Page 7 of 8

Re: California "assault weapon" ban challenge--Miller v. Bonta

Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2022 8:14 am
by sikacz
featureless wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 6:45 pm
highdesert wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 6:38 pm That's good news, I hope Benitez rules quickly. Bonta will appeal and we'll see how long it languishes at the 9th Circuit before we get decisions. I hope Benitez also gets Duncan v Bonta (magazine size restrictions).
He should since Duncan was his.

I'm hoping for an injunction. CA9 will overrule and then the injunction would be appealed to SCOTUS while these two cases meander for 10 more fucking years back to SCOTUS. What a collosal waste of time and money.
Blame the authoritarian neoliberal agenda that set these idiots on the bench. There’s no real difference between these idiots and the fundamentalist authoritarian types dominating the the scotus now except the issues they carry a torch for. We’re at a sad point, pick the right you will accept losing.

Re: California "assault weapon" ban challenge--Miller v. Bonta

Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2022 10:07 am
by highdesert
sikacz wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 8:14 am
featureless wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 6:45 pm
highdesert wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 6:38 pm That's good news, I hope Benitez rules quickly. Bonta will appeal and we'll see how long it languishes at the 9th Circuit before we get decisions. I hope Benitez also gets Duncan v Bonta (magazine size restrictions).
He should since Duncan was his.

I'm hoping for an injunction. CA9 will overrule and then the injunction would be appealed to SCOTUS while these two cases meander for 10 more fucking years back to SCOTUS. What a collosal waste of time and money.
Blame the authoritarian neoliberal agenda that set these idiots on the bench. There’s no real difference between these idiots and the fundamentalist authoritarian types dominating the the scotus now except the issues they carry a torch for. We’re at a sad point, pick the right you will accept losing.
Lawyers and judges are into drama, robes, benches set up high, addressing the court in the 3rd person and "Your Honor". It was to impress those coming before the King's Courts that the divinity of the monarch was spread on His Majesty's Justices and that there really was justice and equality before the law. Go to an Irish court and call a judge "Your Honor" or "Your Lordship" and you'll probably be held in contempt, they are addressed as "Judge" or "Justice" and that's it. Courts are a human invention to resolve conflicts, justice and equality are ideals and ideals have to be fought for everyday.

As the whole country has become more partisan, the curtain has been pulled back on the partisanship of judges. They aren't partisan politicians who when appointed to the bench miraculously become non-partisan, they are appointed to the bench because of their partisan views though they will deny it in hearings. 9th Circuit 2A rulings aren't always surprising.

Re: California "assault weapon" ban challenge--Miller v. Bonta

Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2022 11:40 am
by sikacz
highdesert wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 10:07 am
sikacz wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 8:14 am
featureless wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 6:45 pm
highdesert wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 6:38 pm That's good news, I hope Benitez rules quickly. Bonta will appeal and we'll see how long it languishes at the 9th Circuit before we get decisions. I hope Benitez also gets Duncan v Bonta (magazine size restrictions).
He should since Duncan was his.

I'm hoping for an injunction. CA9 will overrule and then the injunction would be appealed to SCOTUS while these two cases meander for 10 more fucking years back to SCOTUS. What a collosal waste of time and money.
Blame the authoritarian neoliberal agenda that set these idiots on the bench. There’s no real difference between these idiots and the fundamentalist authoritarian types dominating the the scotus now except the issues they carry a torch for. We’re at a sad point, pick the right you will accept losing.
Lawyers and judges are into drama, robes, benches set up high, addressing the court in the 3rd person and "Your Honor". It was to impress those coming before the King's Courts that the divinity of the monarch was spread on His Majesty's Justices and that there really was justice and equality before the law. Go to an Irish court and call a judge "Your Honor" or "Your Lordship" and you'll probably be held in contempt, they are addressed as "Judge" or "Justice" and that's it. Courts are a human invention to resolve conflicts, justice and equality are ideals and ideals have to be fought for everyday.

As the whole country has become more partisan, the curtain has been pulled back on the partisanship of judges. They aren't partisan politicians who when appointed to the bench miraculously become non-partisan, they are appointed to the bench because of their partisan views though they will deny it in hearings. 9th Circuit 2A rulings aren't always surprising.
Yes, agree.

