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

Update to Arnold v Brown (OR magazine ban/permit to purchase) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-11#post-12511732

Oregon Supreme Court upholds order blocking Measure 114 - https://www.opb.org/article/2023/02/09/oregon-gun-law-supreme-court-measure-114-block/
  • Oregon state Supreme Court denied petition to overturn a lower court ruling blocking Measure 114 from taking effect
  • Measure 114′s provisions remain blocked in their entirety pending a lower court hearing on the measure’s constitutionality
  • Justices stated, “We recognize that the legal status of Measure 114 is of significant concern to many Oregonians ... Of course, it is the role of the judicial branch of government to resolve disputes such as challenges to laws enacted by the legislative branch, which includes the people exercising their initiative power.”
  • Justices concluded it is not appropriate for them to become involved when the dispute is still being addressed through the trial court.
  • This is second time the state Supreme Court declined to get involved in the proceedings.
  • After Thursday’s ruling, Measure 114 will remain blocked until judge Raschio schedules a more in-depth hearing
 
Update to post #271 Miller v Bonta (CA AW ban), Duncan v Bonta (CA magazine ban) and Rhode v Becerra/Bonta (CA ammunition ban) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-11#post-12528071

FPC attorney discuss Miller/Duncan/Rhode cases:
  • All three cases have already been ruled unconstitutional by judge Benitez and sent up to the Supreme Court and remanded back down after Bruen ruling for reconsideration using "text and history" approach only
  • For Miller and Duncan cases, CA tried to delay the cases out to middle of 2023 but judge Benitez rejected those attempts
  • On 12/12/22, judge Benitez held a "status conference" where Miller/Duncan/Rhode cases along with Fouts v Bonta (CA baton ban) case were heard
  • After the status conference, judge Benitez gave CA 30 days to put together a spreadsheet of enacted laws and regulations as historical evidence related to the cases and plaintiffs had 30 days to respond with 10 additional days for both parties to respond as needed (So delay CA wanted was limited to 70 days)
  • Today was the end of 30 day response deadline for the plaintiffs and February 20th is the end of the 70 days then judge Benitez will rule on the cases
  • Judge Benitez likely allowed the spreadsheet of historical evidence with extra time to be presented to mitigate the CA appeal to the 9th Circuit where argument could be made there was procedural error/insufficient time to present historical evidence
  • Interesting development is judge Benitez ordered CA to file additional five page brief to be filed by Friday where CA must provide that "identifies the best historical regulation that is a proper analogue and relevantly similar to a statewide prohibition on possession of a firearm with listed features." (For Miller case).
  • CA must also identify the best historical analogue for "statewide background check for buying ammunition (For Rhode case) and "statewide prohibition on possession of an ammunition device or a limit on an amount of ammunition. (For Duncan case)
  • In doing so, judge Benitez is requiring CA to present their best argument for historical evidence
  • It will be interesting to see what CA presents to support in terms of historical evidence of so called "Assault Weapon" ban, magazine ban and ammunition ban as spreadsheet outlined in post #271 did not provide historical tradition of AW/magazine/ammunition ban - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-11#post-12528071
  • If judge Benitez rules Miller/Duncan/Rhode cases unconstitutional again after the 70 days/February 20th, there may be a small window for another "Freedom Week" to purchase/install currently banned items before CA requests stay with the 9th Circuit
 
Continuing from post #276 - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-12#post-12545530

FPC attorney discuss update to Arnold v Brown (OR magazine ban/permit to purchase) - https://rumble.com/v29gxwf-supreme-...apacity-magazine-ban-and-purchase-permit.html
  • Harney County circuit court judge Raschio issued a preliminary injunction blocking larger than 10 round capacity magazine ban under Measure 114
  • Judge Raschio also issued a temporary restraining order to block new background check/permit to purchase scheme
  • When state requested Oregon Supreme Court reverse the circuit court's TRO, Oregon Supreme Court denied the request - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-10#post-12484678
  • State made a second appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court to reverse the preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order rulings by circuit court
  • Oregon Supreme Court denied state's request for the second time stating, "... We recognize that the legal status of Measure 114 is of significant concern to many Oregonians. Of course, it is the role of the judicial branch of government to resolve disputes such as challenges to laws enacted by the legislative branch, which includes the people exercising their initiative power. That resolution is underway in the trial court; our only determination today is that now is not an appropriate time to exercise our authority in mandamus in connection with the trial court’s temporary and preliminary rulings ... The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied without prejudice" - https://silentmajorityfoundation.substack.com/p/oregon-measure-114-update
  • Oregon Supreme Court's ruling to deny state's request for the second time is a very positive sign as Supreme Court declined to get involved due to trial court moving fast to resolve the case and not acting outside of its discretion.
 
