LiveLife
Member
Update to post #240 on Duncan/Rhode/Miller v Bonta cases - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-10#post-12462855
More detailed discussion interview with CRPA president Chuck Michel (Jump to 12:40 minute)
Here's video recap of four case "status conference" by judge Benitez on 12/12/22 by CRPA representing Duncan v Bonta (CA magazine ban) and Rhode v Bonta (CA ammunition ban) cases. Also heard were Miller v Bonta (CA AW ban) and Fouts v Bonta (CA baton ban).Very hopeful for good news tomorrow
- Not a "hearing" but "status conference"
- Unusual due to four cases presented at the same time (Usually only one case at a time)
- Judge Benitez wanted the cases to proceed as quickly as possible
- It is likely judge will find all four cases unconstitutional
- Duncan was filed in 2017 and likely will be appealed again and judge Benitez implied he wants to expedite and finish at the district court level for appeal to the 9th Circuit
- It's important for the state of CA to know whether laws it passed are constitutional (Judge Benitez already ruled Duncan unconstitutional with judgement in March 2019 and now reconsidering the remanded case post-Bruen ruling)
- State of CA is coming up with excuses to delay the cases further with historians, more expert witnesses, etc. (As quick appeal to the Supreme Court with current bench make up will result in rulings unfavorable to CA )
- Judge Benitez wants to quickly set cases straight
- Ammunition "ban" is imposed process issue where buyers must jump through hoops like background checks, etc.
- Buying ammunition is different than buying firearm and should not require background checks because it is so burdensome to the buyer
- There is no such "history and tradition" of burdening buyers to purchase ammunition
More detailed discussion interview with CRPA president Chuck Michel (Jump to 12:40 minute)
- Bruen ruling eliminated the two-step approach and now only "text and history" approach is used for Second Amendment cases
- Means there must be same/similar laws back in history when the Second through Fourteenth Amendments were ratified
- CA tried to push for historians to expand to "gun related practices" but it was clarified that only laws in place, not practices, are to be considered
- Historically there has been push for firearms improvement/development, not limitations and restrictions
- Likely all of the cases will be appealed to the Supreme Court
- Delay tactics by CA is likely in hopes that Supreme Court bench make up will change
- Current Supreme Court bench make up will likely hear these cases and rule on them