and addressed judicial cases.

    I think in 2022 and moving forward, we may be in for a surprise as the Supreme Court looks to finally rule on many 2A issues that were passed on and new cases like ATF frame/receiver, bumpstock, 80% paper weight, sound suppressor, binary trigger, etc.

    This from another thread - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/glimmer-of-good-news-re-atf-frame-and-receiver-rule.909970/#post-12401610

    What we are seeing actually is unfolding of what our founders established go through it's paces.

    To ensure what was outlined in the Constitution, having freshly experienced the imposition of tyranny on their "rights" for freedom and liberty, founders then added the Bill of Rights to ensure the viability of the Constitution and chose the republic representative form of government with electoral college election process so the will of the majority could not be imposed on the rights of the minority.

    And just as ATF agency's overreach (as extention of legislative and executive branches) is challenged/stopped by the courts, our founders foresaw the future reality that imposition of tyranny on our rights not only could come from foreign powers but also from domestic powers, our own government. And our founders separated government powers into three branches to apply checks and balances.

    So now that legislative and executive branches passed anti 2A laws at federal and state government levels, the judicial branch is doing their job of challenging/stopping the imposition on the rights of minority gun owners in the form of district/circuit court rulings and Supreme Court rulings. And if fate and destiny would have it as framed by the founders, in 2022/2024, "We the People" could elect the legislative law makers and executive president to permanently enforce the Supreme Court/judicial branch's challenge to stop the unconstitutional laws that violated the Second Amendment, Fourth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment.

    So this young nation is going through the exact steps/processes the founders foresaw, anticipated and framed our government.

    ... With 6-3 pro-2A Supreme Court bench of 2022, especially with Bruen ruling and other 2A cases on hold that were remanded back down to circuit courts, I do believe 2022 is the start of "turn around" of gun rights that could continue for decades with lasting effects felt for generations! :p
     
    theotherwaldo likes this.
  22. DoubleMag

    DoubleMag Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2011
    Messages:
    1,505
    Does the SCOTUS have the right to disbar a subordinate, unruly judge?

    Or planer, can SCOTUS throw a bum out for not doing their job
     
  23. LiveLife

    LiveLife Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    29,389
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
    The SCOTUS can overrule the lower courts' decisions as the highest court in the nation.
     
  24. DoubleMag

    DoubleMag Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2011
    Messages:
    1,505
    Yes got that and it's happened recently.

    But if they throw the bum out is obviously a different question. Thrown out, disbarred, ''Judge George now is a WalM*** greeter'', no longer a judge, can go on Sun morning talk shows and discuss it but can no longer oversee legal proceedings.
     
  25. Shanvanvocht

    Shanvanvocht Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2021
    Messages:
    130
    Location:
    Upstate South Carolina
    Unfortunately, no. Federal judges, at every level, are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. It is a lifetime appointment and they can only be removed by impeachment; the same process as applies to the President.
     
    DoubleMag likes this.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice