Re: California gun owners lose in Rupp v. Becerra (AWB)

26
DispositionMatrix wrote: Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:15 am What arms are "common"?
The Ninth Circuit case Rupp v. Becerra challenges the California legislature's ban on a wide of variety of rifles. Last week, I co-authored an amicus brief explaining: 1. Supreme Court precedents state that common arms cannot be banned. 2. Lower courts have used several methodologies to decide whether a type of arm is "common"; under any methodology, the arms targeted by California plainly are common. Therefore, prohibition is unconstitutional.
The above is agreed by all sides. "[T]hat the rifles are more accurate and easier to control is precisely why California has chosen to ban them." Rupp v. Becerra, 401 F. Supp.3d 978, 993 (C.D. Ca. 2019).
Unlike "common" arms, "dangerous and unusual weapons" may be prohibited, according to Heller. Any arm that is "common" cannot be "unusual." Therefore, such an arm cannot be "dangerous and unusual."
That's a very airtight argument. Excited to see what happens

Re: California gun owners lose in Rupp v. Becerra (AWB)

28
The issue of “Assault Weapons Bans” certainly are contentious.

I understand the Theory behind then, in terms of the Security Dilemma when addressing arms control, even when dealing with civilian populations within a country (and the different “Factions” within those populations that can be at odds: The General Populations (being the normal “Law-Abiding” population who are not “Political Activists” of any kind), the Politically Active Population (Those who hold to certain beliefs or ideologies more closely than the General Population, and to whom realizing that ideology as the model for Society is their primary concern), Social Subcultures/Populations (these are people whose primary identification has to do with some Hobby, or Activity that will be either their primary concern, or something that is especially salient to their lives: Music, Sports, Religion, etc.), Criminal/Lawless Population (Rather self-explanatory. It is important to remember that not all of the members of this population within a Country/Nation* will have had some sort of encounter with Law Enforcement, or the Justice System), Law Enforcement (Local, State, Federal; sometimes in contention, sometimes cooperative), Government (Both the elected Representatives and the Bureacracy/Civil Service), Military, and so on... ). And specific to the what is known as the Security Dilemma Is what is known as the Spiral Model.

Even though most people tend to think of things like “Arms Control” purely in terms of things like Strategic Weapons, and the various forms they appear: Nuclear Weapons, ICBMs, IRBM, Cruise Missiles, Nuclear Submarines (whether Attack, Ballistic Missile, Guided Missile, or some other role), Aircraft Carriers and Navies as a whole..... These principles apply also at the level of Intra-National “Arms Control,” which is what an “Assault Weapon Ban: is, along with things like the Classification of things like Class III, NFA, Transferable Machine Guns, Short-Barreled Rifles, Suppressors/Silencers, Destructive Devices, etc. (or even the ownership of Tanks, or even Warships — Did you know that you can own a Nuclear Submarine as a private Citizen? The restrictions surrounding doing so make such a thing onerous for even someone like Jeff Bezos, or Bill Gates).

That is, of course, the Proximal Theory behind such bans. This is usually communicated to the public as “Making it more difficult to commit acts of violence that inflect mass casualties.”

And they would be correct in making that assumption. That is one of the effects of “banning” such weapons. It creates a situation called “Use it and Lose it.”

They know that criminals are not going to abide by the Law. That is sort of the nature of “Being a Criminal,” you “Don’t obey the law.” in fact, that is the Definition of “Being a Criminal.”

So, they create a situation where the criminals cannot use such a weapon without losing the weapon, and thus taking it out of circulation: A process no different than Strategic Arms Treaties. Strategic Arms Limitations/Controls allow States to “Agree” upon what is-and-isn’t “allowed” for each country. Some of the countries will “Cheat,” keeping stockpiles of the “Prohibited Arms.” But in doing so they become unable to regularly train in the use of such Arms, and they run the risk of being “caught” (like any criminal), and punished/sanctioned for their violation. This has historically “worked” to reduce the actual amount of violence, and the risks associated with stockpiles of dangerous weapons being built-up.

But... Is how the State of California’s implementation of this Theory something that is sustainable? The question of “Legality” seems to still be in debate.

And it does seem that there are ways of producing the same effect (Reducing the risk associated with the Spiral Model by limiting access to a class of weapons) without having to resort to an outright ban.

Realistically... We do as a society need to examine the obsession that much of the population has with firearms, especially as a defense against something they can’t defend against (A Totalitarian Government with access to Strategic Weapons, and Logistical Control). Tactical Weapons cannot achieve Strategic Goals. It requires Strategic Weapons, or Strategic Weapons Systems to do this. It requires what is known as Democratization of Force; a thing that has not existed for the Developed/First-World since roughly 1880. Tactical Weapons (Firearms) can protect you from other Tactical Weapons (Firearms). For which in the USA has a fairly respectable concern given how far Right-Wing Radicalism has pushed what is now around 30% of our population into believing that they must “kill their enemies,” which they have identified as anyone even moderately to their political-left (to say nothing of their current opposition to any form of Democracy, whatsoever, which they have correctly identified as producing outcomes they do not approve of, given the shrinking base of the Political-Right).

But for the California Assault Weapons Ban. It seems to be an overreaction by a government to an overreaction by the population that had taken to “hoarding weapons” (this is the Inverse of the Spiral Model).