Update to Accuracy Firearms v Pritzker (IL AW/Magazine ban - State case) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-11#post-12537649

LiveLife said:
MSN/NBC ... The Fifth District appellate court voted 2-to-1 to extend the TRO statewide
Click to expand...
Apparently TRO ruling extending statewide has been reported by the media in error.

Judge to decide whether limited or statewide restraining order issued against Illinois’ gun ban - https://www.thecentersquare.com/ill...cle_afe544c0-a418-11ed-ae03-bb1bac66e0f7.html
  • On 1/20/23, Effingham county judge issued a temporary restraining order against enforcement of the new law for the 866 plaintiffs. The state appealed, and an appellate court upheld the TRO.
  • On 2/2/23, White county judge issued a TRO against the state, barring it from enforcing the law on nearly 1,700 additional plaintiffs.
  • On 2/3/23, a judge heard a challenge to the law filed in Macon County by state Rep. Dan Caulkins, and others whether to issue a restraining order that covers the named plaintiffs, or the whole state
  • Attorney Jerry Stocks stated "Already in the state of Illinois, over 75% of the sheriffs say that they won’t enforce it ... You have county courts saying that they find it unconstitutional. You have a 5th District Appellate Court opinion declaring it unconstitutional on equal protection grounds. We have chaos."
  • Temporary restraining orders have already been entered in Effingham County, where an appellate court upheld the ruling, and in White County, but only for the named plaintiffs in both cases.
 
Update to Fitz v. Rosenblum (OR magazine ban) - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fitz

2023-4-14: ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFFS' MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION: As this Court has set this matter for an expedited trial on the merits to begin June 5, 2023, ECF 139, this Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiffs' Motions for Preliminary Injunction, ECF 83, ECF 85 . Ordered on 4/14/2023 by Judge Karin J. Immergut.​
 
Update to Barnett v. Raoul, Harrel v Raoul, Langley v Kelly and Accuracy Firearms v Pritzker (IL AW/Magazine ban - State case transferred to Federal) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-11#post-12535889

US District Court judge Stephen McGlynn issues preliminary injunction against Illinois AW/magazine ban - https://chicago.suntimes.com/2023/4...ns-ban-blocked-illinois-judge-stephen-mcglynn

Background:
  • Plaintiffs are Caleb Barnett, Brian Norman, Hood's Guns & More, Pro Gun and Indoor Range and National Sports Shooting Foundation
  • AR-15 Modern Sporting Rifle, produced by hundreds of firearm manufacturers, has become by far the most popular-selling semiautomatic centerfire rifle sold in American today
  • Plaintiffs are seeking declaratory and injunctive relief
  • Two 2A lawyers who helped win a landmark Bruen case are now challenging the constitutionality of Illinois' assault weapons ban - with help from the National Rifle Association - https://abc7chicago.com/assault-weapons-ban-illinois-weapon-rifle/12734366/
    • Paul Clement and Erin Murphy began their own firm
    • Although NRA is not listed as a plaintiff, it joined NSSF to bring forth the suit, similar to what NRA did for Bruen case
  • Harrel v Raoul (IL AW/Magazine ban), Langley v Kelly, Accuracy Firearms v Pritzker (IL AW/Magazine ban - State case) consolidated with Barnett v. Raoul
Today's ruling:
  • Judge McGlynn blocked enforcement of Illinois’ months-old assault weapons ban, saying the law not only restricts the right to defend oneself but, in some cases, “completely obliterated that right.”
  • 29-page ruling granting a preliminary injunction in a set of consolidated lawsuits, judge McGlynn questioned whether “the senseless crimes of a relative few” can “be so despicable to justify the infringement of the constitutional rights of law-abiding individuals in hopes that such crimes will then abate or, at least, not be as horrific? - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilsd.94464/gov.uscourts.ilsd.94464.103.0.pdf
  • “The simple answer” at this stage in the litigation, the judge wrote, “is ‘likely no.’ ”
 
Last edited:
Press release from Firearms Policy Coalition.

