CA assault weapons ban “unconstitutional”

[Metal god]

See ruling here

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fir...pdf?1697737480

I just came across this and I’m just starting to read it . My guess is it will be written very similarly as the mag ban case since it’s the same judge .

Judge again put a 10 day stay on his own order .

Edit , the first eight pages are pretty good as he tries to point out what a judge/s is and is not supposed consider . I love the stats he points out of the 447 homicides committed in 2021 by long guns . and the approximate 24,000,000 AR-15 in the United states . This means .00001832% are used in homicides each year , leaving the 0ther 99.999985% being used lawfully buy law abiding citizens each year .

IDK , when you hear those types of numbers it sure doesn't sound like the US has an assault weapons crisses .

[Aguila Blanca]

Interesting.

One might almost think that Judge Benitez expects to be overturned by the Ninth Circus, and so he's writing for the Supreme Court, to more or less say, "Yeah, I get it. I read Bruen and I'm doing my best to follow it, but these morons won't let me."

[Metal god]

Here’s a quick video breakdown of the opinion for those that don’t want to read the 70+ page opinion.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n_iUKc_4X8w

[MTT TL]

I love the stats he points out of the 447 homicides committed in 2021 by long guns .

Pretty sure guns didn't commit any homicides.

[44 AMP]

Guns "committing" ANYTHING, "gun deaths", "gun violence" etc., are all examples of people who don't know, or more likely, don't care about correct usage of English, and dismiss all sorts of bad grammar as "figures of speech" and therefore not important to be grammatically correct.

Next time I hear someone say "XX gun deaths" I'm saying , "ok, show me the dead guns!"

Lay them out on the table here, ID them tell me when they were born, when they died, and how. I'll wait.....

but not long...

[Tom Servo]

That was then. Today, the Supreme Court has very clearly ended modern interest balancing when it comes to the Second Amendment.

This is the salient part. The only real argument California has is interest balancing.

[Metal god]

Sorry that was my type-o , should be with not by oops

[Metal god]

This is the salient part. The only real argument California has is interest balancing.

The thing/s this case has going for it at the 9th that the mag ban did not . Is that this case never went en-banc . In fact Im not sure the 9th ever actually heard the appeal after this judge ruled the AW ban unconstitutional the first time back in 2021 . I believe the 9th just held it until Bruen was final they them vaccinated the original ruling and sent it back to the district court after Bruen . This means the 9th by rule can’t just go straight to a lopsided en-banc panel like they just did in Dunkin . They will need to go to a 3 judge panel first and Trump/McConnell appointed a bunch a judges to the 9th a few years ago . Although not evenly split the 9th is much closer then it’s been for a long time . The should result is a better chance in drawing a favorable panel then we’ve had in awhile .

In some ways I hope the 3 judge panel rules in favor of the state . That would move this along to SCOTUS much quicker because there will be no need for an en-banc rehearing . Saving that extra year of en-banc briefing/s and the hearing . We will see and Im curious how different this one will play out compared to the mag ban case .

If the 9th bends over backwards for the mag ban . There is no way they let the AW ban go away .


What happens if this 3 judge panel says says the state is not likely to win on the merits and refuses to extend the 10 day stay ? Does the state ask for en-banc then or is the states next step appealing the stay to SCOTUS ??

[LeverGunFan]

The 9th Circuit and California knew in advance what the ruling by Judge Benitez would be, so they likely have their strategy mapped out. We'll just have to see how it plays out.

[Tom Servo]

In some ways I hope the 3 judge panel rules in favor of the state . That would move this along to SCOTUS much quicker

I think Benitez expects that.

When the McDonald case went before the 7th Circuit, Frank Easterbrook addressed Alan Gura directly and said (paraphrasing) "you know I can't really rule in your favor, but you need this court to rule against you so it goes to SCOTUS."

[Aguila Blanca]

I also think Judge Benitez expects to be overturned. And I think that's why both of his recent decisions run to 70 pages in length. He has spelled out in great detail the logic of his rulings, and why the state's case does not comport with Bruen. He has basically provided a road map for the SCOTUS to slap down the Ninth Circus.

[Metal god]

He has basically provided a road map for the SCOTUS to slap down the Ninth Circus.

A road map for every one . I was in the courtroom when he ordered the state to make up a list of "all" historical laws that pertain to firearms control . That was brilliant IMHO , Now every AG , attorney and court has a current list of not only firearms laws since the founding to the late 1800's but just about any laws restricting any weapon during that time period . No AG , attorney or court now can say there is no historical analysis/record that Bruen requires .

