Duncan v Berrcerra

Allen65 said:

That presumes their motives are in support of the common good, at least in their hoplophobic world views. Based on reading prior decisions, I think there's an awful lot of "If something bad happens, I don't want to be responsible" line of thinking. In that case, finding in favor of the law and letting SCOTUS do the final takedown allows 9CA to avoid feeling responsible for what they think the results will be.

Even if Duncan doesn't become national precedent, it will be persuasive in other circuits.

Click to expand...

Thats what the big question is…. Really…. Will CA9 want to avoid any blame and let it go to SCOTUS so they can be blamed even if the ruling opinion SCOTUS issues is harsh….

Or will they want to curb the damage? IF they do find in favor of Duncan and try to limit some of the damage, will CA fall back or will they go ahead and try to risk it?

See I don’t think California will risk it if CA9 finds in favor of Duncan. Duncan however, will without any doubt take it to SCOTUS. If CA9 doesn’t issue an opinion SCOTUS likes or approves and Duncan files alone Petition. Statistically Speaking GVR cases that end up back in front of SCOTUS are 98% likely to be found for the original petitioner. In this case Duncan.

My guess is CA9 won’t want to let it go to SCOTUS. But you could be just as right in they will let it go to SCOTUS for them to take the blame.

After thinking about it awhile….. it will depend on timing and how it falls in line with elections. Will it be where a SCOTUS decision would come before or after presidential elections.

As expected, this case has been remanded to the District Court.

Opening briefs at District were filed yesterday. 2 varying interpretations in considering Bruen.
State:
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/5381/attachments/original/1665730758/Miller_v_Bonta_137_Defendants'_Supplemental_Brief.pdf?1665730758

Plaintiffs:
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/5381/attachments/original/1665701033/Miller_v_Bonta_136_Plaintiffs'_Additional_Brief.pdf?1665701033

krucam said:

Opening briefs at District were filed yesterday. 2 varying interpretations in considering Bruen.
State:
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/5381/attachments/original/1665730758/Miller_v_Bonta_137_Defendants'_Supplemental_Brief.pdf?1665730758

Plaintiffs:
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/5381/attachments/original/1665701033/Miller_v_Bonta_136_Plaintiffs'_Additional_Brief.pdf?1665701033

Click to expand...

So CA's AG is still in the mode of "any regulation that is not an absolute ban on a broad category of accessory for, part of, or type of, firearm is still acceptable under Bruen. In Bonta's mind, nothing has changed. The historical analysis is mostly "there were regulations on equivalent stuff in 1791, and our proof is 'because we say so'".

Benitez's ruling is probably going to be a woodchipper of jurisprudence to CA's arguments. It may not survive at Appellate level or en banc (it's 9CA, after all), but SCOTUS will end up issuing an epic beatdown in a few years when the case makes it back in front of Thomas.

krucam said:

Opening briefs at District were filed yesterday. 2 varying interpretations in considering Bruen.
State:
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/5381/attachments/original/1665730758/Miller_v_Bonta_137_Defendants'_Supplemental_Brief.pdf?1665730758

Plaintiffs:
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/5381/attachments/original/1665701033/Miller_v_Bonta_136_Plaintiffs'_Additional_Brief.pdf?1665701033

Click to expand...

Thanks for the update. Technically the update is for Miller v Bonta (CA AWB) and not for Duncan v Bonta (CA Mag Ban)

Link to the Miller v Bonta thread https://www.mdshooters.com/threads/miller-v-becerra.248948/

jcutonilli said:

Thanks for the update. Technically the update is for Miller v Bonta (CA AWB) and not for Duncan v Bonta (CA Mag Ban)

Link to the Miller v Bonta thread https://www.mdshooters.com/threads/miller-v-becerra.248948/

Click to expand...

