After an injunction and immediate "stay" by Federal District Court Judge Roger Benitez California appealed to continue the stay. Since then the case of Miller v Bonta has been in the hands of the 9th Circuit. This case which has seen delay after delay is set for oral arguments and California has filed its reply brief.
Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. So today, I've got an update for you in one of the most infamous cases that we really have going on right now in the entire Western portion of this country, which is Miller v. Bon, the case that challenges California's ban on so-called assault weapons. This case has been going on for years now. We've seen multiple injunctions, multiple appeals, multiple stays, and it currently sits before the ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. We've been waiting on movement in this case since a little bit late last year, and today we have that movement. So let's talk about what's going on.
Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here. One thing I find interesting, especially with these huge cases like Miller, like Duncan, is that when you have to wait two or three months for something to happen, it could feel like two or three years. And that's when people start to write and say, "Hey, have you heard anything new? I keep checking and I don't see anything new happening with Miller." Well, one thing you have to remember is that the ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is very good at delaying things, pushing things out as long as possible so that they don't have to deal with it. I mean, they've pretty much become the experts at that. As a matter of fact, oral arguments were supposed to be heard in Miller in December, and now here we are in January, and you know that that's how they do things, right? They'll continue to push them out, so delays just continue to happen.
Now, with that being said, we have an update on a very important date that's coming up just at the end of next week on January 24th, 2024. And that is that we finally get oral arguments in front of the ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Miller v. Bon. But the important update is that we now have the reply brief from the state of California, which sort of outlines their argument as to why they feel like this ban should be held up. And their arguments are as far out there as you could possibly imagine. This should be a slam dunk if it was pretty much any other court that valued the rule of law or valued the Constitution. This would be an absolute slam dunk. But since we're dealing with the ninth circuit, you just never know which way it's going to go. The ninth circuit 99% of the time sides with California.
Now, I should note that these oral arguments pertain to Judge BZ's injunction. If you remember, he placed an injunction against enforcement of that law, but he placed a stay on his own injunction until California had time to appeal that injunction. So these oral arguments have to do with Judge Bona's injunction and whether or not the ninth circuit is going to extend the stay or they're going to allow the injunction to actually take effect. So that's what these oral arguments are about. I just wanted to clarify that because this is why it's so important. If the ninth circuit actually does decide that they're going to allow the injunction to take effect, then it's freedom back in California, right? That would be massive. But obviously, we know that we're fighting an uphill battle here, and so it's possible that they could decide to extend the stay, well, really permanently until the end of the case. So that's why this is so important.
So let's go and take a look at their reply brief real quick so you guys can see their argument. Now, before I even read the entire brief, which I did a couple of times just to kind of understand where they're coming from, this table of contents just had me. It says, "Two, California's restrictions on challenge categories are consistent with this nation's historical tradition." Now, I'm not a historian or an attorney. I don't know how many of you out there are attorneys or historians, but even I know that that is an absolutely false statement. And they kind of admit that they might be wrong here just in looking at their own example. They admit they might be wrong where it says, "Even if the Second Amendment presumptively protects these quote-unquote 'assault weapons,' a more nuanced approach would apply." And then, "California's restrictions are consistent with this historical tradition of regulating especially dangerous weapons."
Okay, so what we're going to do is we're going to scroll down to one of their arguments, an argument that the plaintiffs can expect to hear when they have their oral arguments on the 24th. So this is kind of like a study document for the plaintiffs here. But it says, "Arms. California does not believe that these are arms. They do not believe that they are protected by the Constitution." And so this is their argument for that, and it's just so wild and so out there. So it says here, "At each step of their analysis, plaintiffs advance broad arguments about quote-unquote 'assault weapons' generally, instead of addressing the particular characteristics of each separate category of weapon challenged in their complaint." So again, this is where California, in the past, brings up characteristics, not the overall function or what it does or how similar it is to something else that doesn't have a specific feature that California doesn't like. You know, which changes absolutely nothing about it, but that's where they bring up the characteristics again.
Now it says, "They begin by asserting that there can be no question whatsoever that the firearms banned by California are arms. And just based on the definition of arms back in 1791 when the Second Amendment was ratified, you and I know that to be true. They are arms and should be protected, no doubt. Semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns generally constitute bearable offensive weapons. But plaintiffs' broad assertion fails to account for the differences between the specific categories prohibited by California and particularly the fact that some categories prohibit only the use of the accessory that can easily be added to or removed from the weapon." As a matter of text and history, there is a clear distinction between arms and accoutrements. So California's kind of backed into a corner here, and what I find is that they're contradicting themselves.
So in one instance, they're saying that these things aren't protected by the Constitution because they're more apt for military service, right? So they're not supposed to be for the average citizen, therefore, they're not protected by the Constitution, even though I find that to be absolutely ridiculous as well. But they're citing Supreme Court precedent, the NFA, and stuff like that to say that if there's something that is for the military, then the common civilian shouldn't be allowed to have it. And then, on the other hand, they're saying that they're not actually banning anything, right? They're not banning the arm itself because really what they're banning are the use of the accessories. That's what they're going after. And so, are you banning it, or are you not? Are you just going after the, as you call it, accoutrements, or are you going after the arm itself? Because in two different arguments, you kind of say two different things. Which one is it? You don't even have a clear understanding of what your own law is.
So this is what we have to look forward to January 24th, end of next week. We're looking at oral arguments in this case. We now have California's arguments. We know that California is kind of grasping for straws here, but the plaintiffs are still going to have to have some type of response for what California says. Now, the ninth circuit is going to, obviously, they're going to take whatever time they need. I don't know if they have a specific timeline to decide whether or not to grant or uphold the injunction that was put in place by Judge BZ or to grant California's request for an extended stay. I don't know what's going to happen and how long that's going to take, but at least now the ball is rolling. Oral arguments will be finished, and it's in the hands of the ninth circuit after that. And we're just going to have to wait to see what they come up with.
Now, like I said, they're kind of in the back pocket of California. We know that things don't always look really good. I don't think that the judges that are going to be on this panel are very friendly to us. So that's going to be another negative as well. But we'll see what happens, and I will keep you guys up to date as to any of the changes that happen in this case because, again, in my opinion, between Duncan and Miller, these are two of the most important cases in the western part of the country right now. Because being under the ninth circuit, this would have a direct effect on Oregon. It would have an effect on Washington. I mean, this would have an effect on everything under the jurisdiction of the ninth circuit, and a lot of these West Coast states are the ones that have these same or similar bans. So this would have a really big effect if we end up getting the win in the end on this one. I think it's going to go back up to the Supreme Court. But we'll see what happens, and again, I'll keep you guys up to date. I want to thank you all very much for watching. I really do appreciate it. Please like, subscribe. You guys have a great day.