Miller V Becerra

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • wolfwood

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 24, 2011
    1,361
    Saf filed a preliminary injunction oral argument is requested but has been delayed due to covid
     

    delaware_export

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 10, 2018
    3,142
    Seems it’s much like the background checks themselves.

    Wonder if that’s an indication of how the 9th circus will vote?

    (Sarc mixed with dry humor!)

    And on your big case this weekend @wolfwood!! Good luck!

    Saf filed a preliminary injunction oral argument is requested but has been delayed due to covid
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    https://www.firearmspolicy.org/miller

    2021-2-16: Plaintiffs’ Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

    2021-2-16: Defendants’ Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

    Trial yesterday.

    Technically the trial was not yesterday. I believe the trial started around Feb 5th and lasted several days. Each sides proposed finding of fact and conclusions of law are each sides interpretation of the trial. They are proposed findings and conclusions because the judge ultimately makes those decisions when the actual opinion is written.
     

    pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,947
    Marylandstan
    Technically the trial was not yesterday. I believe the trial started around Feb 5th and lasted several days. Each sides proposed finding of fact and conclusions of law are each sides interpretation of the trial. They are proposed findings and conclusions because the judge ultimately makes those decisions when the actual opinion is written.

    Okay. Thanks for update. So many cases and confusion on my part.

    https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16069141/miller-v-becerra/

    Seems to me Judge R Benitez may well issue a favorable ruling consistent with prior cases.

    http://jpfo.org/articles-2020/9th-circuit-and-2a.htm
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    Problem is, it'll be appealed. The District Courts opinions don't seem to mean much anymore.

    They mean more than you think. The arguments in the District Court form the basis of the subsequent appeals. If you don't formulate your argument in the District Court, you generally are prohibited from raising new arguments a latter stages.
     

    Jim12

    Let Freedom Ring
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 30, 2013
    33,860
    More, from thetruthaboutguns:

    https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/b...fornias-assault-weapons-ban-unconstitutional/



    BREAKING: Judge Roger Benitez Declares California’s ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Unconstitutional

    Firearms Policy CoalitionLaw and the CourtsNewsPress Release

    BREAKING: Judge Roger Benitez Declares California’s ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Unconstitutional
    By
    Dan Zimmerman -
    June 4, 2021 17
    Assault Weapons Ban
    Bigstock



    Judge Roger Benitez is the best friend California gun owners have in the state’s court system. He’s the judge who has ruled against the state’s magazine capacity limit law, touching off freedom week and airlifts of standard capacity magazines into the state. He’s also ruled against the state’s ammunition background check law.

    Now, Judge Benitez has handed California gun owners an even bigger victory in striking down the state’s “assault weapons” ban. Benitez issued an order this afternoon in the case of Miller v. Bonta, declaring the ban unconstitutional.

    Here’s the Firearms Policy Coalition’s press release on the ruling . . .

    Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that Judge Roger T. Benitez of the Southern District of California has issued an opinion in Miller v. Bonta (previously Miller v. Becerra), holding that California’s tyrannical ban on so-called “assault weapons” is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The opinion, along with other filings in this case, can be viewed at AssaultWeaponLawsuit.com.

    In 2019, FPC developed and filed Miller v. Becerra, a federal Second Amendment challenge to California’s Assault Weapons Control Act (AWCA) ban on common semiautomatic arms with certain characteristics, including those with ammunition magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds. Throughout the lawsuit, FPC argued that the State’s ban prohibits arms that are constitutionally protected, no more lethal than other certain arms that are not banned, and commonly possessed and used for lawful purposes in the vast majority of the United States.

    In the opinion, the Court ruled that many categories of firearms California bans as so-called “assault weapons” are protected by the Second Amendment, and that “[t]he Second Amendment stands as a shield from government imposition of that policy.” It went on to order an injunction against “Defendant Attorney General Rob Bonta, and his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with him, and those duly sworn state peace officers and federal law enforcement officers who gain knowledge of this injunction order or know of the existence of this injunction order,” preventing them “from implementing or enforcing” the following:

    California Penal Code §§ 30515(a)(1) through (8) (defining an “assault weapon” by prohibited features);
    § 30800 (deeming those “assault weapons” a public nuisance);
    § 30915 (regulating those “assault weapons” obtained by bequest or inheritance);
    § 30925 (restricting importation of those “assault weapons” by new residents);
    § 30945 (restricting use of those registered “assault weapons”) ;
    §30950 (prohibiting possession of those “assault weapons” by minors); and,
    the penalty provisions §§ 30600, 30605 and 30800 as applied to “assault weapons” defined in Code §§ 30515(a)(1) through (8).

    “In his order today, Judge Benitez held what millions of Americans already know to be true: Bans on so-called ‘assault weapons’ are unconstitutional and cannot stand,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “This historic victory for individual liberty is just the beginning, and FPC will continue to aggressively challenge these laws throughout the United States. We look forward to continuing this challenge at the Ninth Circuit and, should it be necessary, the Supreme Court.”

    “We are delighted with Judge Benitez’s careful consideration of the law and facts in this case,” commented Adam Kraut, FPC’s Senior Director of Legal Operations. “The State’s ban on these common semi-automatic firearms with common characteristics flies in the face of the Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, and the natural right to keep and bear arms.”

    “At trial, we presented dispositive evidence that the term ‘assault weapon’ has always been an arbitrary label used by anti-gun governments to ban constitutionally protected firearms,” explained FPC attorney George Lee. “In the end, the State’s rationale for banning these firearms simply could not hold up. This win is a watershed moment for civil rights, and will restore liberty to countless Californians that have been subjected to gross tyranny for years.”

