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

[zdc1775]

I laughed when I saw the "once again" on page 36 of the ruling

 

[LiveLife]

I laughed when I saw the "once again" on page 36 of the ruling

Yes, I am sure judge Benitez had enough of the judicial yo-yo and hopefully, this is the last time for magazine capacity merry-go-round.

III. BRUEN AND THE MAGAZINE CAPACITY LIMIT​

​

... This Court concludes, once again, that manufacturing, importing, selling, giving, loaning, buying, receiving, acquiring, possessing, storing, or using commonly-owned magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds for self-defense at home or in public is protected by the Second Amendment. (Page 36)​

 

[LiveLife]

Update to Duncan v Bonta (CA magazine ban) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-14#post-12725683

Here we are with stay expiring and I am interested in how the 9th Circuit's "not typical" taking over the case by panel of judges will proceed since the Supreme Court already remanded the case back down saying the 9th Circuit got it wrong post Bruen ruling.

Not surprisingly, 9th Circuit En Banc sided with CA to stay judge Benitez's ruling - https://michellawyers.com/wp-conten...nts-Emergency-Mtn-for-Stay-Pending-Appeal.pdf

On September 22, 2023, the district court issued an order declaring Section 32310“unconstitutional in its entirety” and enjoining California officials from enforcing the law. On September 26, Defendant Rob Bonta, the Attorney General of California, filed an emergency motion for a partial stay pending appeal.​

​

The Attorney General seeks to stay “all portions of the order except those regarding Sections 32310(c) and (d), which relate to large-capacity magazines that were acquired and possessed lawfully prior to the district court’s order granting a permanent injunction.”​

​

We grant the motion.​

​

... First, we conclude that the Attorney General is likely to succeed on the merits. (Page 2)​

... Second, the Attorney General has shown that California will be irreparably harmed absent a stay pending appeal by presenting evidence that large-capacity magazines pose significant threats to public safety. (Page 4)​

... Third, it does not appear that staying portions of the district court’s order while the merits of this appeal are pending will substantially injure other parties interested in the proceedings. (Page 5)​

... Finally, we conclude that the public interest tips in favor of a stay.​

​

... In sum, we conclude that a stay pending appeal is warranted. We emphasize that at this stage of the litigation, we decide only whether to stay, in part, the district court’s order while this appeal is pending.Some of our colleagues have raised procedural questions regarding the propriety, under circuit rules and practices, of the en banc panel’s decision to accept this appeal as a comeback case. (Page 5)​

​

... Here, the en banc panel has exercised its discretion to keep the comeback appeal, as our rules contemplate. “[W]hen a case is heard or reheard en banc, the en banc panel assumes jurisdiction over the entire case . . . General Order 6.4, moreover, provides that emergency motions in potential comeback cases are directed to the previous panel that heard the case, which in this case, is the en banc court. Thus, both this appeal andthe motion for an emergency stay are properly before the en banc panel.​

​

... One of our colleagues raises novel questions about whether our rules areconsistent with 28 U.S.C. § 46(c). We have asked the parties to brief these issues and will address them in due course.​

​

The Attorney General’s emergency motion for a partial stay pending appeal is GRANTED. (Page 6)​

​

So no second "Freedom Week" as case proceeds forward but there are interesting dissents raised.

Ex FPC attorney discuss 9th Circuit granting of stay

R. NELSON, Circuit Judge, dissenting: I join Judge Bumatay’s dissent, as the majority’s decision to stay the district court’s order pending appeal cannot be squared with New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen ... But I have a more fundamental concern with the majority’s decision to proceed with this new appeal en banc in the first instance. No other circuit court would allow a prior en banc panel to hear a comeback case without an intervening majority vote of the active judges ... Our General Orders do not require this. And we have never followed this process in such circumstances ... The majority, however, chose a third option—one that raises serious questions about this panel’s statutory authority under § 46(c) that we must now address ... We should not proceed down such an uncertain statutory path, particularly when viable alternatives are available. Our decision to proceed with this process undermines public confidence in the process and our ultimate decision. I respectfully dissent.​