I would hope that CA can take another look at this ban when we again have a more stable government, Nationally, and where the various sources of Radicalization have been confronted a bit more robustly.

But I think a more realistic approach would be to look at what can be “saved” in preventing such Bans from extending to other categories of weapons as well.

MB

Re: California gun owners lose in Rupp v. Becerra (AWB)

32
Rupp v. Becerra oral arguments to be heard by the 9th Circuit on 10/8 at 13:00 PDT.
https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/calendar/v ... &year=2020

Code: Select all

19-56004	Steven Rupp v. Xavier Becerra - An appeal from the district court's summary judgment for defendant in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 challenging provisions of California's Assault Weapon Control Act. [8:17-cv-00746-JLS-JDE]	Civil	C. CA	20 min

Re: California gun owners lose in Rupp v. Becerra (AWB)

34
featureless wrote: Tue Sep 29, 2020 11:45 am Judge panel:
Andrew D. Hurwitz,73,Obama
Daniel Aaron Bress,41,Trump
Patrick J. Bumatay,42,Trump

Following Heller, there is no honest way to say that assault weapons are not in common use and therefor protected. We'll see.
A little over a year after the district court ruling it's at a panel of the 9th, I'm liking virtual court hearings. We will see how the Trump judges vote.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: California gun owners lose in Rupp v. Becerra (AWB)

35
highdesert wrote: Tue Sep 29, 2020 12:15 pm
featureless wrote: Tue Sep 29, 2020 11:45 am Judge panel:
Andrew D. Hurwitz,73,Obama
Daniel Aaron Bress,41,Trump
Patrick J. Bumatay,42,Trump

Following Heller, there is no honest way to say that assault weapons are not in common use and therefor protected. We'll see.
A little over a year after the district court ruling it's at a panel of the 9th, I'm liking virtual court hearings. We will see how the Trump judges vote.
And likely only have to wait a year or so.... The wheels turn so slowly.

Re: California gun owners lose in Rupp v. Becerra (AWB)

36
They might surprise us, Duncan v Becerra only took about 5 months to get a panel decision. The nice thing about appellate judges is that they can be located anywhere, arguments can be virtual and they can review opinions and transcripts anywhere. It's not a trial court with a jury and witnesses. The three judges in Duncan had two judges someplace in CA and one in TX.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: California gun owners lose in Rupp v. Becerra (AWB)

39
featureless wrote: Fri Oct 09, 2020 10:48 am The 3 judge panel hearing was yesterday. Allegedly, it went fairly poorly for the state, so a glimmer of hope for those of us that have the dreaded assault weapon. Here's a video. I haven't had a chance to watch it yet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VE1AWUC ... e=youtu.be
Thanks for the link, just watched it.

I'd say if they decide common use = Strict Scrutiny then it's a win for our side. Opposing council was saying 166,000 registered assault weapons wasn't a lot. Surprised nobody made the point legal acquisition was stopped in '94.

So there is hope.

Re: California gun owners lose in Rupp v. Becerra (AWB)

40
BKinzey wrote: Fri Oct 09, 2020 2:20 pm
featureless wrote: Fri Oct 09, 2020 10:48 am The 3 judge panel hearing was yesterday. Allegedly, it went fairly poorly for the state, so a glimmer of hope for those of us that have the dreaded assault weapon. Here's a video. I haven't had a chance to watch it yet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VE1AWUC ... e=youtu.be
Thanks for the link, just watched it.

I'd say if they decide common use = Strict Scrutiny then it's a win for our side. Opposing council was saying 166,000 registered assault weapons wasn't a lot. Surprised nobody made the point legal acquisition was stopped in '94.

So there is hope.
Yeah, there's hope (at least temporarily--it would be immediately appealed to the full panel). None of the judges seemed particularly impressed with the state's arguments.

The thing about the 166,000 registered AWs number is that compliance with the last AWB was something less than 5% (from memory). Others either said fuck it or went featureless or fixed mag. That 95% are still AR-15s, so the actual number is well over a million. There is no way the state can say they aren't in common use, even within the state excluding across the country.

Re: California gun owners lose in Rupp v. Becerra (AWB)

41
Straight up awesome when judges use facts to weigh an argument rather than wander into the weeds of interpretations. Especially in cases like this where no one needs to interpret the intent of the Founding Fathers or any bs like that.
"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence. There is hope for a violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent." -Gandhi

Re: California gun owners lose in Rupp v. Becerra (AWB)

42
Hurwitz used a lot of Rupp's lawyers time with hypotheticals on different weapons. Bumatay got the AG's lawyer to clarify there is a difference between semi-auto and full-auto and to admit AR's are very popular. Bress asked few questions, he seemed to be taking notes. Bumatay and Bress are the Trump appointees, both Federalist Society and Bumatay is gay. Hopefully a quick decision from the panel.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: California gun owners lose in Rupp v. Becerra (AWB)

43
highdesert wrote: Fri Oct 09, 2020 4:21 pm Hopefully a quick decision from the panel.
Wouldn't that be neat?

I'm betting a 2-1, possibly even 3-0, win (Hurwitz didn't seem to enamored of the state's logic, either). I'd be lying to say I'm not hoping for a freedom week (or even day) before the inevitable injunction and overturning en banc. If Trump get's his SCOTUS appointment, it should prevail there. If not, magazine fed semiautomatic rifles in California will go on the endangered species list.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron