The only good news here is it will just go back to Judge Benitez. It will take a massive amount of self restraint to not simply have a new order that says “Bitch, I told you so”.


I hope he doesn’t stay his judgement. The 9th washed their hands of the case so let them grant the injunction and they’ll look like fools.


They already look like fools.


To us, yes. To anti-gun, never. To neutral people, that would make them look like fools. 1. “We think the case laws have changed enough that we can no longer rule on the original case” -9th 2. “Yeah I agree, I’m ruling in favor of the plaintiff” -Benitez 3. “Case law support the State’s position, so we’re granting an injunction” -9th To any law professional, this looks amateurs. And if there’s one thing jurists love, is to be right. So this is going to be a massive blow to their ego when they grant the injunction. Legally, they will have to grant the injunction but they will do it with their tail between their legs.


Wait up so Benitez cant end this once and for all? Im not to knowledgeable on this lol


We’ll, in theory he makes a final judgement. But the State can appeal if they feel like the judge made a mistake and the 9th agree. Then the State can ask Benitez to either stay his judgement or ask the 9th to grant an injunction so the judgement is effectively “on hold”. Then the State argues for irreparable harm resulting from “assault” weapons being legal for the first time since 1995. The 9th won’t have a choice but to agree. Then we wait 2 years for the 9th to take the case.


Ah ok. So they are gonna keep up the duck duck goose


Yes its a delaying tactic. It's there to waste time and money on our side. St Bentize provided essentially two rulings, first on the two step method which the 9th said he got wrong and went to the Supreme Court and they sent it back with 'try again idiots'. But he also wrote anticipating the Bruin case it was absolutely anticonstional under Text as informed by history and tradition. So there is no chance he won't just say the same again. The ninth is trying to buy time to find a new way to rule against us. They are also trying to make it more expensive for us to fight. There is however a gamble they are making. As Benitez will rule our way then it will likely be up to the Ninth to make up some nonsense to try and say they might win on appeal thus not just ending the AW ban with Benitez. So it's an easy stall to send it back to him, but it will be harder for them to keep the law once he rules our way and while they work on the appeal.


Or Judge places an injunction on the law effective final resolution in Court. Per SC, it is on the State to provide the burden of evidence that it doesn't meet condition 1. Until that time it violates the constitution. ​ Seems like a slam dunk injunction.


A slam duncjunction!




It sure would be nice to work like that post-Bruen. We can hope. But that is the exact opposite of everything I have witnessed in CA gun cases for decades now.




What does this mean?


It means keep waiting for this unconstitutional infringement to be duly overturned.




Link: http://firearmspolicy.org/miller


I know the answer is no one knows: but what do timelines typically look like in these scenarios?


Anywhere from 2 weeks to 5 years


1-6 years. It could wrap up in the district court in mere weeks, but whatever happens there will surely be appealed, and whatever happens with the appeal it'll get en banc. All of that "typically" takes years.


The difference now is that Benitez' new ruling will be much harder to grant an injunction against given that it'll be in accordance with the new Bruen standard. So it's very possible that there will be no AWB while it works its way through the appeals process.


We can hope. CA's crooked political elite ruling class never ceases to amaze me with the kind of unconstitutional ass-hattery they manage to get away with. They always manage to get richer and more powerful doing it too....


> will be much harder to grant an injunction against given that it'll be in accordance with the new Bruen standard. Nah, the 9th will do it anyway. When it comes to guns the 9th circuit gives the government whatever it wants. I have never seen the, deny *any* request asked for by the state, and every ruling ends up being anti-gun either by panel or by the 9th taking up a en banc panel and forcing an anti-gun decision. The law doesn't matter, the 9th gives the government what it wants.


En Banc is not certain. If Benitez makes the same ruling (and why would he not?), the state will appeal to the 9th Circuit. They'll get a 3 judge panel, randomly selected, and if they rule in the states favor we could petition the SCOTUS without requesting an EN Banc hearing. The State made an En Banc appeal last time because the 3 judge panel supported Benitez's ruling and they figured they had a better chance by requesting an En Banc hearing from the Liberal 9th Circuit than from the conservative majority SCOTUS.