BUMATAY, Circuit Judge, joined by IKUTA, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges, dissenting: For years, this court has shot down every Second Amendment challenge to a state regulation of firearms ... We got here by concocting a two-part tiers-of-scrutiny test ... We cautioned this very panel of the need to jettison our circuit’s ahistorical balancing regime and adhere to an analysis more faithful to the constitutional text and its historical understanding. But our warnings went unheard Last year, the Supreme Court had enough of lower courts’ disregard for the Second Amendment. It decisively commanded that we must no longer interest balance a fundamental right and that we must look to the Second Amendment’s text, history, and tradition to assess modern firearm regulations.​

​

... California’s ban on large-capacity magazines has moved up and down the federal courts since 2017 ... The district court again ruled that California’s large-capacity magazine ban violated the Constitution—this time using the clear instructions from Bruen. In a thorough 71-page opinion, the district court held that magazines were protected arms under the Second Amendment and that California failed to meet its burden of showing a historical analogue for the prohibition.​

​

Three times now, the Supreme Court has warned courts not to treat the Second Amendment as a disfavored right. We should follow the Supreme Court’s direction. Reviewing our historical tradition consistent with Bruen demonstrates that the Second Amendment does not countenance California’s ban on large-capacity magazines. Because the majority once again deprives Californians of a fundamental right, we respectfully dissent.​

​

9th Circuit Defies Supreme Court Order & Upholds "Large Capacity" Magazine Ban!!!

In this video I break down the 9th Circuit order in the Duncan v. Bonta CA magazine ban case!🇺🇸 Support the Channel🇺🇸Join USCCA http://usccapartners.com/...

www.youtube.com

 

[Basura Blanca]

Not surprisingly, 9th Circuit En Banc sided with CA to stay judge Benitez's ruling

This is the folly of the judicial path, rather than the legislative one. It's necessary, but its pace will be sub-glacial.
We're the ones on the right side of history, but it will not deter California from taking this Jim Crow approach to acceptance of the 2A.

 

[LiveLife]

This is the folly of the judicial path, rather than the legislative one. It's necessary, but its pace will be sub-glacial.
We're the ones on the right side of history, but it will not deter California from taking this Jim Crow approach to acceptance of the 2A.

And I am sure many felt the same way about various First Amendment cases as they proceeded through the courts at snail's pace but they all made it to the Supreme Court to eventually result in permanent enforcement of federal/state laws - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...eme_Court_cases_involving_the_First_Amendment

And since the Second Amendment is not a "second class right", it is what it is and we have to allow the judicial proceedings to progress through district, circuit and Supreme Court reviews ... that's how the founders framed this nation's government.

It could be worse.

Had Hillary won in 2016, Bruen ruling could have gone opposite and we would be in much worse situation ... Much worse ... more like terrible.

Thankfully "We the People" spoke through electoral college and 2 senators from each state confirmation process to appoint pro-2A justices to the Supreme Court, as founders chose instead of popular vote and representation solely based on population.

Long live the Republic.

 

[J-Bar]

Thank you LiveLife for your dedication and faithful efforts.

 

[armoredman]

Ditto!

 

[Basura Blanca]

And I am sure many felt the same way about various First Amendment cases as they proceeded through the courts at snail's pace but they all made it to the Supreme Court to eventually result in permanent enforcement of federal/state laws

In this case, that's precisely what we don't want though. And to be clear, I wasn't bemoaning the pace of the judicial process, rather merely pointing out that all our eggs are in this one basket. I said it was necessary but also unfortunate. Legislatively, all this could be undone in an instant. But we're overly reliant on the courts to sort out everything instead. The larger point is that other contemporary civil rights movements gained public support as they progressed. Our mission still lacks that and sadly the 2A movement isn't very skilled at garnering sympathetic voices from the sidelines. Think of how much better off we'd be if we could.

Winning piecemeal lawsuits will get us somewhere, sure. But winning hearts and minds would remove the political motivation to keep throwing even more roadblocks up in the face of those wins. In tandem, that's a successful strategy akin to what it took people to make your wiki list. That's the big difference between us and our predecessors.

