The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old June 11, 2021, 11:06 AM   #51
LeverGunFan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2007
Location: Indiana
Posts: 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metal god View Post
All the talking heads held a news conference today stating among many things there plan to appeal the recent AWB lawsuit .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP3XIO1sN_U
I only watched a few snippets of the video, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised at how the Giffords spokesperson was a key part of the press conference representing California. Image the national hue and cry if a Pro-2A politician conducted a press conference with the NRA (or SAF or FPC) having a prominent speaking role. I doubt that Giffords organization has more than a handful of members, so California is essentially farming out their legal strategy to Michael Bloomberg and a few of his high dollar friends.
__________________
Support the Second Amendment Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition
LeverGunFan is online now  
Old June 12, 2021, 11:37 PM   #52
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 5,734
Here is a interview with Chuck Michel , his office represents a couple of the cases in front of judge Roger T. Benitez regarding the 2nd amendment . Very interesting insight as to what's going on at the 9th .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZpz84TLOO0

He brings up this case is actually behind another AWB case ( Duncan ) already awaiting a decision of a an-banc panel . Which means if they strike down that case which does not have as good a ruling behind it as Benitez's ruling . It would just make his ruling moot and as if it never happened .

In the interview Chuck talks about how he believes the 9th should stay all 2nd amendment cases until the the SCOTUS hears the NY carry case in front of them now . His thinking is that the SCOTUS will likely give guidance on what scrutiny pending and future cases should use in most 2nd amendment cases .

That got me thinking if the 9th thinks they have the votes to strike down Duncan , they will before the SCOTUS rules on the NY case . Which will create precedent for all the cases log jammed at the 9th and allow they to strike them all down before next years ruling at the SCOTUS on the NY carry case .

That said as chuck points out the 9th is now more equally divided and the en-banc panel in Duncan may actually vote in our favor . If the 9th sees that as a real possibility they may want to stay all the cases and wait for guidance from the SCOTUS next year .

Anyways I found the interview thought provoking .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .
Metal god is offline  
Old June 13, 2021, 04:49 AM   #53
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 12,792
Quote:
In addition to that point, if you are licensed in any state to drive a car, you can drive a car into any state you darn well please to.
The problem with the car comparison is, drivers' licenses are honored across state lines because of something called the Drivers' License Compact. It's not for constitutional reasons.

The Compact facilitates sharing of licensing information between states, which means a database of drivers. If we apply that parallel to gun rights, we'd be accepting a national database of firearms owners, and nothing good comes from that.

Moreover, while every state has to accept licenses issued by other states, they can define traffic laws as they see fit. The speed limit on I-90 might be 70mph in Ohio, but if you cross the state line and Indiana decides it's 45, they can do so. Individual states can restrict what kinds of vehicles they allow on roads, they can levy tolls, and they can even shut down the roads. If we imagine a 50-state gun compact, we can see how some states would simply put up roadblocks to make the carry of guns extremely difficult, if not dangerous.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old June 14, 2021, 10:17 PM   #54
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 5,734
correction

I need to correct something in my last post . It "was" my understanding that the Duncan case awaiting an en-banc decision was a AWB case but it is not . It is a magazine capacity case and is in fact one of the cases judge Roger T. Benitez did hear and ruled in our favor . Also the en-banc panel has not heard the orals yet . In fact they are to be heard here late in June .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .
Metal god is offline  
Old June 21, 2021, 09:07 PM   #55
LeverGunFan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2007
Location: Indiana
Posts: 293
To the surprise of no one, the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has granted an indefinite stay in Miller vs Bonta. More information at this link.
__________________
Support the Second Amendment Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition
LeverGunFan is online now  
Old June 22, 2021, 07:50 PM   #56
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 5,734
I was going to give an update but thought this video explains it best
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSANQImSBtU

. It turns out the stay is pending two other cases that are already at the 9th circuit . Rupp vs Bonta and Duncan vs Bonta . It's funny how they word all these stays . Miller ( this case ) is stayed until Rupp ( AWB case ) is final and Rupp is stayed until Duncan ( a standard cap mag case ) is final . So when Chuck michel said we are waiting on Duncan he was right but I would have never guessed it was such a convoluted wait haha . I was wondering how a high cap mag case would settle the AWB case and now I know .