Re: California "assault weapon" ban challenge--Miller v. Bonta

Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2022 11:08 am
by featureless
Briefs have been filed.
Plaintiffs: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .136.0.pdf
State: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .137.0.pdf

On page 4, the state indicates:
That is the case here. Throughout Anglo-American history, governments have adopted restrictions on “dangerous [or] unusual weapons,” Heller, 554 U.S. at 627, while allowing law-abiding residents to possess and acquire other firearms for self defense purposes. The AWCA is a part of that tradition. As explained in the accompanying declarations of historians and political and social scientists, which supplement the existing trial record in this matter, the history of state and federal
regulation of firearms and other weapons—from the regulation of dangerous or unusual weapons in pre-founding England, through the founding of the United States and the antebellum and postbellum periods, and continuing into the 20th century—reveals a well-established tradition of government regulation of particular weapons deemed to pose a significant public danger, provided that other weapons remained available for effective self-defense
What Heller actually says is "dangerous and unusual." The state's brief relies on a total misrepresentation of Heller by substituting "and" for "or." It is a gross misrepresentation. They then utilize racist (unconstitutional) laws to support their tradition.

Re: California "assault weapon" ban challenge--Miller v. Bonta

Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2022 12:44 pm
by highdesert
It's back before Judge Roger Benitez, hooray. From the plaintiff's brief:
By now, this Court well understands the point: the State’s ban on firearm features finds no relevant analogue in the founding era, or otherwise. Repeating firearms themselves have existed from the founding era on, and the State has pointed to no evidence indicating that the Founders would have understood banning such firearms to be consistent with the right to keep and bear arms.
But as demonstrated, 20th-century analogues are not relevant, as they provide no insight into our understanding of the scope of the Second Amendment right at the time it was adopted in 1791. Bruen, 142 S.Ct. at 2136. Thus, any argument (or reargument) by the State to these “firing capacity restrictions” of the 1920s and 1930s, as applied to magazine capacity, would be irrelevant, and this Court has already rejected the argument.
The CA AG will likely lose again and appeal to the 9th Circuit and it's another replay. If the 9th panel affirms Benitez's ruling, will CA ask for an en banc hearing and will it be granted?

Re: California "assault weapon" ban challenge--Miller v. Bonta

Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2022 7:50 pm
by CDFingers
Either states' rights are a thing, or they're not.

We're waiting....

CDFingers

Re: California "assault weapon" ban challenge--Miller v. Bonta

Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2022 8:11 pm
by featureless
CDFingers wrote: Fri Oct 14, 2022 7:50 pm Either states' rights are a thing, or they're not.

We're waiting....

CDFingers
14th amendment, no? Definitely there are states' rights. Definitely there are constitutional protections the state and fed is bared from fucking with. Coexist, brother. :)

Re: California "assault weapon" ban challenge--Miller v. Bonta

Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2022 8:29 pm
by sikacz
featureless wrote: Fri Oct 14, 2022 8:11 pm
CDFingers wrote: Fri Oct 14, 2022 7:50 pm Either states' rights are a thing, or they're not.

We're waiting....

CDFingers
14th amendment, no? Definitely there are states' rights. Definitely there are constitutional protections the state and fed is bared from fucking with. Coexist, brother. :)
Exactly.

Re: California "assault weapon" ban challenge--Miller v. Bonta

Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2022 9:28 pm
by CDFingers
We're just looking for a little consistency.

CDFingers

Re: California "assault weapon" ban challenge--Miller v. Bonta

Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2022 9:57 pm
by featureless
CDFingers wrote: Fri Oct 14, 2022 9:28 pm We're just looking for a little consistency.

CDFingers
I much prefer consistency to constipation. Shit getting all jamed up ain't good for nobody.

Re: California "assault weapon" ban challenge--Miller v. Bonta

Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2022 11:24 am
by highdesert
featureless wrote: Fri Oct 14, 2022 9:57 pm
CDFingers wrote: Fri Oct 14, 2022 9:28 pm We're just looking for a little consistency.