 

[LiveLife]

And I am sure many felt the same way about various First Amendment cases as they proceeded through the courts at snail's pace but they all made it to the Supreme Court to eventually result in permanent enforcement of federal/state laws

Winning piecemeal lawsuits will get us somewhere, sure. But winning hearts and minds would remove the political motivation to keep throwing even more roadblocks up in the face of those wins.

"get us somewhere"?

I do believe Supreme Court rulings will get us permanent enforcement, just like for the First Amendment.

Keep in mind that for First Amendment's permanent enforcement, many Supreme Court rulings had to pass BUILDING ON previous rulings to overrule various state laws unconstitutional - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...eme_Court_cases_involving_the_First_Amendment

Why?

Because states kept passing unconstitutional laws violating the First Amendment. And each Supreme Court ruling kept expanding the "interpretation" of First Amendment to include protection of free speech like "modern" forms of communication "in common use" not present at the ratification of Bill of Rights like email/texting.

And eventually, when expanded interpretation of the Supreme Court protected "modern" forms of free speech, permanent enforcement came the way of federal and state laws. And since the Second Amendment is not a "second class right", we will follow in the footsteps of First Amendment rulings and permanent enforcement. Yes, slow but certain.

The writing is on the wall for Second Amendment Supreme Court rulings:

• Heller expanded the Second Amendment of "keep and bear" arms at home unattached to Militia service
• Caetano expanded the Second Amendment to "modern" types of arms not present during colonial days and quantified "in common use" of several hundred thousand "arms"
• Bruen expanded the Second Amendment of "carry" outside of home and eliminated the two-step approach and mandated "text and history ... tradition" analogue test for all future 2A cases
• Various district/circuit courts have ruled expanding Second Amendment protection of "arms" to include magazine, etc. and determined they are "in common use" and these cases are making their way up to the Supreme Court now using the Bruen mandate of "text and history ... tradition" analogue test

So, just like permanent enforcement for First Amendment, Supreme Court is building on previous 2A rulings to expand and directing lower "inferior courts" what is constitutional/unconstitutional post Heller/Caetano/Bruen rulings. So Heller/Caetano/Bruen rulings are not the end but just the start and future Supreme Court cases will continue to expand and better clarify the Second Amendment so legislative and executive branches can apply permanent enforcement for gun rights just like permanent enforcement for free speech.

Why would they do that?

Because the Second Amendment is not a "second class right".

We just need to be patient and allow the founders' framing of our Republic to be carried out in the highest court of the land, the Supreme Court, apply the checks and balances of other two branches violating the Constitution, like it did for the First Amendment.

Long live the Republic.

 

[armoredman]

Long Live The Republic, indeed.

 

[LiveLife]

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

We finally have the much anticipated ruling from judge Benitez - https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...7737480/2023.10.19_175_OPINION.pdf?1697737480

​

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:​

​

Judgment is entered for Plaintiffs. The Attorney General respectfully requests a stay of any judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor for a sufficient period to seek a stay from the Court of Appeals. That request is granted. Therefore, the enforcement of the injunction is hereby stayed for ten (10) days.​

​

The following permanent injunction will be entered:​

​

1. Defendant Attorney General Rob Bonta, and his officers, agents, servants,employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with him, and those duly sworn state peace officers and federal law enforcement officers who gain knowledge of this injunction order or know of the existence of this injunction order, are enjoined from implementing or enforcing California Penal Code §§ 30515(a)(1) through (8) (defining an“assault weapon” by prohibited features), 30800 (deeming those “assault weapons” a public nuisance), 30915 (regulating those “assault weapons” obtained by bequest or inheritance), 30945 (restricting use of registered “assault weapons”), and the penalty provisions §§ 30600, 30605 and 30800 as applied to “assault weapons” defined in Code §§ 30515(a)(1) through (8).​

​

2. Defendant Rob Bonta shall provide, by personal service or otherwise, actual notice of this order to all law enforcement personnel who are responsible for implementing or enforcing the enjoined statute.​

​

3. This injunction is stayed for ten (10) days from the date of this Order.​

​

IT IS SO ORDERED​

 

[LiveLife]