FWIW Duncan had there oral arguments today with the 9th's en-banc panel .
Here is the video of that proceedings
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faP79PUMUG8
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .
Metal god is offline  
Old June 22, 2021, 11:04 PM   #57
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 5,734
Just watched the en-banc orals on Duncan . Can someone explain why it appears all 2nd amendment cases out of the 9th right now appear to be waiting on that case ? It would seem to me the court would want to finalize one of the AWB cases . I'd think that would make it clear what the other AWB case is and if magazines able to hold more then 10 rounds is ok . If you can have "assault" weapons , clearly you can have the standard mags that come with them .

Turn that around and lets say they find in Duncan ( mag restrictions ) that you don't have the right to have a mag that holds more then 10rds . OK so ... that does nothing to clear up if "assault" weapons can be banned or not . Why does the court have everything riding on Duncan ?
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .
Metal god is offline  
Old June 23, 2021, 10:43 AM   #58
natman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 2,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metal god View Post
Turn that around and lets say they find in Duncan ( mag restrictions ) that you don't have the right to have a mag that holds more then 10rds . OK so ... that does nothing to clear up if "assault" weapons can be banned or not . Why does the court have everything riding on Duncan ?
Most of the arguments in Duncan are the same as the arguments in Miller (I haven't read Rupp, but I expect it's also true for it). So once they've settled Duncan it will save a lot of time in Rupp and Miller. There's no point in arguing similar cases at the same time.

In other words once the Ninth has spewed out some convoluted logic to explain how "in common use for lawful purposes" doesn't mean what it says, they won't have to do it again for Rupp and Miller.
__________________
Time Travelers' Wisdom:
Never Do Yesterday What Should Be Done Tomorrow.
If At Last You Do Succeed, Never Try Again.
natman is offline  
Old June 23, 2021, 03:37 PM   #59
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 5,734
Quote:
Most of the arguments in Duncan are the same as the arguments in Miller (I haven't read Rupp, but I expect it's also true for it).
I wouldn't think so but after watching that en-banc in Duncan I'd have to say yes . Only because our lawyer made the argument more then once . That the magazine and the rest of the firearm are the same thing . You can't ban one without it effecting the other . I still don't think a mag capacity restriction is the same as a out right ban on a complete class of firearms . I just don't see how they get there but I'm sure they will . I read somewhere based on a dem vs Rep appointed judges "we" have a 4 to 7 disadvantage with the 11 judges that just heard the Duncan case

There was one analogy she made that I thought was good when talking about modifying the mag you have and how the government thinks as long as you still have the mag they didn't infringe on the right . She come back with something like " It's like having two houses and the government makes you tear down one . Why should you complain you still have one of the houses to live in "

What might have been better would have been saying Ok you have a 5 bedroom house and the government makes you seal off two bedrooms and one bath . You still have most of the house so why complain ?
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .

Last edited by Metal god; June 23, 2021 at 03:49 PM.
Metal god is offline  
Old June 24, 2021, 11:10 AM   #60
natman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 2,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metal god View Post
There was one analogy she made that I thought was good when talking about modifying the mag you have and how the government thinks as long as you still have the mag they didn't infringe on the right . She come back with something like " It's like having two houses and the government makes you tear down one . Why should you complain you still have one of the houses to live in "
I like Benitez's version:

But describing as minor, the burden on responsible, law-abiding citizens who may not possess a 15-round magazine for self-defense because there are other arms permitted with 10 or fewer rounds, is like saying that when government closes a Mormon church it is a minor burden because next door there is a Baptist church or a Hindu temple.

Banning a weapon that is commonly used for lawful purposes is unconstitutional. The existence of alternatives doesn't change that.
__________________
Time Travelers' Wisdom:
Never Do Yesterday What Should Be Done Tomorrow.
If At Last You Do Succeed, Never Try Again.
natman is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2020 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.06875 seconds with 10 queries