We don't even a need a freedom week at this point. Even a Freedom Hour would turn hundreds of thousands if not millions of compliant guns into potential assault weapons. I only wish the handgun roster would go down at the same time so I could buy my dream AR pistol.


Get a CA-7 now, and then if/when Freedom Hour happens convert it to a detachable mag semi-automatic pistol (assuming AW laws challenged by Miller cover those regs - if not, ignore this comment).


This is the second best outcome, only to the Ninth Circuit affirming the prior Benitez District Court decision because it already covered the "history and traditions" (or rather the lack thereof) with so-called assault weapons bans. It's clear which way Benitez is going to rule on this - he got to step two of the bullshit "two step" test and still found it unconstitutional. So he needs to beef up the history and traditions analysis a little bit. But the groundwork was laid for him in the Bruen decision that goes through an exhaustive treatment of both the pre-US common law traditions of arms regulations, and what was around at the time the Constitution was enacted. He can copy and paste entire blocks from that opinion and it'll still be a tough sell for the Ninth Circuit to reverse. The only problem is that the Bonta, and the Ninth Circuit will undoubtedly be busting out what mental gymnastics they can, and the inevitable en banc panel will take their sweet time doing it, unless Benitez finds a compelling reason to overrule himself and his decision to grant the stay.


I mean, wouldn't the Supreme Court confirming the text, history, and tradition test be good grounds for not staying his decision, other than maybe for a short period to get an injunction? The first time he heard the case, he knew it was likely that his decision would be subject to a means-end test. Now, given that the state of California is unlikely to succeed on a text, history, and traditions test, then there's no really good reason for a long stay, right?


You make a good point, and if the Ninth Circuit were logical in its approach, it would make total sense to deny a request for a stay. But you can bet that California will argue like hell that the *status quo* be maintained, especially the relatively long duration for which the AW ban has been in effect here. You can also bet that any decision denying the stay will be immediately appealed to the Ninth Circuit, and California will pull out every procedural trick to prolong the enforceability of the law. I don't remember too much about what factors are considered, but likelihood of success on one hand and a showing of irreparable harm on the other is needed. The purported "irreparable harm" of California residents being able to acquire banned AWs still applies, I suppose, but that likelihood of success factor is going to be a doozy to argue. But, this is Bonta and California, so they might still be able to convince a 9th Circuit judge that they can succeed.


Isn't the standard for an emergency injunction pretty high though? Like, what would be the "irreparable harm" that California would argue? That a few more .50 BMG rifles might be sold? That a few million legally-owned rifles and pistols might be legally converted to assault weapons, requiring the state to register them as grandfathered assault weapons if the state prevails? That a few million BB assault weapons will be converted to have a standard magazine release? That seems like a pretty poor case of irreparable harm, especially with low likelihood of success on the merits. From what I have researched, to get a preliminary injunction, they have to prove that it's likely to succeed on the merits, that it's likely to cause irreparable harm, that the balance of the equities and hardships is in their favor, and that it is in the public interest. It seems to me that it fails on the first measure, it probably fails on the second, it tails on the third, and it probably could succeed on the fourth, but that's not relevant unless the proceeding three steps are proven. It should fail on one of the first three steps. So, my hope would be that Benitez stays his ruling for maybe 72 hours, they apply for an injunction, and then the courts shoot it down. Also, I'm not sure there isn't anything just stopping Benitez from not injuncting his own ruling now that the Supreme Court has confirmed text, history, and tradition as the standard. If he does that, then in as little as thirty days, you can legally possess an "assault weapon", and even if the state gets an injunction, as long as you say that you converted the weapon (and how would the state prove you didn't?) between the period of the ruling and the period of the injunction, then the state would likely need to have a new AW registration for all those weapons that were converted, if they succeed.


In so many words, yes - this is what California argued: [https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/5381/attachments/original/1623385870/Miller\_v\_Bonta\_Motion\_to\_Stay.pdf?1623385870](https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/5381/attachments/original/1623385870/Miller_v_Bonta_Motion_to_Stay.pdf?1623385870) Start at page 19, that's where California argues its equitable factors. They focused on likelihood of success without giving much treatment of irreparable harm - they rolled it into the equitable factors. Before Bruen, they might have had a shot with the likelihood of success, but that's all but shut down now. The Ninth Circuit panel granted it without much explanation, pending resolution of Rupp, the CRPA case that kinda fell on its face. I had completely forgotten about this case - Judge Staton of the Central District granted summary judgement in favor of California, applying the two-step test. I doubt Judge Benitez would be dissuaded by a sister court's opposite conclusion, and this GVR ought to get things going again at the District Court level, both in Rupp and Miller. I sure do hope CRPA and FPC are coordinating here, or at least enough not to step on the other's toes.


> Isn't the standard for an emergency injunction pretty high though? *Technically* yes. However you forget one important factor: the 9th Circuit is a de facto extension of the government of California. They will bend over backwards and engage in any level of trickery and chicanery to give the state whatever they want in terms of guns.


We already know the first few steps: 1. Benitez rules in favor of the plaintiff. 2. the DA asks Benitez to stay the judgement “or else” they’ll petition the 9th. 3. ??? 4. Appeal I hope that he doesn’t stay his judgment at step 3. The 9th washed their hands of the case so let them justify the injunction. The 9th will definitely grant the injunction though so maybe Benitez will stay his judgement to remain in control. It’s hard to know.


Do they have to do the whole shebang with Benitez again? Oral arguments and all that? Or could Benitez just issue a ruling on it?


I think it's at the discretion of the judge. You can bet on California doing their damndest to request further discovery, additional consideration of experts (and their reports), whatever they can throw up to support their spurious arguments that the AWCA is constitutional post-*Bruen.* Our side will be able to do the same, and while it's unfortunate that all of this will take more time, it's probably for the best because it'll allow a more thorough record to be presented on the inevitable appeal. Judge Benitez ain't stupid, and he wouldn't want his decision overruled over some sufficiency of the evidence grounds. Of course, we would rather not prolong the inevitable conclusions on the law, and a right delayed is a right denied, etc. etc. But them's the breaks with a lawsuit, similar to war - the other guy gets a say in the matter.


Yep. The gun grabbers have a new trick in their book. Case moves through district court, goes to 9th, goes en banc, gets kicked back to district, then goes to 9th, goes en banc, gets kicked back down to district... Don't have to win a case if you've got the courts in your pocket and can just keep the cases stuck in an infinite loop, and infinite taxpayer funds to pay for it.


It's not in a loop; this is exactly how the courts work when Supreme Court decisions may affect things that are in progress. After a cursory look, if the central arguments affect the case at the appeals level, it's kicked back to the lower court.


Yes, it’s the usual process. Not sure why you’re getting downvoted. The Supreme Court changed the jurisprudence and guidance so the 9th no longer needs to rule on it and remands it to the lower court.


The issue in Miller v Bonta, is that this case was already ruled by -both- standards. The "Heller test", which is the test Bruen affirmed, Benitez found it unconstitutional because CA only pointed to like 3 laws starting at like....1930? And the "Two-step" which Benitez found in violation of even intermediate scrutiny. GVRs are meant in cases where jurisprudence can change unresolved disputes. In the case such as this where the court already ruled in accordance to Bruen, a GVR is inappropriate. This is just the court giving deals to CA over ideology, not fair jurisprudence. There was no reason for a GVR here except to cost the plaintiffs more money and time, while CA gets to continue violating rights.


Isn’t this the proper path though? Kick back down to district since there was a major shift in precedent, let the parties argue it out again. The court system is not a restaurant kitchen where you get to complain your food is getting cold.


So basically this is just a big middle finger from CA and a stalling tactic.


So are they redoing the flipping trial?




ear rape


My fault homie