9th circuit sends CA AW ban case ( Miller v Bointa ) back down to lower court .

M

Metal god

New member
Formal order submitted

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Roger T. Benitez: Status Conference held on 12/12/2022. The state defendants shall create, and the plaintiffs shall meet and confer regarding, a survey or spreadsheet of relevant statutes, laws, or regulations in chronological order.

The listing shall begin at the time of the adoption of the Second Amendment and continue through twenty years after the Fourteenth Amendment.

For each cited statute/law/regulation, the survey shall provide:
(a) the date of enactment;
(b) the enacting state, territory, or locality;
(c) a description of what was restricted (e.g., dirks, daggers, metal knuckles, storage of gunpowder or cartridges, or use regulations);
(d) what it was that the law or regulation restricted;
(e) what type of weapon was being restricted (e.g., knife, Bowie Knife, stiletto, metal knuckles, pistols, rifles);
(f) if and when the law was repealed and whether it was replaced;
(g) whether the regulation was reviewed by a court and the outcome of the courts review (with case citation).

Defendants may create a second survey covering a time period following that of the first list. If opposing parties cannot agree on the inclusion of a particular entry on the survey, the disagreement shall be indicated and described on a separate list.

The survey list shall be filed within 30 days.
Parties may file a brief up to 25 pages within 30 days thereafter focusing on relevant analogs.
Parties may file a responsive brief within 10 days thereafter.
Parties shall agree within 20 days on deposing Mr. Roth and Mr. Cramer at an agreed place and time.

(Court Reporter/ECR Abigail Torres). (Plaintiff Attorney John W. Dillon). (Defendant Attorney Kevin J. Kelly, Mark R. Beckington). (no document attached) (gxr). (Entered: 12/15/2022)

Looks like they want them all in 30 days , wow that seems like a big ask to me .
 
Last edited:
M

Metal god

New member
I just got to thinking that the order does not say all statutes . This leads me to believe the state can pick and choose which ones they want to use . Meaning leaving out laws that were repealed or found unconstitutional that may contradict the laws they include .

This would require the plaintiffs to find those contradictory statues them selves ? Is that how others are reading this order ?
 
Last edited:
4

44 AMP

Staff
a survey or spreadsheet of relevant statutes, laws, or regulations in chronological order.
Click to expand...

here's the wiggle room, and also a potential "trap", "relevant statutes"..etc...

Wiggle room because the State, (or the defense) might not include what they don't deem "relevant", and the trap, where if something is not included and the judge is informed of this, and considers the omitted information "relevant", then he's not going to be happy and the offending party could be looking at being found to have intentionally failed to comply with the court's order.

I think that might (hopefully) result in a contempt citation. :rolleyes:;)
 
A

Aguila Blanca

Staff
One (well, I, anyway) might hope that the plaintiffs' counsel will expect the state to waffle on what they include, and be prepared with their own list so they can point out "relevant" omissions.
 
4

44 AMP

Staff
Not providing the court with all the information is what got us the Miller ruling on the NFA 34. If you're interested, look closely at what SCOTUS actually said back then. Essentially, they did not rule the sawed off shotgun in the case wasn't or couldn't be a "militia weapon" and therefore render the Fed case invalid, they stated "We have been provided no information..." and upheld the govt case. It also helped the Fed case that there was no opposition to them in court that day.

In this matter, a judge has specifically requested comprehensive information, so that he may perform one of a judge's primary functions, deciding what is and isn't relevant to the case(s) before him in order to make a ruling.

With the state saying their own experts have been studying this matter for decades, I think any omission would be significant evidence of intentional noncompliance. But that's just the kind of petty individual I am :D:rolleyes:
 
T

Tom Servo

Staff
The listing shall begin at the time of the adoption of the Second Amendment and continue through twenty years after the Fourteenth Amendment.
Click to expand...

If they go by that time period, there's going to be one clear, unambiguous trait shared by those regulations. They can be shown to be motivated by an agenda to deny the RKBA based on race.
 
M

Metal god

New member
I don’t know a lot about the RKBA for that time period but at a glance would agree . My guess is they will find very little “weapons” control unless it was directed at a specific class . I’m not so sure the judge didn’t choose the 20yrs after the 14th amendment on purpose even though in court he made it sound like he just came up with that number on the fly .
 
4

44 AMP

Staff
They can be shown to be motivated by an agenda to deny the RKBA based on race.
Click to expand...

