{"id":88715,"date":"2022-12-17T10:24:39","date_gmt":"2022-12-17T16:24:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=88715"},"modified":"2022-12-17T10:26:04","modified_gmt":"2022-12-17T16:26:04","slug":"88715","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=88715","title":{"rendered":""},"content":{"rendered":"

Judge Benitez\u2019s Latest Order in Miller v. Bonta Sets the Stage for Taking Down California\u2019s Assault Weapons Ban<\/a><\/p>\n

Federal Judge Roger Benitez (a\/k\/a \u201cSaint Benitez<\/a>\u201d to the 2A faithful) has just entered an interesting order in\u00a0Miller v. Bonta<\/em>, the challenge to California\u2019s \u201cassault weapons\u201d ban. It\u2019s not a decision on the merits, but I read it as a pretty clear indication of where he is going and the fact that he intends to try and make his decision appeal-proof.<\/p>\n

Recall that after a trial to the bench,\u00a0Judge Benitez ruled<\/a>\u00a0that California had failed to establish that its AWB satisfied either the \u201ctext, history, tradition\u201d standard, or the \u201cintermediate scrutiny\u201d test then being used by the Ninth Circuit in Second Amendment cases. He thus invalidated the California \u201cassault weapons\u201d ban.<\/p>\n

An appeal was taken, and the Ninth Circuit\u00a0stayed the case<\/a>\u00a0pending resolution of another Ninth Circuit case (Rupp v. Bonta<\/em><\/a>).\u00a0 While that stay was in place,\u00a0SCOTUS handed down\u00a0Bruen<\/em><\/a>, which adopted \u201ctext, history, tradition\u201d as the\u00a0sole<\/em>\u00a0test in Second Amendment cases.<\/p>\n

That led the Ninth Circuit to punt the\u00a0Miller v. Bonta<\/em>\u00a0appeal back to Judge Benitez \u201cfor further proceedings consistent with\u201d the\u00a0Bruen<\/em>\u00a0decision. To me, this was a dodge\/delaying tactic, as Benitez\u2019s decision already held that California lost under the \u201ctext, history, tradition\u201d test that\u00a0Bruen<\/em>\u00a0adopted, and thus the Court should have simply proceeded with the appeal.<\/p>\n

On remand, California essentially asked for a \u201cdo-over\u201d where it could take discovery, introduce new evidence, etc. That generally isn\u2019t allowed unless the court (or the court of appeals) has ordered a new trial. Remember, there has already been a trial and a decision in the case. Benitez thus denied the state\u2019s various motions and merely requested additional briefing, which has now been filed.<\/p>\n

After a status conference earlier this week, the following\u00a0minute entry<\/a>\u00a0just dropped (h\/t Cody Wisniewski of the Firearms Policy Coalition for notifying me) . . .<\/p>\n

2022-12-12: Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Roger T. Benitez:
\nStatus Conference held on 12\/12\/2022.<\/p>\n

The state defendants shall create, and the plaintiffs shall meet and confer regarding, a survey or spreadsheet of relevant statutes, laws, or regulations in chronological order. The listing shall begin at the time of the adoption of the Second Amendment and continue through twenty years after the Fourteenth Amendment. For each cited statute\/law\/regulation, the survey shall provide:
\n(a) the date of enactment;
\n(b) the enacting state, territory, or locality;
\n(c) a description of what was restricted (e.g., dirks, daggers, metal knuckles, storage of gunpowder or cartridges, or use regulations);
\n(d) what it was that the law or regulation restricted;
\n(e) what type of weapon was being restricted (e.g., knife, Bowie Knife, stiletto, metal knuckles, pistols, rifles);
\n(f) if and when the law was repealed and whether it was replaced;
\n(g) whether the regulation was reviewed by a court and the outcome of the courts review (with case citation). Defendants may create a second survey covering a time period following that of the first list. If opposing parties cannot agree on the inclusion of a particular entry on the survey, the disagreement shall be indicated and described on a separate list.<\/p>\n

The survey list shall be filed within 30 days. Parties may file a brief up to 25 pages within 30 days thereafter focusing on relevant analogs. Parties may file a responsive brief within 10 days thereafter. Parties shall agree within 20 days on deposing Mr. Roth and Mr. Cramer at an agreed place and time.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

What this means:<\/p>\n