Thanks and sorry I got them mixed up…also thanks for posting in the correct thread…

I’ve always wondered where does a state derive the power to ban? The act of a state banning a product affects interstate commerce. A state regulating or putting conditions on sales of any product is one thing. If it is demonstrably a risk to health or society. But that would seem to be a narrow window for bans to prevail?

but forcefully trying to impose their views or restrictions upon a national market place like ca banning modern rifles disproportionately imposed ca’s market desires upon the entire interstate economy.

Ca’s decision to ban gasoline powered tools, soon gas powered cars affects the entire us consumer market because of the disproportional size of that states market place. I have to wonder if the National pork producers vs Ross won’t open a can of worms that’s needed to be opened regarding any kind of state ban on otherwise common consumer products including 2nd amendment items and the greater national market place impact.

If growing wheat on your property impacts interstate commerce then a state intending to “force change” should also be relevant when discussing the product bans that affect the other 49 market places

ddestruel said:

I’ve always wondered where does a state derive the power to ban? The act of a state banning a product affects interstate commerce. A state regulating or putting conditions on sales of any product is one thing. If it is demonstrably a risk to health or society. But that would seem to be a narrow window for bans to prevail?

but forcefully trying to impose their views or restrictions upon a national market place like ca banning modern rifles disproportionately imposed ca’s market desires upon the entire interstate economy.

Ca’s decision to ban gasoline powered tools, soon gas powered cars affects the entire us consumer market because of the disproportional size of that states market place. I have to wonder if the National pork producers vs Ross won’t open a can of worms that’s needed to be opened regarding any kind of state ban on otherwise common consumer products including 2nd amendment items and the greater national market place impact.

If growing wheat on your property impacts interstate commerce then a state intending to “force change” should also be relevant when discussing the product bans that affect the other 49 market places

Click to expand...

States have police powers within their own borders. The 10th Amendment in the BoR reserves any authorities not specifically granted to the Federal Government, to the states and the People. Each state then has the authorities granted to its government via the state's own constitution, including the ability to regulate and ban materiel and activities in the public interest.

Allen65 said:

States have police powers within their own borders. The 10th Amendment in the BoR reserves any authorities not specifically granted to the Federal Government, to the states and the People. Each state then has the authorities granted to its government via the state's own constitution, including the ability to regulate and ban materiel and activities in the public interest.

Click to expand...

This, and saying that you may not have or sell a product in my state, only impacts interstate commerce in so far as now you cannot sell or transport the product into that state. That's not really at all what is meant by interstate commerce. My state saying you cannot sell a product in your own state would be interstate commerce. FOPA specifically spells out in legislation that a state cannot ban the transport of firearms through their state. If they did, it would be impact interstate commerce and thus where congress comes in.

And all that is to say, states CAN do things that impact interstate commerce. It is just that the federal government is ALWAYS supreme in that case. But possession of a thing entirely within the borders of the state has no bearing on interstate commerce. So, the feds can't really touch a state saying "don't do or have a thing in my state".

Of course, some people want to try to specifically role back parts of the constitution they don't really like. Conservatives cry states' rights until it isn't convenient for them.

For example, California put it to referendum to impose more humane standards on pork raised and sold in or into the state of California. It passed with like 65-68% of voters voting for it. It is up in front of the supreme court because the pork industry says California is so MUCH of the pork industry, that they'd all just need to comply with California imposed standards, or they won't have a market anymore.

They may have a point. I can't speak to the pork industry and market. I know in many industries it is just easiest to comply with the strictest regulatory standards for something because it is costly to comply with multiple markets. It is part of why a whole lot of vehicles are just sold with CARB complaint emissions (sure, some are CARB and some federal, when it makes sense).

My 2 cents is, you've gotta amend the constitution if you really want to do that. Or have blatantly unconstitutional court decisions. If a business decides it is uneconomical to comply with one market's regulations and standards and decides to not sell into that market, or they need to comply and it is cheaper to apply those regulations to all of their products they make, but it also makes ALL of their products more expensive, too bad.