Ex FPC attorney's quick overview of today's Miller ruling by judge Benitez striking down CA's ban on "assault weapon" as unconstitutional: An End To The California "Assault Weapon" Ban!!! (With more comprehensive discussion to follow):

• What may happen next to Miller will be different from Duncan case, which was already appealed to 9th Circuit 3 judge panel that ruled CA magazine ban unconstitutional but after appeal was remanded back down from Supreme Court post Bruen; and 9th Circuit 11 judge en banc panel decided to break usual court procedure (With vehemently dissenting judges) and took the case on emergency basis with stay after district court judge Benitez ruling.
• Unlike Duncan case, district court judge Benitez ruled CA AW ban unconstitutional for Miller but case was put on hold for Duncan/Bruen rulings; and then was remanded back down to the district court after Bruen ruling so Miller will likely face traditional 3 judge panel on appeal and similar to Duncan case, panel could rule in support of district court judge ruling. And an appeal would take Miller to the Supreme Court.

An End To The California "Assault Weapon" Ban!!! Miller v. Bonta Decision!

We just got Judge Benitez's decision striking down the California "assault weapon ban!🇺🇸 Support the Channel🇺🇸Join USCCA http://usccapartners.com/armedsc...

www.youtube.com

 

[SterlingBullet]

This bears watching.


From this, it appears that the pro-gun groups are basing their case on verbiage in the Heller decision regarding "common use," etc. Strange as it may seem, other verbiage in the Heller decision may turn out to be their biggest roadblock.

To arrive at the result that we want, the Court may have to overrule the Heller case, at least in part. I've said for years that they need to go back to the 1939 Miller case as the standard: guns are protected that are suitable for military / militia use, not necessarily for civilian use only. "Assault weapons" -- and, indeed, fully automatic weapons -- are eminently suitable for militia use.

This Court seems to have no difficulty overruling established precedent.

A majority of the current justices have been overruling established precedent where previous court decisions did not adhere to the text of the law, the intent of the law according to the legislators who wrote, debated and voted on the law, and the historical context of the law at the time, and finally, did the law adhere to the constitution.

Laws are the operational instructions for how us ordinary citizens must behave, interact and treat each other. Many laws may no longer fit the needs of current societies, for example, blue laws that used to prohibit many activities on Sundays.

If that’s the case, the remedy is for our elected representatives to write, debate and vote on a new law or constitutional amendment that covers modern needs.

If you cannot get a new law passed, the courts do not exist to make the law fit what you want today.

 

[LiveLife]

Repost from another thread due to relevance of discussion of AW/magazine ban - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/ca-aw-ban-struck-down.924133/#post-12740568

I am not a lawyer, just a layperson posting on THR.

@LiveLife

And like the mag ban, I'm sure it will have to go to SCOTUS! The 9th will probably violate their oaths and do an en banc "emergency" hearing.

Not necessarily.

District court cases appealed to the 9th Circuit are reviewed by 3 judge panel first but can be reheard before en banc panel at the request of parties or circuit judge - https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2017/02/10/En_Banc_Summary2.pdf

Following the issuance of a three judge panel order or opinion, parties may seek rehearing before an en banc court. The parties may also elect to bypass that process and seek review by the United States Supreme Court.​

​

Under Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and the Ninth Circuit General Orders, a circuit judge can also request that a vote be held on whether a decision should be reheard by an en banc panel, even if the parties have not requested it. This procedure is termed a "suasponte en banc call." Under Court procedure, the judge who made the request is not identified.​

​

In Duncan v Bonta (CA magazine ban), district court ruled magazine ban unconstitutional and when appealed to the 9th Circuit, 3 judge panel supported district court ruling but a circuit judge requested en banc hearing where the 3 judge panel ruling was overturned before being appealed to the Supreme Court (And remanded back down for "reconsideration" mandate of "text and history ... tradition") - https://michellawyers.com/wp-conten...erra_Order-Granting-Rehearing-En-Banc_101.pdf

In Miller v Bonta (CA AW ban), district court ruled AW ban unconstitutional and decision was appealed to the 9th Circuit but case was put on hold pending Bruen decision. After Bruen ruling, case was remanded back down to the district court for "reconsideration" and judge Benitez ruled AW ban unconstitutional again. When appealed to the 9th Circuit, 3 judge panel will review the case and following could happen - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/miller