This is one of those things that will involve a lot of "splitting hairs" and I'm certain it will be argued by someone(s) that the agenda was to deny RKBA based on race. But take a close look at what the laws specifically SAY, and do separate that from what people actually DID in that era.

Admittedly I have not (at this time) made a detailed study, but my understanding is that what the laws barring arms to "blacks" (or others) do not actually, DIRECTLY say race is the determining factor. What they say about who can/cannot have arms is based on the social position, meaning, slave or free, primarily, and not directly on skin color/race. I believe that a legally free black person (with the papers and everything to prove it) was not legally barred possession of arms.

Socially, people didn't want that, but legally a free man of any color had the RKBA. Like a lot of laws back then, and, to some extent, even today, how poeple get treated is not in line with the letter of the law, but that is, to me, a different matter.

I think the point here, looking at the historical precedents, is that we should not allow the focus to be ONLY on where noble ideals failed, but rather on where they didn't, and why.
 
M

Metal god

New member
Even if those laws can’t be proven to be specifically rooted in a race-based prohibitions . The next question would be what happened to said laws and are they still in effect . If not why . That is one of the best parts about the judges order . If you include any laws that were struck down or repealed, you also must show why they were repealed or the the case challenging said law .

They can not simply show laws that once were excepted, they also must show why they are no longer exceptable . That should make it a bit more difficult for the state to find laws prohibiting arms that are actually helpful to there case in the time period they are restricted to .
 
T

Tom Servo

Staff
I'm certain it will be argued by someone(s) that the agenda was to deny RKBA based on race
Click to expand...

There's quite an academic history on the idea.


The last one is notable because Winkler is usually the go-to guy for media interviews on gun control and history. Even if the arguments aren't made in court, there will no doubt be briefs citing these papers.
 
M

Metal god

New member
I've read that first link then jumped to the third and I'm about half way through that . I'm not buying there argument that the anti's can still use racist laws from the past because they were banning dangerous or unvirtuous people which is basically the same thing as banning felons or mentally ill people nowadays . . What the hell is that kind of argument , I'll tell you - IT'S RACIST !!!! I'd love for the state to make that argument . OMG there is NOTHING in your skin color that indicates how unvirtuous or dangerous one might be and to think so is the very definition of racism . Anyone trying to compare banning someone based on there skin color or social status and someone proven to be a danger to society is comparing IDK apples to skyscrapers ??? Trying to argue we'll just take out the "backs can't" part and just add "anyone who" because it's basically the same thing is ridiculous . Oh please PLEASE have the state make that argument .

I wish I had the vocabulary to make my point stronger , I just know what that sure looks like to me .
 
Last edited:
A

Aguila Blanca

Staff
Aaaah!

So the judge asked BOTH sides, in all four cases, to submit spreadsheets tabulating the history of "restrictions" (his term) on the 2A. He didn't request this just from the State. So if the State somehow "overlooks" some laws or regulations that were later overturned or repealed, hopefully one or more of the plaintiffs' attorneys will include that in their analysis.
 
M

Metal god

New member
Yeah it’s a joint effort I guess . The plaintiffs didn’t want to participate at first stating the burden was on the state but eventually said they will take a look at what the state comes up with and note any disagreements or absences . Which will be taken up at another time if need be . All parties acknowledged that the state was better equipped to find such information and I believe the burden was for the most part put on the state to come up with the spreadsheet . I do agree it would be pertinent for the plaintiffs to do as much research as I can because the state is not going to do them any favors .

I was wondering what the plaintiffs are going to do about the 20th century spreadsheet. The judge ok’d it but made it clear he did not see any relevance of it . So what should the plaintiffs do with that with the limited 25pg brief . What happens if they basically take the judges lead and not say much about but on appeal the 9th ends up putting great weight behind the 20th century spreadsheet.
 
Last edited:
B

ballardw

New member
Folks really didn't like Bowie knives or Arkansas Toothpicks.

I, as not a lawyer in any form, would wonder if the passing of other laws later for such things as concealed carry, constitutional carry should be noted in the repeal column as voiding restrictions on carry of pistols for defense.
 
T

Tom Servo

Staff
Notice this text in all the regulations passed within two decades of ratification:

Prohibited “any Negro or Mulatto slave”
Click to expand...

This is the essence of gun control, and I can't believe they're actually using these statutes to justify their actions.
 
A

Aguila Blanca

Staff
Having grown up near New Haven, Connecticut, I feel fairly confident that the 1890 ordinance the state listed in the second link is not in effect and has not been in effect in my lifetime -- yet they don't show it as having been repealed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top