CDFingers
I much prefer consistency to constipation. Shit getting all jammed up ain't good for nobody.
Oh that visual. :lol: Fiber, fiber, fiber, fiber, fiber...

I hope Benitez releases an outstanding opinion.

Re: California "assault weapon" ban challenge--Miller v. Bonta

Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2022 11:40 am
by CDFingers
The point about states' rights, irrespective of one's fiber intake, is that if states can rig voting rights and can gerrymander and can take away a woman's right to choose, then it follows that California can continue to piss off us gun owners. That would be consistently unconstitutional across the states because the Supremes so dictate.

CDFingers

Re: California "assault weapon" ban challenge--Miller v. Bonta

Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2022 1:52 pm
by highdesert
We know that both parties gerrymander US House and state legislative districts. SCOTUS especially Roberts seems to be a big believer in letting states decide issues, instead of letting federal courts decide every major issue. He doesn't think that courts should replace legislative bodies.

It's harder for federal courts to overturn laws passed by a legislative body than a ruling by a court someplace, legislative enactments involve more people and reflect more the will of the people. Sometimes activists push so hard to change multiple issues, that they don't stop and make sure that the changes they've advocated for will last over time.

Re: California "assault weapon" ban challenge--Miller v. Bonta

Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2022 1:15 pm
by CDFingers
Memes have their places.
Image
CDFingers

Re: California "assault weapon" ban challenge--Miller v. Bonta

Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2022 1:47 pm
by highdesert
And in the US the federal courts have the final say if a law conforms to the US Constitution. It's not up to militias, Oathkeepers, Proudboys, sovereign citizens or any other organizations right or left to make that determination.

Re: California "assault weapon" ban challenge--Miller v. Bonta

Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2023 10:16 pm
by CDFingers
Here's an LA Times article not behind the pay wall about the collection of laws being challenged.
In the four cases before him, Benitez ordered the state to identify historical laws analogous and “relevantly similar to” each of the laws being challenged.

In response, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office conducted an exhaustive review of centuries of weapons law to prove that government restrictions are nothing new, especially when it comes to particularly dangerous weapons.

In the assault weapons case, Bonta’s office submitted two spreadsheets to the court outlining 316 different laws it considered relevant, starting with a 1383 English law that banned the possession of launcegays, or medieval throwing spears, and ending with an early 1930s law in Wisconsin that banned the possession of machine guns, hand grenades and other explosives.

The collection of laws, the state argued, showed that “governments have adopted laws like the challenged [assault weapons ban] consistent with the 2nd Amendment — restricting particular weapons and weapons configurations that pose a danger to society and are especially likely to be used by criminals, so long as the restriction leaves available other weapons for constitutionally protected uses.”
https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fw ... l-analysis

When you click on the link, scroll down to find the .pdf files of all the historical precedents cited by the CA AG in spread sheet form. Let's see what Benitez does with that argument.

CDFingers

Re: California "assault weapon" ban challenge--Miller v. Bonta

Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2023 12:18 am
by featureless
Exactly none of the cited laws are similar to those the state is defending. None are outright bans on ownership (except, of course, the unconstitutional racist ones denying blacks and Natives). The state needs to do better under Bruen. CA9 will buy the argument, but SCOTUS won't.

Re: California "assault weapon" ban challenge--Miller v. Bonta

Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2023 6:25 am
by highdesert
Saw that article Monday, typical antigun LA Times article.
To best understand California’s desire to uphold its bans on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines, consider recent history. In January, a man armed with a 9-millimeter MAC-10 with an extended magazine, a gun prohibited under state laws, massacred 11 people and injured nine others at a Monterey Park dance studio where mostly older patrons were celebrating the Lunar New Year. Assault-style weapons that are banned in California were also used to slaughter 19 elementary school students and two teachers in Uvalde, Texas, in May, and five patrons of a queer club in Colorado Springs in November. Over the last decade, the same sort of guns were used in many of the worst mass shootings in the country, mowing down high school students and teachers, concert-goers and church parishioners, nightclub patrons and county employees.
However, in the high-stakes legal battles currently being waged over California’s bans in federal court — where decisions are anticipated soon — America’s gruesome modern history with the powerful weapons hasn’t been the focus.
Rector, the legal correspondent for the Times quotes Volokh and Winkler, but mostly Erwin Chemerinsky who is anti-gun and a foe of originalism.
UC Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky put it more bluntly: “It’s all about the absurdity of originalism.”
CDF is right, the attachments are interesting.

