Was there any argument over AR15s being a common firearm possessed by many? If so, what was California's response to that?Originally Posted by LittleLebowski
Was there any argument over AR15s being a common firearm possessed by many? If so, what was California's response to that?
"Rich," the Old Man said dreamily, "is a little whiskey to drink and some food to eat and a roof over your head and a fish pole and a boat and a gun and a dollar for a box of shells." Robert Ruark
Here's what I know. No technical details, sorry. No updates until Friday.
#RESIST
Yes, the states always argue that AR-15s are not as popular as the handguns at issue in Heller. They also argue that ARs are "dangerous and unusual" arms, so they don't get any constitutional protection. While these arguments have been accepted by some courts that were in favor of a particular outcome, no one has yet explained how a firearm can be both "common" and "unusual."
The Ninth Circuit heard argument last September in Rupp v Becerra, another CA AW challenge, so the outcome in that case will likely control this case.
What is the angle on Miller? The AR is EXACTLY the type of firearm the SCOTUS said the 2A applies to in Miller?
My understanding is Miller's powerful medicine that cuts both ways and because of that neither side really wants to touch it much anymore.
Basically -- and I'd love to hear from someone better versed than I -- yes, Miller gets you an interpretation of 2A that supports military arms in civilian hands, but asserts that it's for purposes of a militia, not an individual.
Whether one's for gun rights or restrictions, Miller yields a get at too much a give.
Hain’t we got all the fools in town on our side? And ain’t that a big enough majority in any town?
https://twitter.com/@twitter/status/1357886448771375106?s=21
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...ler-v-becerra/
Minute Order for proceedings held before Judge Roger T. Benitez: Bench Trial completed on 2/5/2021. Day of Trial 2. Denying 73 MOTION to Preclude Testimony of John R. Lott,; Granting in part and denying in part 75 In Limine MOTION to Preclude or Limit Testimony at Trial,; Denying 81 Ex Parte MOTION to Strike Document 77 Response in Opposition to Motion,, and Opposition to Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application to Permit Late Filing 79 ; Declaration of John D. Echeverria.The Court hereby apologies for the abrupt termination of the bench trial closing arguments, which was due to technical difficulties which the Court was unable to remedy. The Court appreciates all counsels' presentations. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are due no later than 2/16/2021. Cross-Designations are due no later than 2/23/2021. Plaintiff is ordered to file a list of excerpts of depositions for the Court to review no later than 2/10/2021. (Court Reporter/ECR Amanda LeGore). (Plaintiff Attorney John W. Dillon, Erik Scott Jaffe, George Montgomery Lee).(Defendant Attorney John Darrow Echeverria, Mark Beckington, Peter Chang, Jose Zepeda). (no document attached) (gxr) (Entered: 02/05/2021)
#RESIST
Thank you for the update. Looks like a lot of post trial work is to be done before a ruling is issued.
"Rich," the Old Man said dreamily, "is a little whiskey to drink and some food to eat and a roof over your head and a fish pole and a boat and a gun and a dollar for a box of shells." Robert Ruark
Guys, a win in California is potentially a win for the country...
Absolutely. I think we're all hoping this goes the right way for you CA folks, and that the end result is indeed a win for the entire country.
Too many people have turned their back and ridiculed us here thinking that this would never happen to them. I’ve said for years if we had the support of the country to us here it would minimize the spread nationwide. Now California politics is infecting the country.
Reply With Quote