• 3 judge panel decision reheard by en banc panel
• 3 judge panel decision appealed to the Supreme Court without en banc rehearing
• En Banc panel decision appealed to the Supreme Court

In Duncan v Bonta, since the case was already heard by 3 judge panel, district court's "reconsideration" decision post Bruen ruling (After remand back to 9th Circuit then remand back to district court) was appealed to 11 judge en banc panel where majority decided to break court procedure and took the case on "emergency" hearing basis with vehement dissent from minority judges.

In Miller v Bonta, since the case was never heard by 3 judge panel, appeal will be heard by 3 judge panel first and decision could bypass en banc panel and be appealed to the Supreme Court. Only if parties or circuit judge request en banc rehearing will the case be reheard by en banc panel.

This Court seems to have no difficulty overruling established precedent.

Many laws may no longer fit the needs of current societies

Yes, and that's how the founders framed our constitutional Republic government (No popular majority mob rule but equal state representation regardless of population size) with separation of powers and final word resting with the Supreme Court so "We the People" could self govern.

Founders gave the Supreme Court the ultimate power to overrule legislative lawmakers and executive governors/presidents when they passed unconstitutional laws. In defense of First Amendment, the Supreme Court kept ruling state laws unconstitutional until permanent enforcement was put in place by federal/state laws - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...eme_Court_cases_involving_the_First_Amendment

And since "We the People" elect legislative/executive representatives to appoint justices to the Supreme Court to "self govern", the Supreme Court will honor the original charter of US Constitution/Bill of Rights made with "We the People" and amendments added to the Bill of Rights as society matures and modernize. So when "We the People" decided to ban slavery and allow women to vote, "We the People" directed elected representatives to write and pass new laws and additional amendments were added to the Bill of Rights. And the Supreme Court ruled to ensure constitutional/BOR protection was extended to freed slaves, women and minorities so majority mob rule could not impose on their rights - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-awb-magazine-ban.918641/page-3#post-12632788

So yes, not much has changed since 1776 when majority mob rule of larger coastal states wanted to impose on the rights of smaller rural states and in 2023, majority mob rule of larger coastal states want to impose on the rights of minority gun owners. And just like what happened for First Amendment protection of modern forms of communication like email/text followed by permanent enforcement of federal/state laws, Supreme Court will overrule unconstitutional state/federal laws to protect modern types of arms like magazine fed semi-auto pistols, shotguns and rifles followed by permanent enforcement of federal/state laws. And this will happen because the Second Amendment is not a "second class right".

 

[Basura Blanca]

Because the Second Amendment is not a "second class right".

Not arguing. There's no doubt in my mind that nobody *here* needs convincing on that matter. My issue with that refrain is with its efficacy. It'll be hard to maintain that notion if the Supreme Court denies hearing any of these cases. Why? Because a first-class right would deserve the immediate attention of the high court.

As I said before, this is the folly of putting everything on the judicial branch to sort out. And even in the shadow of favorable decisions, I don't see California capitulating anytime soon.

 

[LiveLife]

Because a first-class right would deserve the immediate attention of the high court.

And I will refer to Supreme Court past rulings for First Amendment cases as to how Supreme Court will approach Second Amendment cases - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...eme_Court_cases_involving_the_First_Amendment

I am sure there were many that wanted Supreme Court to take immediate action on various First Amendment cases but like current Second Amendment cases, Supreme Court "allowed" the judicial process to play out through the district/circuit courts.

Supreme Court justices "know" they are not bound by opinions of legislative law makers and executive governors/presidents in reviewing and ruling on constitutional cases, and certainly not according to our "timeframe wishes".

And likely, there were many that bemoaned the slow pace of judicial justice but in time, Supreme Court ruled and permanent enforcement followed so minority rights were protected against majority mob rule like for slaves being freed and women's ability to vote along with whole host of First Amendment cases that received permanent enforcement by the way of federal/state laws. And were there resistance from states? Yes. Did it take some time to achieve permanent enforcement? Sure did.

