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

[AT&T Operator]

Where are the odds of carrying over? I'd say that actually has the highest percentage of them all

"Held"

 

[Skilly]

i know this a Duncan thread, but I'm optimistic that Woodford and Hemani tightening up the path for the 9th on Sanchez. Now that its settled law that you can't broadly disarm a class of people just by asserting they're dangerous, its the inverse but that logic seems to map well onto suppressor bans.

 

[Dvrjon]

Washington Gun Law is now learning heavily to GVR for a bunch of cases including Duncan.

 

[IrregularDefense]

Monumental horrible news if GVR. The last time was a three year slide back down the mountain. SCOTUS may likely have a very different makeup the next time it climbs back to the mountaintop. I believe this also means any and all awb cases will be held until then as well.

 

[Dvrjon]

Monumental horrible news if GVR. The last time was a three year slide back down the mountain. SCOTUS may likely have a very different makeup the next time it climbs back to the mountaintop. I believe this also means any and all awb cases will be held until then as well.

The only positive is this guy has been horribly wrong in the past.

 

[AR15barrels]

I’m not saying anything, they’re the ones saying it. They’re saying 10 is ok and 11+ is not for no other reason that picking a random number and going with it. It’s the same for SBRs federally; why 16” is ok but 15.5” isn’t doesn’t make much sense either. Just saying, “well there had to be a line some where” is fine, but they have to give a specific reason why. Not just picking a number randomly. If they pick a number without any other thought than “we had to pick some number”, that’s arbitrary. If they could make a case to say magazines that are 10 rounds aren’t dangerous but 11 rounds are and can be banned, they need to give a valid reason for that line of thinking.
The same with barrels, and why SBR laws are a bunch of bunk also. They need to defend why a 16” barrel on a rifle is ok, and why a 15.5” barrel is a 10 year felony. Was there some study that said anything under 16” was inherently more dangerous? No, they’re just chose it out of thin air arbitrarily.

Some history on that:
In the original NFA1934, all long guns (rifles and shotguns) had to have 18"+ barrels.
This was done to differentiate them from handguns and other "concealable" arms like SBR/SBS/AOW.

Then the govt started selling 16" barrelled M1carbines to civilians through the DCM (now privatized as the CMP) and the federal government amended the barrel length down to 16" in GCA1968 so as to not turn the purchasers of those M1carbines into felons.

 

[Gawernator]

The only positive is this guy has been horribly wrong in the past.

What was he wrong on?

 

[BeAuMaN]

What was he wrong on?

I'm sure Dvrjon can pull up some specific examples, but Him and Four Boxes Diner in their attempts to keep up with the Youtube Algorithm have pushed out a bunch of videos making predictions about a bunch of stuff, so it's inevitable that they're going to have a lot of misses making predictions for content.

 

[Dvrjon]

I'm sure Dvrjon can pull up some specific examples, but Him and Four Boxes Diner in their attempts to keep up with the Youtube Algorithm have pushed out a bunch of videos making predictions about a bunch of stuff, so it's inevitable that they're going to have a lot of misses making predictions for content.

I do the same thing, but it’s free!

I agree. It’s tough to track this stuff and read tea leaves. At least he doesn’t froth at the mouth, screaming at you or spend half of his time telling you stuff he’s already said. But sometimes he presents that he has inside sources (very hush, hush; can’t disclose) who tell him “X” IS GOING TO HAPPEN TOMORROW! Then, it doesn’t.

Also, less than 24 hours ago, he posted regarding the chance of GVR for some or all of the five cases: “That is a distinct possibility.” No kidding.

So what has happened to make him hedge his bets? A need for more YouTube clicks before the bottom of all guessing falls out?

BTW; The attached is a screen shot it won’t give him clicks.

View attachment 214433

 

[AR15barrels]

I've heard that story too. But the m1 cabinet has an 18" barrel length.

I believe M1 carbine barrels are short of 18" by about 1/4" but they are commonly rounded to 18" as people don't care about the 1/4" difference but the LAW does care about that 1/4" and thats why the feds had to change the length to continue selling them to civilians without creating more felons than they already had.

 

[Pythonfan]

Oops accidentally deleted comment instead of editing.

Interesting. That makes sense.

 

[Gravel]

Has a GVR ever been issued with a time limit? I’m far from an expert on legal issues, and the consistent frustration is the 2-5 years of lost time whenever a gun case hits the courts.

A GVR with a 3-6 month time requirement would be great!

 

[adrkwan]

Has a GVR ever been issued with a time limit? I’m far from an expert on legal issues, and the consistent frustration is the 2-5 years of lost time whenever a gun case hits the courts.

A GVR with a 3-6 month time requirement would be great!

