Doesn’t matter. If we get a favorable panel it will go en banc.

Plan to. Have seen plenty of excerpts thus far though.


ETA: Wa Gun law points out this little jewel the left will probably hang in to:......so long as they are not useful solely for military purposes.
Fuck! WTF was bonetiz thinking??!

The libtards are losing the gun battle in the courts and will probably be decimated soon, which is why we’re seeing them doing crazy stunts like the Constitutional convention, office of gun violence prevention, New Mexico emergency order, etc. Almost like they’re just creating distractions and establishing a narrative.

They’ve yet to pull their Ruby Ridge/Waco 2.0, false flags, wind up toy mass shootings, etc. which will be when they really want to go after guns.

true, but a favorable panel might not slow-play the initial ruling and not delay just to delay.

The full context of that statement:
"Until the Supreme Court clearly says otherwise, commonly owned weapons that are useful for war and are reasonably related to militia use are also fully protected, so long as they are not useful solely for military purposes."

Another one where he potentially opens a door for gun grabbers (page 36, line 12):
"This Court concludes, once again, that manufacturing, importing, selling, giving, loaning buying, receiving, acquiring, possessing, storing, or using commonly-owned magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds for self-defense at home or in public is protected by the Second Amendment. Whether 50-round, 75-round, or 100-round drum magazines are constitutionally protected is a different question because they may be much less common and may be unusual."

Im legal mumbo-jumbo challenged, so Im not sure how the full context nullifies the part in red, or at least keeps antigun tards from using it to their advantage.

Yeah thats fucked. Why would he even assert that?!

It appears he's saying if the weapon/firearm is solely for military use then it might not be protected by the 2nd Amendment. We'll likely see this fleshed out more in his Miller v. Bonta opinion when ever that drops.

It will go to both on purpose. They will drag their feet as long as possible.

When the CA AG asks the court to extend the 10 day stay through the whole appeal process hopefully it is denied.

Otherwise CA will simply continue shitting on the Constitution.

Hopefully it will go to SCOTUS and mag bans will get shut down throughout the US.

And that sure as fuck will be used against us. The 2A does NOT restrict us from having military arms. Thats been a huge argument since the beginning! What the fuck was he thinking??!?! That one statement could turn a slam dunk for us into another hotly contested debate whether AR15s are not solely military arms! This'll turn the libs into saying "SEE! Even your 2A judge agrees with us!"

WTF benitez??!



ETA: this could impact the availability of future guns too.

He basically reiterated the Miller will stand too. Which is more or less what Heller etc has said too. So no machineguns for you.

What arm is a "solely military arm"?  

I could think of a few definitions, but none are particularly palatable.

TOWs

Can .gov force business not to sell to .citizen?  

Arms that are too large to bear and/or too indiscriminate for lawful defensive use. Like a cruise missile.

Where's NOLO? We need him to plain language explain this to us.

They already tried it...


Yet,

Here he is.

Why? It's not like you'd hear anything intelligent or even knashing of teeth. It'd probably be more like silence while the dipshits listened to the telephone and took their marching orders from some globohomos.

Nukes

Actually, that's where this all started for the Founding Fathers - an infestation of totalitarians (the English).



If you are unhappy with the single party take over of California's government, or the "deep state"/"swamp" at the Federal level, you really should read the Declaration of Independence.  

Really, read it.  Read it for comprehension, not just skimming the familiar words.  It is a RADICAL document (borrowed a word from the leftists, I did).

I bet you will say, "Wow!"."

In complete disagreement with the 2nd itself and Miller.

I wonder what "useful solely for military purpose" means, and who gets to decide, using what criteria.

M16’s are in use by the general public. As are other various machine guns. Arms or armaments that are only in use by the military: Sidewinders, AT4’s, Nukes, Carl G’s etc.

You really think theres enough class III M16s out there to qualify as common use?Yeah we know that, but because he put that in there, our sides got one more fucking redundant thing to argue again. Some say this statement isnt a big deal but the left will absolutely latch into it as part of their hail mary dying breath death rattle last ditch effort. Benitez shoulda known better.

Yes he should have known better. He obviously missed, ignored or dismissed, the gun grabbers spending the last 15 years claiming Heller only applied to guns within the home due to Scalia's "such as self-defense within the home" line.  

