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

[Metal god]

I don’t know what happened in that court room . However I have been in his courtroom and then read the transcript of that same hearing I was in . I can say without hesitation, the transcript does not give a full account of what happens in the court room , only what the parties directly involved say . It also does not have any context , nuance or tone being used . There is a lot missing in all this for sure .

If I had to guess , I’d say this is the anti’s doing what they can to discredit the judge right before his what are expected to be sweeping 2nd amendment decisions. I fully expect when those decisions are handed down . Not one mainstream media outlet will discuss the merits of the case/s but they will with in the first few sentences make sure everyone knows this is the same judge that had a 13 year old girl handcuffed for no good reason .

That said he may have went down the wrong path for a moment but I think it’s the former.

 

[Metal god]

I'm usually never this right so fast

Gavin Newsumes tweet

 

[OPC]

That's politics for you. I was aware of that tweet when I first posted (#99) the question of impact on the cases before Judge Benitez. Newsom can only sound off; to my knowledge his office has no authority over federal judges. I'd be (and am) more concerned that by making the investigation public, the Chief US Circuit Judge Mary Murguia referenced in the Reuters article is testing the waters to see if she can get away with re-assigning Judge Benitez's cases. As an infrequent observer of the courts, I do not have the legal experience or legal education to assess if my concerns have any basis in procedure or precedent.

 

[Metal god]

Wait a second, if you already had seen or knew about the tweet before posting here . When did the incident happen in the court . It now seems like an orchestrated effort by the anti community to defame the judge rather then them just happened to hear about it because it was a recent event .

This counties political leaders are really starting to concern me . The weaponization of everything is getting out of control. Based on my understanding of politics, my guess is they have been sitting on that court room “incident” for awhile waiting to release it at the most damning time .

 

[OPC]

It is relatively recent.

The incident occurred on Feb. 13 (according to "Law and Crime"), San Diego Tribune ran the story on Feb 28 (behind a paywall), Newsom tweeted on March 1.

 

[Metal god]

Yeah they ( anti’s ) got wind of it , then needed time to coordinate a response that would come after their strategic leak to the press .

 

[natman]

I'm usually never this right so fast

Gavin Newsumes tweet

Newsom's opinion varies according to whether he likes what Benitez does. When Benitez struck down the fee shifting that Newsom passed so it could be found unconstitional and thereby condemn Texas' abortion law (yes, CA politics is complicated!), he had this to say:

“I want to thank Judge Benitez. We have been saying all along that Texas’ anti-abortion law is outrageous. Judge Benitez just confirmed it is also unconstitutional,” Newsom said in a statement Monday.

But when Benitez declared California's AW ban:

California Gov. Gavin Newsom delivered an extraordinarily fierce rebuke Thursday of the federal judge who struck down California’s assault weapons ban, calling the judge a “wholly-owned subsidiary of the gun lobby and the National Rifle Association.”

No claim that the ban was constitutional, just a personal attack.

Newsom's latest is to announce that the state of California will no longer do business with Woolworths, because Woolworths won't ship abortion pills - to states where it's illegal to do so.

 

[44 AMP]

Newsom's latest is to announce that the state of California will no longer do business with Woolworths, because Woolworths won't ship abortion pills - to states where it's illegal to do so.

its Walgreen's (the drugstore chain) NOT Woolworth's (the original 5&10 cent stores...are they even still operating anywhere????)

And there you go, when a Judge rules on something they agree with, the judge is praised for being wise and scholarly and is doing a good job.

When that same judge rules some way they don't like, that same judge is now clueless, ignorant, (possibly scum of the earth) and not someone to be trusted or listened to with "vitally important matters".....

If it weren't for double standards, some people would have no standards at all...

 

[Tom Servo]

California Gov. Gavin Newsom delivered an extraordinarily fierce rebuke Thursday of the federal judge who struck down California’s assault weapons ban, calling the judge a “wholly-owned subsidiary of the gun lobby and the National Rifle Association.”

I follow the social media accounts of a few major gun-control advocates, and they are beyond peeved at Bruen. I thought they were angry after Heller, but this is different.

And when people get angry, they say inadvisable things they sometimes can't take back. As the lower courts start falling in line with Bruen, I expect quite a few outbursts like this.

Right now, President Biden is under a ton of pressure to renew the Assault Weapons Ban in some form. Even if it were to get through the legislature to his desk, SCOTUS would tear it apart. He must know that.

Problem is, Senator Biden was known for having a nasty temper behind closed doors. I can imagine he'll say something truly unfortunate in public if he doesn't get a win on gun control.