Court Enjoins Enforcement of Illinois Assault Weapon and Magazine Capacity Bans: FPC Granted Preliminary Injunction in Harrel v Raoul - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/cour...llinois-assault-weapon-magazine-capacity-bans

Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the granting of a preliminary injunction in its lawsuit challenging the Illinois “Protect Illinois Communities Act” (“PICA”). In the opinion, United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois Judge Stephen P. McGlynn ruled that PICA’s ban on commonly owned semi automatic firearms, and the magazines they utilize, likely violate the Second Amendment and should therefore be enjoined. The opinion in FPC’s Harrel v. Raoul case, along with other case documents, can be viewed at FPCLaw.org.

“As Americans, we have every reason to celebrate our rights and freedoms, especially on Independence Day. Can the senseless crimes of a relative few be so despicable as to justify the infringement of the constitutional rights of law-abiding individuals in hopes that such crimes will then abate or, at least, not be as horrific? More specifically, can PICA be harmonized with the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and with Bruen? That is the issue before this Court. The simple answer at this stage in the proceedings is ‘likely no,’” the Opinion states.

"FPC Law is thrilled with today's opinion," said FPC Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. "The Second Amendment protects all arms in common use - a protection that cannot be abrogated by legislative bans that seek to artificially limit peaceable people’s access to those constitutionally protected arms."

FPC is joined in Harrel v. Raoul by Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association.​
 
Update to National Association for Gun Rights v City of Naperville (IL AW/magazine ban)

SCOTUS Intervenes in Illinois Assault Weapons/[Magazine] Ban Case - Justice Amy Coney Barrett responds to National Foundation for Gun Rights request in Naperville case and requested further response from the City of Naperville, Illinois, for their recently passed “Assault Weapons” Ban - https://nationalgunrights.org/resou...ervenes-in-illinois-assault-weapons-ban-case/
  • The National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) in conjunction with the National Foundation for Gun Rights (NFGR) filed emergency application for an Injunction Pending Appellate Review to the US Supreme Court
  • City of Naperville has until May 8th, to respond to Justice Barrett

Gun rights group, store ask Supreme Court to block city’s ban on assault weapons - https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/may/1/gun-rights-group-store-ask-supreme-court-block-cit/
  • City of Naperville banned the sale of assault weapons and large capacity magazines with more than 10 rounds for a long gun or 15 rounds for a handgun. It imposed penalties for violating the law.
  • A federal court and the 7th Circuit declined to block enforcement of the law and National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) argued to the SCOTUS that the lower courts ignored Bruen, which held that any gun control law had to be consistent with the nation’s history dating back to the founding of the country.
  • “Many of the lower courts did not get the message. This action is a case in point. In the teeth of this Court’s precedents, the district court refused to address the evidence that the arms banned by the challenged laws are held by millions of law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. The district court did not dispute the evidence; it simply ignored it,” they wrote in their request.
  • The NAGR’s emergency petition was directed to Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who oversees appeals from the 7th Circuit. She could act alone or refer the matter to the entire court.
 
Last edited:
Update to National Association for Gun Rights v City of Naperville (IL AW/magazine ban)
LiveLife said:
  • City of Naperville has until May 8th, to respond to Justice Barrett
Click to expand...
  • In the response, IL argued why the Supreme Court should allow the 7th Circuit to rule on the case but used the "two step" approach eliminated by the Bruen ruling. :eek: (Wow, they did go to law school ... right? ... I guess they didn't read the Bruen ruling and have lived under a rock since the ruling :p)
"Second, applicants have not shown that they have an indisputably clear right to relief because this Court has not addressed the constitutionality of a law similar to the Act, and it is not indisputably clear that they will prevail under Bruen’s two-step test for Second Amendment challenges." (Page 10)​
 
Last edited:
Jim Watson said:
But you do not have a constitutionally recognized right to smoke dope.
Click to expand...

An unenumerated right is, in practice, not a right.

That's why some colonies/states wanted certain very important rights specifically enumerated in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of the government's powers --AKA "The Bill Of Rights."