The producers can still decide to segment. Or they can decide to not sell into California. Or they can decide to just adjust their practices to comply with California for all pork raised. But like it or not, a state should be allowed to set regulations and laws on their internal market (and BoR and COTUS specifically protect that).

I think what prom=pted my interest in this and how CA's varying rules/ bans affect the overall marketplace was in reading some of the breifs and the SCOTUS statements during orals a few weeks ago.

on automobiles, CA is granted authority ot regulate emissions through the clean air act by congress.

this article had a few statements that were very interesting.


quoted form that link:

"The California law at issue in National Pork Producers is a grave threat to our system of interstate federalism, where the people of each state have authority to govern conduct that takes place or produces effects within their own borders, but not elsewhere. This is in contrast to the international system, where countries are free to use their economic power—call it "sanctions"—to promote their social and geopolitical objectives. When states entered the Union, however, they gave up their power to treat other states as foreigners, in favor of a constitutionalized common market. States cannot punish conduct in other states, and they cannot bar entry or importation of people or products based on conduct that occurred in other states, except when the product will have a material effect within the state.


If a pork producer used meat-packing practices that created a danger of trichinosis, California could prohibit its passage across state lines into the state. But where, as in this case, the product is indistinguishable in terms of safety and quality from any other pork, the law should be recognized for what it is: an attempt at extraterritorial regulation in violation of the Commerce Clause."

insert some of the various CA gun or consumer product regulations and thier stated intent to force national marketplace change or to exert undue influence and it seems to me to be a short jump from port to the duncan case and CA affecting interstate commerce vs only exerting its power and influence upon the intrastate trade.

I definately lack the legal mind to fully debate this. From a laymens side of things its seems as though the national pork producers challenge may produce some interesting opportunities, i would hope from what ive read that it places some boundaries on police power or clarifies some of the transition point. It would be interesting if it clear up the grey area that exists between police powers and influencing the national common consumer marketplace.

Thinking out loud here, CA specific features or restrictions would fall victim to not only being in common use and THT, but also run afoul and be argued that the large state is exerting too much national marketplace influence under the umbrella of state police power. a states right to control within its borders may end when due to its size it crushes or unfairly impacts the rest of the national marketplace.

Allen65 said:

SCOTUS will end up issuing an epic beatdown in a few years when the case makes it back in front of Thomas.

Click to expand...

How many bad strategic decisions have been made because the left believes that Thomas will not live long enough given how some of these gun cases have been going on for a decade?

Some movement today on Duncan v Bonta:



tl;dw Judge Benitez declares CA mag ban unconstitutional

The ruling:

Also, he left the law in place for 10 days to give Cali a chance to appeal to the 9th circus

per FPC Twitter feed

delaware_export said:

Also, he left the law in place for 10 days to give Cali a chance to appeal to the 9th circus

per FPC Twitter feed

Click to expand...

I just spent a long time reading the opinion. It seems solid to me. And large parts could be cut and pasted into some of his other cases.

Link to the Decision:

gov newscum is feelin pretty butt hurt by this decision too.

cali surely has the paperwork ready to submit long before the 10 day buffer expires.

and to change the constitution…

You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You'd better free your mind instead

Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]

delaware_export said:

gov newscum is feelin pretty butt hurt by this decision too.

cali surely has the paperwork ready to submit long before the 10 day buffer expires.

and to change the constitution…

Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]
I wonder if Judge Benitez could sue Grease stain over those comments?

California has appealed.

Of course they did. They can not stand it when they lose ...I wonder if this will go back up to SCOTUS again? If it does SCOTUS will NOT BE HAPPY at all with 9CA and the epic spanking that will follow..

motorcoachdoug said:

Of course they did. They can not stand it when they lose ...I wonder if this will go back up to SCOTUS again? If it does SCOTUS will NOT BE HAPPY at all with 9CA and the epic spanking that will follow..

Click to expand...

Spanking? I've seen no actions in that direction.