But the key thing we need to focus on is that the Supreme Court remained the final word regardless what elected representatives wanted to do or how "inferior" lower courts ruled as the highest court of the land. And same will happen for Second Amendment as it is not a "second class right".

And this will help ease your anxiety ... If the founders based our government on pure democracy and popular vote with representation on population size, Hillary would have won in 2016 and we won't be having the discussion of Supreme Court moving slow to protect our Second Amendment rights because Bruen would have been ruled opposite by different Supreme Court bench make up.

Do you feel better now?

... this is the folly of putting everything on the judicial branch to sort out

But that's how the founders set up our form of government, for the judicial branch to "sort out" legislative/executive branch actions with Supreme Court ultimately having the final say on what is constitutional.

We just need to be patient and allow the judicial system to play out and justices do their job of defending our constitutional minority rights from coastal majority mob rule, which BTW haven't changed much since 1776.

Long live the Republic.

 

[LiveLife]

Update to Miller v Bonta (CA AW ban) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-15#post-12740578

EX FPC attorney discuss what is anticipated by Friday and moving forward for Miller case and also discuss Bianchi v Frosh/Brown (MD AW ban):

• District court judge "saint" Benitez summary judgement was issued with 10 day stay requested by CA to appeal to the 9th Circuit
• 10 day stay is expiring on October 29th and CA has filed an emergency motion for stay pending appeal and an administrative stay - https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi.../2023.10.23_006_Motion_to_Stay.pdf?1698120505
• Since 29th falls on a Sunday, stay needs to be extended by Friday, 27th
• CA is seeking a temporary administrative stay for 9th Circuit 3 judge emergency motion panel (3 rotating random judge selection) to review the case whether to grant a more permanent stay to perhaps later have full review by the 11 judge en banc panel (1 chief judge and 10 circuit court judges)
• Due to hundreds of pro-2A federal judges appointed by Trump, there is 50/50 chance the 3 judge panel could support district court judge Benitez ruling and deny the stay as only 2 pro-2A judges are needed for pro-2A ruling
• Chances are, case will likely be reviewed by full 11 judge en banc panel
• Another AW case that is pending is Bianchi v Frosh/Brown (MD AW ban) that made it to the Supreme Court but was GVR'd back down to 4th Circuit after Bruen ruling and will likely make back to Supreme Court before Miller case

Supreme Court Rulings & Remand Orders Shatter All "Assault Weapon" & Magazine Ban Hopes!

In this video I break down what is going on in the CA magazine and AW cases and where they go from here!Channel Merch: https://bit.ly/3MNjdlO🎥 Follow Me On ...

www.youtube.com

 

[LiveLife]

Update to Miller v Bonta (CA AW ban) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-15#post-12744494

• 10 day stay is expiring on October 29th and CA has filed an emergency motion for stay pending appeal and an administrative stay - https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi.../2023.10.23_006_Motion_to_Stay.pdf?1698120505
• Since 29th falls on a Sunday, stay needs to be extended by Friday, 27th

9th Circuit 3 judge panel grants stay with partial dissent from judge Callahan - https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...10.28_13-1_ORDER_Granting_Stay.pdf?1698527558

W. FLETCHER, CALLAHAN, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.​

​

Order by Judges W. FLETCHER and BENNETT; Partial Dissent by Judge CALLAHAN.​

​

In light of this court’s published order granting a stay in Duncan v. Bonta, (9th Cir. 2023) (en banc) (concluding that the attorney general of California is likely to succeed on the merits and has shown that California will be irreparably harmed absent a stay), and the similarities between Duncan and this case, we grant appellants’ motion and administratively stay the district court’s October 19, 2023 permanent injunction and judgment. In granting an administrative stay, we do not intend to constrain the merits panel’s consideration of the merits of this appeal in any way. The administrative stay shall remain in effect until the merits panel decides the appeal or issues an order lifting the stay.​

​

We sua sponte expedite this appeal. The opening brief is due November 9,2023. The answering brief is due November 22, 2023. The optional reply brief is due November 29, 2023 ...​

​

CALLAHAN, Circuit Judge, dissenting in part:​

​

I would deny appellants’ motion for a stay pending appeal. I do not believe we are bound by the published order in Duncan v. Bonta, (9th Cir.2023), and I do not believe appellants have otherwise met their burden of showing a likelihood of success on the merits or that they will suffer irreparable injury absent a stay. I concur in the order insofar as it expedites this appeal.​

 

[armoredman]

Interesting.