Re: California "assault weapon" ban challenge--Miller v. Bonta

Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2023 8:58 am
by YankeeTarheel
Is Cali going to ban hammers after Paul Pelosi was assaulted with one as a weapon, which makes it an assault weapon.
At least in NJ, they have the (pseudo-)decency to refer to them as assault FIREARMS so they don't have to outlaw rocks, bricks, kitchen knives, baseball bats, and...hammers.

Re: California "assault weapon" ban challenge--Miller v. Bonta

Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2023 10:41 am
by featureless
CA's best analogy is laws preventing the arming of trap guns claiming the strings on trap guns are analogous to "features" on assault weapons. They miss the part where the trap gun laws ban neither string nor rifles but are specific to the use of setting a gun as a trap. CA also has a trap gun laws. If that were the law being challenged, they'd have a winner. But it isn't. To say a law disallowing the setting of a trap with a string is the same as banning the possession of a class of arms in common use for lawful purposes is.... Well, I'm sure CA9 will agree with the state. After all, they found no right to bear at all.

Re: California "assault weapon" ban challenge--Miller v. Bonta

Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2023 10:59 am
by sikacz
featureless wrote: Wed Mar 08, 2023 10:41 am CA's best analogy is laws preventing the arming of trap guns claiming the strings on trap guns are analogous to "features" on assault weapons. They miss the part where the trap gun laws ban neither string nor rifles but are specific to the use of setting a gun as a trap. CA also has a trap gun laws. If that were the law being challenged, they'd have a winner. But it isn't. To say a law disallowing the setting of a trap with a string is the same as banning the possession of a class of arms in common use for lawful purposes is.... Well, I'm sure CA9 will agree with the state. After all, they found no right to bear at all.
CA9 and these gun related cases are a never ending circle with no resolution. No matter what the SCOTUS says California finds away to ignore and bring a new case which CA9 rubber stamps if any objections are raised. Then back to SCOTUS and more ignoring. Our legal system is a joke.

Re: California "assault weapon" ban challenge--Miller v. Bonta

Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2023 12:25 pm
by highdesert
YankeeTarheel wrote: Wed Mar 08, 2023 8:58 am Is Cali going to ban hammers after Paul Pelosi was assaulted with one as a weapon, which makes it an assault weapon.
At least in NJ, they have the (pseudo-)decency to refer to them as assault FIREARMS so they don't have to outlaw rocks, bricks, kitchen knives, baseball bats, and...hammers.
It wouldn't surprise me YT, the nannies in the CA Capitol are always thinking of ways to restrict our right to self defense. It's like state legislators here see every gun owner as a potential criminal, so in return I see politicians here as liars and potential crooks.

Re: California "assault weapon" ban challenge--Miller v. Bonta

Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2023 2:47 pm
by featureless
Miller dropped. A win! With a stay. So CA9 will fuck it up and nothing changes...

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firear ... 1697737480

Re: California "assault weapon" ban challenge--Miller v. Bonta

Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2023 3:23 pm
by highdesert
This was the second time it was at Judge Benitez's court and the second time he's found the law unconstitutional. And we wait to see which judges will be on the 9th Circuit panel, recognizing that if they decide for Miller, an en banc panel will reverse it and rule for the CA AG.

Re: California "assault weapon" ban challenge--Miller v. Bonta

Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2023 3:40 pm
by featureless
highdesert wrote: Thu Oct 19, 2023 3:23 pm This was the second time it was at Judge Benitez's court and the second time he's found the law unconstitutional. And we wait to see which judges will be on the 9th Circuit panel, recognizing that if they decide for Miller, an en banc panel will reverse it and rule for the CA AG.
Yup. So gross. We've got our own kangaroo court going on. But it's cool, Dems love gun control by any means necessary.