I kinda always figured 04 Jul 1776 was the conception of our country, and 15 Dec 1791 as its actual birth after a troubled gestation. :)

Terry, 230RN
 
Last edited:
As we wait for judge Benitez to rule on Miller v Bonta (CA AW ban) and Duncan v Bonta (CA magazine ban) anyday now ... https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-12#post-12546529

FPC filed a reply in support of motion for summary judgment in Wiese v Bonta (CA magazine ban) - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-files-reply-brief-in-lawsuit-challenging-california-magazine-ban

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced today that it has filed a reply in support of its motion for summary judgment in its lawsuit challenging California’s ban on so-called “large-capacity” magazines (LCMs). The brief in Wiese v. Bonta, along with other case documents, is available at FPCLaw.org.

“[T]he defense put up by the State in these cross motions for summary judgment solidifies that California can point to no legitimate justification for its prohibitions against the fundamental liberty of ordinary law-abiding citizens to acquire, possess, and use LCMs in the exercise of their right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment,” argues the brief. “Therefore, this Court can quickly and confidently enter summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs. We respectfully request that it do so now.”

“Standard capacity magazines are owned in the tens if not hundreds of millions all across the country by peaceable people who use them for lawful purposes,” said Bill Sack, FPC Director of Legal Operations. “These items are protected by the Second Amendment, and their arbitrary restriction finds no support in the country’s history and tradition of firearm regulation.”

FPC is joined in the litigation by the Second Amendment Foundation.
​
 
LiveLife said:
National Foundation for Gun Rights recently filed seven lawsuits in five federal court circuits to eliminate unconstitutional magazine and gun bans - https://gunrightsfoundation.org/awb-mag-ban-lawsuits/
Click to expand...
Update to post #236 - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-10#post-12461448
Hannah Hill of the National Foundation for Gun Rights interview the foundation's Chief Legal Counsel, Barry Arrington, who details our day in court against Connecticut's unconstitutional and oppressive gun control measures

00:00 Intro
00:26 How Simple this Case Is
01:16 Connecticut's Claim
02:25 How the Supreme Court opposes these Laws
03:53 Connecticut's most Infuriating Argument
04:40 Connecticut brushes past the Bruen Decision
05:53 Join the FIGHT!

 
Last edited:
Update to Wiese v Bonta (CA magazine ban) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-12#post-12640022

We are moving closer to a ruling.

After FPC filed a reply in support of motion for summary judgment, court gave defendants/CA 7 days til June 16th to file declaration or affidavit (Plaintiffs may file any response to CA’s submission within seven days) - https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...351929/Wiese_v_Bonta_128_Order.pdf?1686351929

... Plaintiffs have since moved for summary judgment and defendants filed a counter-motion for summary judgment ... The court declines to opine at this stage whether it is likely to grant or deny summary judgment as to any party.

... Here, however, defendants have not shown “by affidavit or declaration” the specific reasons why they cannot present all the facts necessary for their defense. Rather, they vaguely state in their briefing that there are “numerous facts that Plaintiffs identify as material but about which Defendants have had no opportunity to take discovery” such as “the standing of the individual and organizational plaintiffs” or “the methodology and reliability” of a study cited by plaintiffs. Defendants also do not estimate how long they need for discovery, nor what specific discovery they request, such as depositions, interrogatories, requests for production, requests for admission, or otherwise. Accordingly, the court cannot determine what discovery may be appropriate or necessary at this time.

In light of the foregoing, defendants are hereby ORDERED to file the appropriate affidavit or declaration with the court setting forth the information required under Rule 56(d), and shall specifically state what discovery defendants request, including the identity of all witnesses they wish to depose and a description of the nature of the questions they wish to address to those witnesses. Defendants’ proffer shall also include any interrogatories and/or requests they intend to serve upon plaintiffs and how long they need to conduct such discovery. The declaration or affidavit shall be filed within seven days of the date of this order.

Plaintiffs may file any response to defendants’ submission within seven days. The court will then review the parties’ submissions and set a hearing on defendants’ request for discovery if necessary. IT IS SO ORDERED.

William B. Shubb
US District Judge​
 
Update to Wiese v Bonta (CA magazine ban) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-12#post-12647267
LiveLife said:
We are moving closer to a ruling.

After FPC filed a reply in support of motion for summary judgment, court gave defendants/CA 7 days til June 16th to file declaration or affidavit (Plaintiffs may file any response to CA’s submission within seven days)
Click to expand...
Court order was issued - https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...917925/Wiese_v_Bonta_132_Order.pdf?1687917925

In light of the fact that the parties have not engaged in any discovery in this case, and considering the Declaration of Robert L. Meyerhoff regarding what discovery plaintiffs wish to conduct and why, defendants’ request to conduct discovery in order to respond to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgement (Docket Nos. 125-1, 129) is GRANTED

Defendants may depose L.Q. Dang, Frank Federau, Clifford W. Flores, Alan Gottlieb, Gene Hoffman, Sherman Macaston, Jeremiah Morris, Todd Nielsen, Alan Normandy, Jeff Silvester, William Wiese, D. Allen Youngman, and James Curcuruto. Such depositions shall be completed by July 28, 2023.

Defendants shall file their amended opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and amended cross motion for summary judgment by August 18, 2023. Plaintiffs shall file their amended reply and amended opposition to the cross motion by September 8, 2023. Defendants shall file their amended reply in support of the cross motion by October 2, 2023. The hearing on the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment currently set for July 11, 2023 is RESET for October 30, 2023 at 1:30 p.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.​
 
Last edited:
Update to Rhode v Becerra/Bonta (CA ammunition ban) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-12#post-12546529

Case was already ruled unconstitutional by judge Benitez and remanded back down after Bruen ruling for reconsideration using "text and history" approach only. On 12/12/22, judge Benitez held a "status conference" where Miller/Duncan/Rhode cases along with Fouts v Bonta (CA baton ban) case were heard.
  • A hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction will take place on Monday, July 17, 2023 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 5A
  • Interesting thing is the Court intends to consolidate the hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction with a trial on the merits
  • At or prior to the hearing, the parties should be prepared to address, among other things:
    • a. The Plaintiffs’ continuing Article III standing;
    • b. Whether Plaintiffs’ conduct is covered by the text of the Second Amendment
    • c. Relevant historical analogues;
    • d. Applicability of footnote 9 in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022);
    • e. The Dormant Commerce Clause (First Claim for Relief);
    • f. Preemption by 18 U.S.C. § 926A (Ninth Claim for Relief);
    • g. Whether judicial deference is owed to laws produced by ballot measure Proposition 63
  • So instead of granting a preliminary injunction, judge Benitez could instead make a final ruling on the case
 
So, let me ask, since I can't watch YouTube here, and I am really not very good at reading legalese, the first one, the mag ban, the response is leaning in favor of the state, it seems like? The state can depose all the plaintiffs...but not sure why. This doesn't smell good for our side.
Second is good for us, and I am guessing that saying this would be a final ruling since it was kicked down from SCOTUS means that once he rules, that is it, no appeals? Is that is the case, Cali will squeal like a pig under a gate...
 
armoredman said:
first one, the mag ban
Click to expand...
I have a feeling that magazine ban cases (Duncan v Bonta, etc.) will likely be appealed to Circuit Courts and eventually end up at the Supreme Court where it will likely receive pro-2A rulings.

armoredman said:
Second is good for us, and I am guessing that saying this would be a final ruling since it was kicked down from SCOTUS means that once he rules, that is it, no appeals?
Click to expand...
Cases were remanded back down post Bruen for "reconsideration" and even though judge Benitez at the District Court level "reconsiders" correctly in compliance to Bruen's "text and history" approach, case could be appealed back up to the 9th Circuit for them to "reconsider" post Bruen.

But surprisingly, increasing number of Circuit Courts are factoring Bruen ruling and complying to "text and history" approach (Consider Bump Stock ruling and Preliminary Injunction issued for pistol brace/Mock case by the 5th Circuit) but these cases also could be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Personally, I prefer to see all the Second Amendment cases appealed to the Supreme Court and receive final rulings (While 6-3 pro-2A bench exists) so they could be permanently enforced by federal/state laws like what happened for First Amendment cases.
 
Quote from LiveLife:

------------..
(Abstracted)
...(In a) 29-page ruling granting a preliminary injunction in a set of consolidated lawsuits, judge McGlynn questioned whether “the senseless crimes of a relative few” can “be so despicable to justify the infringement of the constitutional rights of law-abiding individuals in hopes that such crimes will then abate or, at least, not be as horrific?