 

[LiveLife]

Interesting.

Judge Callahan is telling the truth in his dissent.

And this may turn out to be the silver lining ... If 3 judge panel rules against FPC/judge Benitez (Highly likely now), FPC could directly appeal to the Supreme Court (Unless of course, a 9th Circuit judge invokes a review by the 11 judge en banc ... but then, FPC still gets to appeal to the Supreme Court, just a bit later).

Had we gotten two pro-2A judges for the 3 judge panel, any pro-2A ruling would have automatically been appealed to the 11 judge en banc by state of CA which would have just slowed down the judicial process by several months.

 

[LiveLife]

Interesting.

We sua sponte [on our own accord] expedite this appeal. The opening brief is due November 9,2023. The answering brief is due November 22, 2023. The optional reply brief is due November 29, 2023 ...​

​

CALLAHAN, Circuit Judge ... I concur in the order insofar as it expedites this appeal.​

Good thing is 3 judge panel is expediting the case with opening/answering/optional reply briefs due by 11/29 instead of being dragged out almost a year like Bianchi v Frosh/Brown (MD AW ban).

 

[armoredman]

So, it looks like California/9th Circuit doesn't have the option to "sit on it" until the make up of SCOTUS changes - this one is on the front burner and picking up speed, GOOD.

 

[Basura Blanca]

Do you feel better now?

Sure but I felt fine already. You're reading nonexistent tone into what I'm saying, but thanks for asking.
However you're also unintentionally making my point about over reliance on the judicial to fix everything. Think of how many little things in your scenario have had to happen to get all the right judges in place, plus it all hinges on politics too which is the bane of the 2A and one of our biggest setbacks. As a single point strategy, waiting for all the stars to align just right isn't a sustainable approach. More to the point here, if the supreme court doesn't hear Miller or a case similar to it, Bruen will be effectively toothless on the issue of so-called "assault weapons", etc.

Your optimism is commendable. Since I'm right here in San Diego at ground zero for these cases, and a member of SDCGO which brought them to fruition, I support that optimism. Mine just happens to be tempered with some healthy pragmatism.

 

[LiveLife]

Update to Miller v Bonta (CA AW ban) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-15#post-12746413

Order from 9th Circuit scheduling oral arguments to 1/22/24 - https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...3.11.08_022-1_Scheduling_ORDER.pdf?1699471665

The Court intends to schedule oral argument during the week of January 22, 2024 in Pasadena, California ... briefing schedule is modified as follows: the opening brief is due December 1,2023; the answering brief is due December 22, 2023; the reply brief is due January 8, 2024.​

​

Per the court’s October 18, 2023 order, the administrative stay shall remain ineffect until the merits panel decides the appeal or issues an order lifting the stay.​

 

[LiveLife]

Update to Arnold v Brown (OR magazine ban/permit to purchase) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-12#post-12549700

After issuing preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order (TRO) supported by Oregon Supreme Court, Oregon 24th judicial district circuit court judge Robert Raschio will issue his ruling today - https://www.koin.com/news/oregon/harney-county-gets-more-filings-ahead-of-measure-114-ruling/

• ... first point under the plaintiff’s admission was for defendants (OR governor/AG) to “admit that the FBI has informed Defendant that it will not perform fingerprint-based criminal background checks for permit to purchase applicants,”
• ... second request asks the defendants to “admit that the FBI has informed Defendant that the FBI has determined that Ballot Measure 114 does not meet the requirements of Pub. L. 92-544”
• ... Governor Tina Kotek, Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, and Oregon State Police Superintendent Casey Codding objected to the two requests for admission, according to court documents filed November 10
• ... court filings come as ... Judge Robert Raschio will issue his ruling Tuesday afternoon

I have a feeling judge Raschio will rule against Oregon Measure 114.