Miller v. Bonta 9th Ckt "assault weapons": Held for Duncan result 1-26-24

[AlmostHeaven]

Correct me if my understanding is incorrect, but if/when the Supreme Court reviews the constitutionality of assault weapons bans, there is a good chance of either a clarification to "in common use for lawful purposes" or even a new test altogether.

So perhaps .50BMG ban challenges would become much easier after a favorable AWB decision.

[bigstick61]

It's interesting to me that a 14.5mm rifle is less regulated at the State level than one that is .50 BMG despite how much more powerful the former cartridge is. Same with the .55 Boys cartridge.

[RANGER295]

I have a couple questions. Does this case or does this case not apply to the named bands? I have seen comments in the last few pages indicating both positions. My understanding originally was that it only applies to the banned based on features. That said, these threads have gone so long that I have gotten a little bit confused on some of these cases.

My second question which I guess technically would be answered by my first question assuming my understanding of it is correct, but would this case affect the ban of SKS rifles with a detachable magazine? I believe this is part of the older van based on names so my guess is the answer would be no.

Finally, if we get a solid win under our belts on one of these, does it streamline the process of tackling these other bands assuming they would take a separate challenge each? Could it be done in months or a couple of years versus decades?

[SpudmanWP]

Miller DOES NOT apply to the "Banned by Name" weapons, only the "Banned By Feature" weapons.

This lawsuit is challenging section 30515 of the CA penal code (Feature Section) and not section 30510 (named weapon section).

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=27804902&postcount=5174

As you can see in that link, an SKS with a detachable mag is listed under section 30510 and is therefore not part of the Miller case.

The Rupp case (unfortunately not a Benitez case) covers section 30510 and is waiting for a decision in Miller.

The win in Miller will help other CA cases most of all, other cases in the 9th a little less, and nationwide cases the least.
As it climbs up the appeals ladder that will change.

[AlmostHeaven]

Miller DOES NOT apply to the "Banned by Name" weapons, only the "Banned By Feature" weapons.

As it climbs up the appeals ladder that will change.

I know there is a whole different thread in a separate sub-forum for this, but from my understanding, Bianchi v. Frosh over here in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals challenges both the banned by name and banned by feature sections of the Maryland assault weapons ban.

If Bianchi reaches the Supreme Court before Miller and Rupp, which is a distinct possibility because the case is already at the circuit court level instead of the district court level, the entire assault weapons ban scheme of California might get invalidated in one blow.

[ar15barrels]

I know there is a whole different thread in a separate sub-forum for this, but from my understanding, Bianchi v. Frosh over here in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals challenges both the banned by name and banned by feature sections of the Maryland assault weapons ban.

If Bianchi reaches the Supreme Court before Miller and Rupp, which is a distinct possibility because the case is already at the circuit court level instead of the district court level, the entire assault weapons ban scheme of California might get invalidated in one blow.

Bianchi vs Frosh could set a precedent, but it will not directly undo any california laws because none of the california laws will be listed in the bianchi vs frosh court orders.

There will need to be a case brought USING the bianchi vs frosh precedent against the california laws.

[SpudmanWP]

There will need to be a case brought USING the bianchi vs frosh precedent against the california laws.

That would all depend on what language and logic SCOTUS uses in the ruling. Depending on where Rupp and Miller are in the process, the Plaintiffs would certainly file a motion. If both are post-9th and waiting for SCOTUS, they could also get a GVR or a PER CURIAM decision ala Caetano.

[gobler]

If both are post-9th and waiting for SCOTUS, they could also get a GVR or a PER CURIAM decision ala Caetano.

You know the 9th will just send it back to Benitez (or who ever) to start a new..

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

[AlmostHeaven]

You know the 9th will just send it back to Benitez (or who ever) to start a new.

You may be right, but I hope if the Supreme Court decides in favor of the Second Amendment in Bianchi, the court would finally take a stand and issue summary judgment if the Ninth Circuit continues ruling in favor of assault weapons bans in open defiance.

[TruOil]

That would all depend on what language and logic SCOTUS uses in the ruling. Depending on where Rupp and Miller are in the process, the Plaintiffs would certainly file a motion. If both are post-9th and waiting for SCOTUS, they could also get a GVR or a PER CURIAM decision ala Caetano.

The point he was making is that a 4th Circuit court decision is not binding on the Ninth, only a Supreme Court ruling.

[SpudmanWP]

The point he was making is that a 4th Circuit court decision is not binding on the Ninth, only a Supreme Court ruling.

He was postulating that even if SCOTUS ruled for Bianchi, an entirely new case would need to be filed in the 9th for Miller & Rupp as the arguments in Bianchi were not the same as Miller & Rupp.

My point was that it all depends on how SCOTUS rules for Bianchi and what they do post-Bianchi. Just like in the post-Bruen environment where they issued 4 GVRs on cases that did not share the objectives of Bruen but would be affected by the methodology of Bruen and its THT test, they could issue GVRs in any applicable 2A case waiting for Cert. If the ruling in Bisanchi matches closely to any pending case, they may issue a Per Currium ruling.

I can guarantee that for every case, even those waiting for cert, the Plaintiffs will have submissions to address their specific cases and how the ruling looks to impact their case.

[AlmostHeaven]

Would it be possible for the Supreme Court to combine Bianchi, Miller, Rupp, and the Seventh Circuit consolidated Illinois assault weapons ban challenge into a single "one case to rule them all?"

It seems to me like that would be the dream outcome, but I have no idea if this is something that could happen.

[SpudmanWP]

Bianchi is the only one that could have a case in front of SCOTUS as the rest are either at the District or Circuit level.

[BlessedHunter]

The Illinois PICA case was just sent to the Supreme Court and Justice Barret has requested a reply by May 8th.

https://twitter.com/FPCAction/status/1653116948253646848?t=0Agz0p961oUcN3-_4-0zwQ&s=19

Things are getting spicy.

[AlmostHeaven]

Here's hoping the Second Amendment drought is finally over. 14 years from Heller to Bruen.