    “While this victory is most certainly a valuable one, it’s also important to understand how impactful this decision will be in restoring Second Amendment rights not only in California, but across the entire country,” noted FPC Attorney John Dillon. “This landmark trial win points the way to victory everywhere these unconstitutional bans exist.”

    “We are pleased that the district court engaged in the detailed and thoughtful analysis required when a fundamental constitutional right is at stake,” explained FPC appellate counsel Erik Jaffe. “Unlike some appellate decisions in this area, Judge Benitez held the government to its burdens of proof, recognized the high hurdles the government must overcome when burdening the right to keep and bear arms, and gave the Second Amendment the weight and respect it deserves. Such a standard was rightfully unable to be met by such a broad and oppressive law, leading to a huge victory for the People, their right to keep and bear arms, and FPC. We now must urge the Court of Appeals to give the same respect to that express constitutional right, rather than engage in the ad hoc balancing and functionally zero weighting of a fundamental right that is too often the norm in Second Amendment cases.”

    Individuals who want to support the Miller v. Bonta case can become a member of the FPC Grassroots Army for just $25 at JoinFPC.org.

    Firearms Policy Coalition and its FPC Law team are the nation’s next-generation advocates leading the Second Amendment litigation and research space. Some FPC legal actions include:

    A brief supporting certiorari in NYSRPA v. Bruen, which was granted by the U.S. Supreme Court
    A challenge to Illinois’ ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Meyer v. Raoul)
    A challenge to Georgia’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Baughcum v. Jackson)
    A challenge to Tennessee’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Basset v. Slatery)
    A challenge to Maryland’s ban on handgun carry (Call v. Jones)
    A challenge to New Jersey’s ban on handgun carry (Bennett v. Davis)
    A challenge to New York City’s ban on handgun carry (Greco v. New York City)
    A challenge to Pennsylvania’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Lara v. Evanchick)
    A challenge to the federal ban on the sale of handguns and handgun ammunition to adults under 21 years of age (Reese v. ATF)
    A challenge to Maryland’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” (Bianchi v. Frosh)
    Challenge to California’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” (Miller v. Calif. Att’y General)
    A challenge to California’s handgun “roster”, microstamping, and self-manufacturing ban laws (Renna v. Bonta)
    A challenge to Pennsylvania’s laws completely denying the right to carry to individuals who were previously granted relief from prior non-violent convictions and are not currently prohibited from possessing firearms (Suarez v. Evanchick)

    For more on these cases and other legal action initiatives, visit FPCLegal.org and follow FPC on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube.

    The state will, of course, appeal this ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Here’s Judge Benitez’s order . . .

    Post Views: 299

    TAGS
    assault weapons ban unconstitutional
    california assault weapons ban
    firearms policy coalition
    FPC
    judge roger benitez
    miller v bonta

    Previous article
    Gun Meme of the Day: Shhhh, It’s Okay Edition
    Next article
    NRA Drops Federal Court Counterclaim Suit, Will Battle New York AG in State Court
    avatar
    Dan Zimmerman
    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com
     

    Occam

    Not Even ONE Indictment
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 24, 2018
    20,234
    Montgomery County
    Well that looks just great! But it also looks like a tasty hors d'oeuvres to be served up the 9th (does it go directly there for instant death, or does it stop at a federal appeals court of some sort first?). One way or t'other, SCOTUS-bound? Or would the lefty layers above this district court be looking to avoid getting a higher court to dabble in this territory, and just let it be? Regardless, it's a nice way to wrap up a Friday. How about that.
     

    whistlersmother

    Peace through strength
    Jan 29, 2013
    8,948
    Fulton, MD
    Prediction:

    3 judge panel affirms decision, "beats the odds" (again) by going en banc were anti's stack the panel, overturned. Granted cert at SCOTUS only to be dismissed as improvidently granted.

    Rinse-n-repeat
     

    Jim12

    Let Freedom Ring
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 30, 2013
    33,860
    Dr. John Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center was the Plaintiffs' expert witness. He sent out an e-mail this morning that included,

    "On Friday, we also had a big victory where a federal judge struck down California's assault weapons ban. I served as the expert for the plaintiffs while the state had three different experts on its side. While the judge approvingly quotes my conclusion, he was very critical of the other experts, declaring that they did not accurately describe other research or improperly manipulated statistics to get the result they wanted. (Bold added). But this is just the beginning of the battle. The California Attorney General will immediately appeal the decision to the Democrat-dominated 9th Circuit. The case might then possibly head to the US Supreme Court."

    ###

    https://crimeresearch.org/2021/06/c...hat-dr-lott-was-the-expert-for-the-plaintiff/


    Testimony
    California Federal Judge Strikes Down California’s Assault Weapons Ban, Case that Dr. Lott was the expert for the plaintiff

    5 Jun , 2021

    In the case Miller v. Bonta, Dr. John Lott served as the expert for the plaintiff. The State of California had several statistical experts on their side: John Donohue, Louis Klarevas, and Lucy Allen. Federal Judge Benitez is quite unimpressed with the state’s experts, indicating that he thought that they did not accurately describe other research or improperly manipulated statistics to get the result they wanted. The judge’s opinion approvingly quotes Lott’s conclusion that assault weapon bans don’t reduce mass public shootings or violent crime.

    A copy of the decision, which was released on June 4th, 2021, is available here.
    Miller_v_Bonta_Opinion Download
     

    smokey

    2A TEACHER
    Jan 31, 2008
    31,412
    [Tinfoilhat]So if history is correct, there will probably be a mass shooting somewhere this week. [/tinfoilhat]
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,918
    Messages
    7,258,733
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom