DUNCAN V. BONTA GOES TO SCOTUS CONFERENCE - California Large Capacity Magazine Prohibition

[tomrkba]

Whose grammatical analysis? Certainly not the legal community and the constitution and it's amendments are written in the language of law.

You are incorrect and the grammar was used in Heller. Read this:

Understanding the Grammar of the Second Amendment

Why It Matters

michaelinfanzon.substack.com

 

[oneaudiopro]

Remember, Bruen is not legislation, nor is it part of the constitution. It is simply convoluted guidance, authored by Thomas which can be adhered to or not.

As for the 2nd being written clearly, it is the furthest thing from being clear when you consider the entire sentence.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

The well regulated Militia is used as a justification and we have virtually no regulated militias any longer. Additionally, the people's right to keep and bear arms has not been infringed. You and I can keep and bear arms, just not any and every weapon imaginable. We can't own flamethrowers, land mines, claymore mines, autocannons, etc, etc.

Things are simply not black and white and a responsible government must balance our individual liberties with the 10th amendment's power of the state government to police public safety.

The two statements (militia and keep and bear arms) were separated under the Heller decision. The argument you stated about land mines, auto cannons, and the like were never considered arms when the second amendment was penned. I get tired of the liberals mentioning nukes in that argument as well. A little common sense goes a long way. smh

 

[dvscycles]

Just in case some poor schmuck wanders in here expecting to findout what the status of Duncan is...

23 Feb: Orders don’t include Duncan (Case # 25-198). The case is relisted for conference on 27 Feb.

Also, Post # 1 keeps a running tally of activity (or lack thereof). I've also added a counter for each distribution to a new conference.

Thank you for refocusing for us schmucks. Appreciate the legal talk that is way above my pay grade but all I really want to know is do we still have a chance?

 

[Dvrjon]

Thank you for refocusing for us schmucks. Appreciate the legal talk that is way above my pay grade but all I really want to know is do we still have a chance?

We’re not dead yet. And, as a Chief Schmuck (retired) I appreciate your service.

 

[jhsd20]

Thank you for refocusing for us schmucks. Appreciate the legal talk that is way above my pay grade but all I really want to know is do we still have a chance?

The legal talk that's way above your head is mostly done by armchair lawyers as far as I can tell. Don't bother tuning in.

Chief Schmuck Dvrjon was an actual lawyer if memory serves.

 

[Dvrjon]

The legal talk that's way above your head is mostly done by armchair lawyers as far as I can tell. Don't bother tuning in.

Chief Schmuck Dvrjon was an actual lawyer if memory serves.

Nope, sorry. Although I spent some time in courtrooms in my early years, it was always involuntary. I also could never pass the bar because I kept stepping inside for a drink.

 

[M_N04H]

Nope, sorry. Although I spent some time in courtrooms in my early years, it was always involuntary. I also could never pass the bar because I kept stepping inside for a drink.

That took me a second.

 

[GoldensRule]

The two statements (militia and keep and bear arms) were separated under the Heller decision. The argument you stated about land mines, auto cannons, and the like were never considered arms when the second amendment was penned. I get tired of the liberals mentioning nukes in that argument as well. A little common sense goes a long way. smh

Heller did not amend the second amendment. As precedent has been tossed out the window by SCOTUS, Heller is nothing more than guidance.

Regarding autocannons, etc. and them not being considered arms in 1791; using your logic, breech loading, semi-automatic rifles and sidearms were also not considered arms in 1791. If your argument is that we should adhere to the technology of the times when the 2nd was adopted. then you should be prepared to trade in all your firearms for black powder muzzle loaders. A little common sense goes a long way... SMH.

 

[GoldensRule]

Nope, sorry. Although I spent some time in courtrooms in my early years, it was always involuntary. I also could never pass the bar because I kept stepping inside for a drink.

A very old joke.....

 

[Dvrjon]

A very old joke.....

It was fresh when I was young.

 

[Dvrjon]

That took me a second.

It was late.

 

[oneaudiopro]

Heller did not amend the second amendment. As precedent has been tossed out the window by SCOTUS, Heller is nothing more than guidance.