 

[natman]

its Walgreen's (the drugstore chain) NOT Woolworth's (the original 5&10 cent stores...are they even still operating anywhere????)

Oops, brain spasm. Woolworths has been out of business for many years. Autocorrect, yeah, that's the ticket, it was autocorrect.

 

[natman]

Right now, President Biden is under a ton of pressure to renew the Assault Weapons Ban in some form. Even if it were to get through the legislature to his desk, SCOTUS would tear it apart. He must know that.

SCOTUS has granted cert, vacated and remanded the Maryland AW ban back to the Maryland courts. Normally legislatures would wait until the case was resolved before creating any new bans.

Given that it's highly likely that the AW bans will be found unconstitutional, why are so many states rushing to legislate new bans? So that when they are overturned, politicians in those states can say "We tried to keep you safe, but that nasty Supreme Court wants your children to die" or words to that effect. Then they can lobby for packing the court.

 

[44 AMP]

Given that it's highly likely that the AW bans will be found unconstitutional, why are so many states rushing to legislate new bans?

Because until and unless they are struck down, they are the law. And they may be the law for years or even decades before a court finally rules on them.

So, they score points with the gun ban crowd for "doing something", and count every person who isn't shot as some one "they saved".

This will go on until enough people who cannot be ignored or labeled "extremists" have the spine to stand up and state the obvious truth that the problem is NOT inanimate objects, but PEOPLE willing to do harm and not caring about the consequences.

 

[armoredman]

Doesn't that actually violate the 16th Jurisprudence, that held unconstitutional laws are NOT laws if they are repugnant to the Constitution? That's what we need to go back to - if a law is challenged as unconstitutional, it needs to be held in abeyance until they can prove it doesn't violate the Supreme Law of the land.

 

[44 AMP]

That is a point, however, that's rarely done. And, I can see good reasons why its not regularly done.

I think the main reason would be because any law could be challenged by anyone who can file suit, and being required to hold a challenged law in abeyance until the entire legal process is run would, essentially, ensure NOTHING got done as long as there was some one with the cash and the stones to challenge it.

So, these things are ruled on, on a case by case basis. And, in that, we get individual judges interpreting things, which is what we pay them to do.

Remember that there is a difference between inconvenience and actual harm. And if it can be shown that there is actual harm happening or likely, that provides grounds for issuing a stay on enforcement of the law in question, until it is declared valid or not. However if the law is only an inconvenience to some, that may not be sufficient grounds to put a stay on enforcement during the period the challenge works its way through the court system.

We do see cases where one judge puts a stay on some part of a challenged law, and an appeals judge changes that ruling.

 

[armoredman]

Judge Benitez is taking his time....

 

[Metal god]

Yes he is but he has 4 second amendment cases he needs to rule on at this time - mag restrictions, assault weapons ban , ammo background checks and carrying billy clubs and other type weapons.

I’m sure there is a bunch of cross referencing to make sure one does not contradict the others as well as each has there own historical analysis so it will take some time . CA just submitted another brief in one of the cases referencing FL law restricting 18 to 21 year olds being prohibited from buying guns . I don’t know all the ins and outs on that law but believe it’s not even settled yet . I believe it just went e-banc so referencing a law that is not even settled law seems desperate to me .

 

[natman]

It would be logical that since the larger framework of review has been "reset" to a degree by the recent SCOTUS decision, cases, and decisions are being re-examined, and sending them back down to a court level where both sides have an opportunity to restate their arguments (in light of the revised review framework) would be the thing to do.

Tedious and time consuming, perhaps, but it does (hopefully) prevent an appeal based on a "lack of being able to argue...xxxx points".

Yes. And while it is frustrating, it's only fair that if you change the rules, you get a rematch. And SCOTUS has made it clear that they expect the cases that they sent back to the lower courts to be resolved quickly, at least by federal court standards.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

So, will all AWB in all the states go away? How many states ban so called Assault Weapons?

 

[44 AMP]

So, will all AWB in all the states go away?

Not until SCOTUS rules they have to. Recent decisions give me hope, but they will be fought tooth and nail by the people running various states, who are unshakably convinced their views are the only correct ones.

How many states ban so called Assault Weapons?

I suppose, technically, none. Not if by "ban" you mean that the people who have them must surrender them to the state. What several states have done is restrict them. Current owners are allowed to keep them, but (in most of those places) they cannot be sold, traded, or given away, in state. And in some of those places, your heirs are not allowed to inherit them, either.

And of course, new purchase is verboten as well.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Not until SCOTUS rules they have to.

So, what you are saying is that the "common use" test in Heller would have to be specifically applied to the AR-15 by SCOTUS?