SCOTUS has done nothing in the face of the retaliatory NY CCIA legislation.  Don't hold your breath waiting for some dudes in robes to grant you your freedom.

SCOTUS has one of the NY cases (Gazzola v. Hochul) on the emergency docket scheduled for October 6th.

Having said that, I would like to see more happening.

Can someone please give us a line diagram or flow chart to show the history of how we got to the most recent decision in Duncan v Bonta by Benitez?    

Would also like to see something similar outlining the appeal process and likely path.

Basically, I don't have the legal scholarship to navigate the process, and think that others may also benefit with a "Duncan v Bonta for Dummies" explanation.

Basically what the NRA was arguing after Sandy Hook differentiating between assault rifles and AR15s.

Because he is a judge and not some activist.

If anything he is telling people you should purchase more drums so as to meet the Caetano standard of in common use.

The interesting aspect of the dangerous and unusual doctrine is that any new product to market by nature starts out in the unusual category.

If I were planning to bring a new product to market that may need Constitutional protection I would roll out the first couple hundred K with a quickness and razor thin profit margin to get that protection and then adjust to a more standard profit model.

Well, that is in total and complete contradiction to all case law and commentary about RKBA  up until about 1900 or so.

Everyone agreed that the primary purpose of RKBA was to protect the right to own military weapons.  There was even a case in TX that asserted that the RKBA provision of the Texas Constitution protected mortars.

Case law is extensively documented here:
The Second Amendment in the 19th Century

It would seem easy to prove the SBS should not be NFA.  Just because Miller allowed it to go unchallenged is not proof of anything.  Trench guns were common enough and the simple reality of taking a hacksaw to the barrel at the arbitrary length you preferred does not make it different in function from any other shotgun.

The Judge is restating what SCOTUS said in Heller, thus:

"We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment ’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns."

The stage has been set to junk the NFA because as the Judge stated on voiding the magazine ban -

p. 49

It is remarkable to discover that there were no outright prohibitions on keeping or possessing guns. No laws of any kind.

p.50

From the adoption of the Second Amendment through the next 50 years, there were no firearm restrictions in any states north of the Mason-Dixon Line.

p.51

If anything, regulations were not about what kind of firearm one was not allowed to keep, but about the kind of firearm one was required to buy and have ready for militia duties.
The same was largely true south of the Mason-Dixon Line (disregarding laws targeting slaves and Indians, neither of which were considered to be citizens by lawmakers). A citizen could reside in any of the northern states and half of the southern states for the first fifty years free from state government firearm restrictions.

There will be no historical analog to a prohibition on taxing of any type of arms. 1939 Miller depended on a non "part of the ordinary military equipment" might be taxable under the NFA, and tossing the charge was improper until that determination was made, which it then could not as Miller was dead and the case now moot.

Federal district court
9th circuit 3 judge panel
9th circuit en banc panel
Supreme Court.

Step one is over. Figure approximately 18-months at each step.

So...
St Benenitz, mag bans no go yo.
3 judge, decent chance it will be 2:1 in our favor.
Full 9th, stall, stall, stall, Biden replaces Thomas, Overturned.
SCOTUS Minus Thomas, Ban Upheld.
Yes, I'm a negative fucking Nancy.

We might not have the results of the 3 judge panel until 2026.

What if SCOTUS again says that they've already ruled on it as they did to get it back to Benitez?  In other words, when can we finally stick a fork in it?

When scotus denies cert or rules on the merits, years from now

There is a 10 day stay.  Not sure if they have appealed yet.

People in black robes aren't going to be the ones to save the constitution. The last few posts highlight this. If you're counting on them, you're counting on the wrong people.

They appealed less than 24 hours later

Notice of intent to appeal. No appeal actually filed yet

The 2nd was really about military arms. The militia used the same arms as the military.

The appeals for Duncan, Miller, and Rhode are already written and waiting. The state knows it’s losing with Benitez.

??

https://legalinsurrection.com/2023/09/gavin-newsom-freaks-out-at-federal-judge-who-struck-down-california-10-round-magazine-limit/

I also found that part to be both alarming and head scratching. Best I could guess is he’s sidestepping questions about machine guns and explosives being protected.

Crew served weapons, IMO.

Missiles. Explosives. RPGs. Hookers.

Don't forget the fire trucks.