Regarding autocannons, etc. and them not being considered arms in 1791; using your logic, breech loading, semi-automatic rifles and sidearms were also not considered arms in 1791. If your argument is that we should adhere to the technology of the times when the 2nd was adopted. then you should be prepared to trade in all your firearms for black powder muzzle loaders. A little common sense goes a long way... SMH.

SCOTUS didn't attempt to amend the 2nd amendment but merely to clarify it. Arms have always referred to small arms. Just because you disagree with SCOTUS doesn't make their decisions not valid.

 

[GoldensRule]

It was fresh when I was young.

Yeah, tell me about it!

Two lawyers were sitting at a bar when a great looking girl walks by. “Boy, I’d really like to screw her!” says the first lawyer.
“Out of what?” says the second lawyer.

 

[tomrkba]

The two statements (militia and keep and bear arms) were separated under the Heller decision. The argument you stated about land mines, auto cannons, and the like were never considered arms when the second amendment was penned. I get tired of the liberals mentioning nukes in that argument as well. A little common sense goes a long way. smh

No, they were separated long before that. The court just pointed it out. They repeated themselves in Bruen and provided a more explicit, yet repetitive, standard for interpretation of law concerning the 2A.

When the 2A was penned, private citizens had loaned the Continental Army all sorts of goodies: cannon (with crews), ships, explosives, rifles and so forth. 17 shot rifles are available but too expensive to acquire. Organ guns were the machine guns of the time and were used. "Fougasses" existed, which were primitive mines. Most of what you claim weren't available actually existed in some form. Worse, you misunderstand that technology is allowed to progress under the Constitution and that technology still enjoys constitutional protections. Otherwise, there would be no First Amendment protection for TV, movies, blogs, modern news corporations, etc.

 

[Dvrjon]

2 Mar: Orders don’t appear to include Duncan (Case # 25-198).

While they can hold a case virtually forever, it appears at this point, that they don’t want to hear this case. The issues of defining “arms” and clarifying Bruen guidance seems too much of a reach for the Court, as a decision either way would create sweeping change to the 2A landscape. Also, if they found in favor of us, it would topple the confiscation and takings issues.

I suspect they are waiting on other 2A cases which they have/are hearing to touch on the Bruen issues.

Then, they either direct a verdict “per curiam” in favor of us. (Not gonna happen.)

Or, they can cert, then GVR (Grant, Vacate and Remand) the case for further review. And we start over….

ETA:
-The Hemani (Whether and when drug users may possess firearms) case was heard today. It doesn’t appear to touch on issues relevant to Duncan.
-Wolford (CCW Vampire law from Hawai’i) has already been heard and could provide guidance on use of historical analogs and other Bruen basics.

 

[treelogger]

... seems too much of a reach for the Court, ...

I have a much simpler hunch, already explained in another thread here: The court is simply too busy with more important cases, and with more complex cases that take a lot of time. It probably is also expecting urgent cases (brought on by the current political chaos) to suck all the oxygen out of the remaining schedule.

I agree with your arguments that Duncan is not a particularly desirable case at this time either, but I suspect that line of reasoning is not even getting to the top of the stack.

 

[Skilly]

its been on the docket long enough for them to deny it. Its at least important enough that they havent done that.

 

[Skilly]

Not to be a downer, but It could also be that there will be a denial and a lengthly dissent that comes along with it and the relists are just to give the time required, no?

 

[Dvrjon]

I have a much simpler hunch, already explained in another thread here: The court is simply too busy with more important cases, and with more complex cases that take a lot of time. It probably is also expecting urgent cases (brought on by the current political chaos) to suck all the oxygen out of the remaining schedule.

I agree with your arguments that Duncan is not a particularly desirable case at this time either, but I suspect that line of reasoning is not even getting to the top of the stack.

As Skilly noted, above, why continue to hold it (along with Gator’s Custom Guns) when they could simply deny and get back to “more important cases”?

The prolonged delay in both of these cases indicates that they are sitting on top of the stack awaiting an alternative solution. And every conference has to start with something like, “OK, so Duncan is off the table. Let’s move on.”

 

[Dvrjon]

Not to be a downer, but It could also be that there will be a denial and a lengthly dissent that comes along with it and the relists are just to give the time required, no?

They’ve had months to write dissents and they’ve had practice in previous cases of 2A denials. Paperwork isn’t the problem, here.