John Dillon, the attorney for Miller in Miller v. Bonta, masterfully saw through and thus side stepped the State of California’s tricks throughout the journey of the case to the District Court. While some said the decision from Judge Benitez proved he was Saint Benitez, I dislike portraying cases as in “our side won” or “this person blessed us by going on our side”. Because after all, the courts are supposed to make decisions involving Constitutional rights by following the Constitution. Well written motions and pleadings guide fair judges to the legally correct outcome. So I would portray the district court outcome – Judge Benitez’s strong opinion finding California’s awb laws unconstitutional – as a skilled and astute lawyer’s pleadings being carefully considered by a fair judge.
On the other side, the behavior of the state of California, and that of the 9th Circuit, are an example of why I shy away from Saint Benitez as title for the judge. Because what they did 2 days ago was reward the state of california for its scheming technique of viewing cases to do with the right to bear arms as mere games – where laws that end run around the constitution overtake the right in CA in a thicket of interlocking branches are constantly added – and where any case challenging the laws is delayed and delayed as it works its way through the courts. Because their position is indefensible with any careful reading of the case and particularly the strong and exhaustive evidence squarely demonstrating that they entire and ever expanding weapons smeared as assault weapons under the CA awb are in common use for lawful purposes – and thus squarely protected under Heller – how to keep from having to make sensical arguments on appeal? Ahhh, delay…through a STAY…..
These types of moves are par for the course with CA and the 9th – which is why I expected some twist by them. But my prediction was way off because it guessed an order of magnitude less egregious and disingenuous motions would be made and ruled upon. Yet again, this is an outcome showing that they do not follow the procedural rules, the standing rules, anything – when the state of California is challenged in 2a cases.
Our community is heartbroken again – it did feel as if there might have been a chance with this one – which had already made it all the way to a final ruling by the district court in just 2 years. That’s lightning fast for second amendment cases in California (and many places) It truly is the disfavored right, and the one that most circuit courts apparently, are quite comfortable allowing states to argue in favor of states who submit motions whose essence is that the right is “not REALLY worth insisting upon”.
All while cases involving illegal aliens and trans rights seem to reach the supreme court in a year. If you compare the length of time before a binding final decision in 2a cases in CA is much longer than for cases involving gay rights or immigration, as a commenter on calgunlaws wrote this morning in discussing the recent ruling. If leftists were forced to accept this kind of tactic on something like desegregation or voter id then maybe they would see what we mean. But that happening to them is unimaginable.
So, what was the evil ruling? Well, a tactic California tried before but John Dillon foresaw and parried and blocked from happening. California had originally tried to make a motion for a stay on the Miller v Bonta decision, saying that it was related to Rupp and another case and that those cases were still being decided and that decisions in the Miller case should wait til those outcomes are known.
Luckily, John Dillon for Miller made a convincing case to Judge Benitez that while California acted like it was just a short wait, in fact it was not. Plus, he pointed out that to get a stay they have to show not just a bit of prejudice, but irreparable harm, and not just that it would make things tricky as the impact of the decisions rolled down to other decisions and so on. The arguments the State made, in other words, were borderline frivolous, and disingenuous, and also, very rudely dismissive of the plaintiff’s rights. The state of CA even said that the plaintiff’s shouldn’t mind waiting a bit longer for a decision on if they could have their rights back, since they had waited 20 years to bother to say that the awb was interfering in their rights.
His answer to that was that it was in 2016 when the state expanded the awb ion such a way that it now included an entire CLASS if weapons in common use for lawful purposes – and that’s why they filed then, now that it was completely in line with Heller which said you couldn’t ban an entire class. So luckily, Judge Benitez agreed and held the hearing on the motion for injunction rather than buying into the state’s “request for stay” trick. That allowed the evidence to be heard and put into the record and a decision to be made incorporating that evidence, which would then be available for the courts as the other two cases worked their way through to final decision (likely Supreme Court)
The decision then was a final district court decision which would stand even while it was appealed. So what did California and the 9th do? California r3efiled likely the same points motion for a stay to the 9th circuit – instead of an appeal.
That means that the decision of the judge Benitez in favor of the plaintiffs and saying the awb violates the 2nd is now put into a terrible holding pattern, where it is not precedent because a higher court has stayed it. This is so unusual that I can’t event think of a similar case where this happened.
So the result is that California got completely what they wanted – years and years more with that decision counting for nothing with all of its great evidence and careful reasoning. It will be muzzled for years – because California’s stay was based not on the case itself, but based on the other two cases still being in appeal process, and saying it would be duplicative and confusing if those two cases were ruled on in one way by a higher court while this case ruled a different way then the law would be all confusing and no one would know which to follow.
They say that Rupp, which is appealing Judge Benitez ruling that the “large capacity magazine” law violated the 2a – because that is being appealed, it might get overturned and found constitutional, so the Miller decision which says the entire AWB is unconstitutional and therefore is struck down as of July 4 2021, if that decision is not stayed, then people would start exercising their rights before the appeals courts got the chance to say they were unconstitutional
It is toying with rights, and it is being done with treacherous intent, and out of a sense of hurt pride. They were so enraged by the decision on Miller v Bonta – WHAT a decision that strikes down what WE the ELITES have decided for the PEASANTS? Now, we the elites will have to see that go into effect while we appeal it like mere mortals?
Yes, that is what happens usually, like we all had to watch Joe Biden get sworn in while the court waited to rule on the few election challenge cases they didn’t immediately throw out. Yet, unless irreparable harm could be proven – a difficult thing when the subject is election integrity or the second amendment only – when you are california here, apparently all you have to do is say that you would rather keep the status quo as it will be messy if they overturn the laws you have which ban the right completely.
It is disgusting that the ninth would do that, but what do you expect? They always astound me – the left in general – by how they can sleep at night and look in a mirror, when they have to know how underhanded they are being to attain their goals. To our side, attaining goals with integrity is as important as attaining them, which is why President Trump’s victory in 2016 – and presidency were so special. And why the theft of the election in which he truly won in 2020 was so awful.
And why this is sadder than expected. Expected, but still sad.
Site Title 