I don't think I've ever seen a time limit. Courts have wide latitude in setting their schedules.

 

[Dvrjon]

Has a GVR ever been issued with a time limit? I’m far from an expert on legal issues, and the consistent frustration is the 2-5 years of lost time whenever a gun case hits the courts.

A GVR with a 3-6 month time requirement would be great!

The SCOTUS could rule in our favor without hearing.

The SCOTUS could direct the lower court to decide in line with the new guidance.

A GVR could be issued to the inferior court (9 CA) for further review under the guidance of the new ruling.

In increasing pain threshold order, based solely on the track records we’ve seen, if GVR’d:

- If the 9 CA retains the case for en banc review, it will take at least two years to brief, hear and decide.
- If the 9 CA refers the case to a 9 CA panel, it will take about two years to brief, hear and decide.
- -Then it could be granted review en banc.
- If the 9 CA refers the case to an inferior court (San Diego District) for review, that will take another 2 years to brief, hear and decide.
- -Then, it could be appealed to the 9 CA.

This is what has happened to Duncan in the past and it is at SCOTUS for the second time. Worst case is dumping it to District court (Benetiz has retired) and the climb to the top begins yet again.

And, remember, Wolford gutted a bunch of analogous reasoning issues, so other cases in lower courts are going to be re-briefed, clogging the courts and slowing the process.

(Yeah, I know; Total buzz-kill.)

 

[tenemae]

Worst case is dumping it to District court (Benetiz has retired) and the climb to the top begins yet again.

Theoretically, what happens there? Normally I believe the case is remanded back to the original judge that heard it- but as you pointed out, Benitez is retired. Is the case assigned to a new judge by random draw?
Regardless, at the district level the decision was in-line with Bruen- so I suppose a GVR would logically stop at the 9CA level (en-banc or not).

 

[AR15barrels]

Theoretically, what happens there? Normally I believe the case is remanded back to the original judge that heard it- but as you pointed out, Benitez is retired. Is the case assigned to a new judge by random draw?
Regardless, at the district level the decision was in-line with Bruen- so I suppose a GVR would logically stop at the 9CA level (en-banc or not).

At district court, it's either upheld a 3rd time (already has been upheld twice under Benitez) or it's affirmed.
If it's upheld, the state then appeals it to the 9th Circuit again where the 9th circuit then affirms it for the state and we continue right where we are now.

 

[BeAuMaN]

Theoretically, what happens there? Normally I believe the case is remanded back to the original judge that heard it- but as you pointed out, Benitez is retired. Is the case assigned to a new judge by random draw?
Regardless, at the district level the decision was in-line with Bruen- so I suppose a GVR would logically stop at the 9CA level (en-banc or not).

iirc... If GVRed, it goes back the original En Banc court that last heard the case, which then has to decide if they make a decision or if it goes back to the district court level to the judge that made the original decision. I think whether it goes back to the district court is a matter of if a matter of fact needs to be resolved or not, like if new evidence and the like needs to be heard.

If it goes back to the district court, as you point out benitez is retired, well the answer is probably look at the Local Rules for the US District Court; Southern District of California. You'd probably start at Civil Rule 40.1 as that concerns the "Assignment of Civil Cases". Perhaps (d) would come into play regarding Temporary Designation, but that doesn't really answer the question as it means any judge that is sitting (likely regular and senior status) could hear the case. So essentially... it will be a randomly selected judge that is sitting, unless the "Related Cases" rules gets invoked and it gets transferred to a random judge meeting that criteria.

After district judge writes their opinion, if appealed again, it would... go to the 3 judge panel that last heard it, or was it Duncan that last time the En Banc intervened to bypass the 3 judge panel with the first usage of their new rule? Anyhow, there's a rule that the En Banc can intervene for a comeback case iirc, but I'd have to go through the 9th circuit local appellete rules and I'll leave someone else to go do that .

 

[Gravel]

Appreciate the thorough explanation.

So a decision could be anywhere between next week and 2032.

Here’s hoping for next week!

 

[tenemae]

Perhaps (d) would come into play regarding Temporary Designation, but that doesn't really answer the question as it means any judge that is sitting (likely regular and senior status) could hear the case. So essentially... it will be a randomly selected judge that is sitting, unless the "Related Cases" rules gets invoked and it gets transferred to a random judge meeting that criteria.

Spot-on. Well done. Thanks

 

[Jcwatchdog]

If these all get GVR then our best bet is that Cheeseman (NJ AW case) gets a favorable ruling en banc, should be coming out soon. If we see a favorable ruling and they overturn the ban, then let’s hope that NJ escalates to the SCOTUS. As Leonidas said “pray that they’re that stupid, pray that we’re that lucky”.