That's one reason I fully expected the 9th to vacate his ruling/s . To be sure they were no longer part of the official record and used as persuasive arguments .

[Metal god]

I just read there is an AW ban case at the 5th circuit right now that was heard back in June . The plaintiffs just submitted a brief asking the court to look at this ruling to help guide them . The 9th better hurry up and vacate this ruling or its going to be a supplemental brief in every current second amendment case .

[Aguila Blanca]

It's out there. Even if the Ninth reverses it, there's nothing to stop an attorney in another circuit from citing all the same citations rather than just referring to this ruling as persuasive authority.

[LeverGunFan]

The 9th Circuit has granted a stay pending appeal, as expected, on October 28th. The order is only two pages long and can be read here.

[Metal god]

I see they expedited the appeal, which is interesting and makes me think they want an opinion right away from the three judge panel . Not because it’s important to answer the question but rather so they can get it En-Banc as soon as possible.

I put a little more thought, too the idea of our side, losing the appeal in the hopes that it gets to the Supreme Court faster . I’m now thinking, regardless of the three judge panels opinion the ninth circuit will go en-banc no matter what to drag it out.

[raimius]

Is there a way to FOIA a circuit court? The more this goes on, the more it looks like judges actively trying to delay/deny the people their civil rights after SCOTUS declared a standard of review that these judges are trying to get around.

[Aguila Blanca]

Is there a way to FOIA a circuit court?

What are you going to FOIA? Circuit courts publish their decisions pretty much as soon as they're finalized. You don't need to submit an FOIA request to see them.

[raimius]

Internal emails would be my guess. Judging from the way they are handling this and the dissenting opinions, I'm thinking there is coordination to delay/deny following the Bruen precedent (which would implicate the civil rights of all under that circuit).

[Metal god]

That’s an interesting idea . Id think FOIA would be …… IDK . I think I’m going to need to put some thought to this . Not so much in the legal sense but should you be able to type of thing . Seeing how you have separation of powers , I don’t see how either of the other branches could compell the court to turn over documents .


Like wise Im not sure a citizen can compel the court either . The court would have to been shown to have done some illegal act first and although messed up , Im not sure there is any evidence the 9th has even come close to doing anything that would warrant an investigation that would allow any entity to compel them to turn over there emails .

I mean when you are the ones making the rules for your self , its pretty hard to get busted breaking them . Especially when one judge said you did and another says they didn’t. Ok now what ? Who has the authority to challenge the 9th Circuit assertions from either side ?

Seriously if a court is doing something egregious and the people in power agree with what they’re doing , is there a mechanism which to challenge what the court is doing outside of the government ?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Metal god

Like wise Im not sure a citizen can compel the court either . The court would have to been shown to have done some illegal act first and although messed up , Im not sure there is any evidence the 9th has even come close to doing anything that would warrant an investigation that would allow any entity to compel them to turn over there emails .

A court (or any other government body) does not have to be shown to have done something illegal before a citizen can make an FOIA request. You can request anything, from any agency, at any time.

Before doing so, it would be prudent to review the federal (since this is a federal case) FOI law. The law has a list of types of information that are exempt from disclosure under the FOIA. I haven't reviewed the federal version, so I don't know what's exempt. If the law exempts communication among judges regarding pending case, then you might as well not bother submitting the request, because you already know it will be rejected.

[Metal god]

AB that was my general point which I failed miserably on doing so :-( . FOIA is not designed to get any info you want . I then went deeper with out explaining which was how do you get that information that is not obtainable through a FOIA request. I would think it would be incredibly hard because of the separation of powers . I mean could SCOTUS ask to see a lower courts internal memos or emails ?

The question is the same , how do you compel the 9th Circuit to turn over there internal emails when the people that have the power to do so “may” like/except what the court is doing so they have no reason or belief it’s necessary? I would think another judge on the circuit claiming other judges are breaking rules in order to get outcomes they want before hearing a case would be an important step …. But then what ?

Put another way , what would be the scenario in which any court would be required to turn over there internal emails that FOIA does not cover ?

[Nathan]

I would guess when you are actively planning to usurp the civil rights of taxpayers, you do it at the country club, behind close doors with no security footage…..just guessing������

[Aguila Blanca]

Put another way , what would be the scenario in which any court would be required to turn over there internal emails that FOIA does not cover ?

I can't think of any.

[Metal god]

Yeah me either and is why I asked. Also why I suggested maybe one scenario might be the court engaging in illegal activity in someway . Meaning for one branch to take legal action against another like issuing subpoenas would require a pretty strong allegation with very credible evidence but simply breaking your own rules is likely never going to be enough .