"The simple answer” at this stage in the litigation, the judge wrote, “is ‘likely no.’ ”
------------

Is there a big flat stone somewhere I can take my hammer and chisel and engrave that thereon?

Profound thanks for your efforts in these matters, LiveLife !

Terry, 230RN
 
Last edited:
230RN said:
Quote from LiveLife:

------------..
(Abstracted)
...(In a) 29-page ruling granting a preliminary injunction in a set of consolidated lawsuits, judge McGlynn questioned whether “the senseless crimes of a relative few” can “be so despicable to justify the infringement of the constitutional rights of law-abiding individuals in hopes that such crimes will then abate or, at least, not be as horrific?

"The simple answer” at this stage in the litigation, the judge wrote, “is ‘likely no.’ ”
------------

Is there a big flat stone somewhere I can take my hammer and chisel and engrave that thereon?

Profound thanks for your efforts in these matters, LiveLife !

Terry, 230RN
Click to expand...


Great statement.
 
Update to Harrel v Raoul (IL AW/magazine ban) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-12#post-12614688

Recording of oral arguments - https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/kra.23-1353.23-1353_06_29_2023.mp3
  • At 1:40 minute, attorney for city/state parties states at the beginning of argument that "large capacity magazines are not arms" but at 1:50 minute, judge clarifies that "ammunition feeding devices" are arms and while city/state attorney agrees 10 round magazines are arms but 30 round rifle magazines and 15 round handgun magazines are not arms ... [That's like saying knives with blades shorter than 3 inches are knives but blades longer than 4 inches are not knives ... Wow]
  • At 2:30 minute, attorney also states "large capacity magazines and assault rifles" are not protected by the Second Amendment because they are not "in common use" ... :eek: [Really? Wow, just wow] At 2:50 minute, judge asked for source of authority and reminds the attorney that Bruen removed the two step approach and burden shifted to the state.
  • At 4:50 minute, attorney tries to explain what "bearable arm" is asked by the judge and correctly answers "being able to carry". While describing M16 as full-auto same as AR15 which is semi-auto but claims it is dangerous because it is "military grade".
  • At 8:00 minute, judge clearly explains Bruen removed the two step approach and mandates one step "text and history" approach to laughters of other judges and attorney seemingly nervously laughs with the judges
  • At 13:30 minute, judge asks for explanation of "self defense" being an objective test or subjective test and attorney states handguns and shotguns are more suitable for self defense than rifles because they are easier to move around than rifles [Wow, I guess she hasn't seen too many 16" AR15s or handled them compared to shotguns]
  • At 14:30 minute, attorney states "assault weapons" are being regulated by the state because they are "militaristic" and especially with large capacity magazines are easy to use by those with little training to "murder" people because they were designed for the battlefield ... [I guess she is not aware shotguns are also used by the US military to kill people]
  • At 23:30 minute, attorney for the city states AR15 is not an arm protected by the Second Amendment because it is a dangerous and unusual weapon
  • At 24:00 minute, judge clarifies that "why" of gun powder regulation of fire prevention is different for "why" for Bruen but attorney disagrees with the judge saying the "why" is same to "prevent mass death". Judge points out they are concerned about that and attorney responds that law enforcement is afraid to respond because of "militaristic" AR15s used by "mass shooters".
  • At 25:30 minute, judge points out that Dr. Herrera had to defend himself because of lack of police protection.
< Dinner time ... will transcribe more later >

ETA: Continued on post #302 - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-13#post-12669295
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Bianchi v. Frosh - Twenty-five states urge SCOTUS to hear case fighting Maryland firearms ban
Replies
10
Views
1K
jdc1244
jdc1244
N
  • Locked
Supreme court to take on the DC gun case!
Replies
8
Views
1K
romma
R
LiveLife
  • Locked
Effects of DC v Heller and subsequent case rulings on gun rights/modern firearms and accessories
Replies
1
Views
385
AlexanderA
A
W
  • Locked
Supreme Court Takes Gun Case
Replies
1
Views
655
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
LiveLife
  • Locked
Update to CA DOJ data breach and Doe v Bonta and Barba v Bonta regarding AB 173
Replies
10
Views
541
BreechFace
BreechFace
Back
Top