Oregon Measure 114 January 3rd 2023

[MichaelH]

I believe that state trials start at the county level. My buddy is a public defender, and his trials are at the county courthouse.

Sort of. There is municipal court in some counties that only hear some issues. Oregon trial courts (1st level) are the Circuit Court for the State of Oregon, County of ……… All are on the same level as far as authority goes and the location of the court is called "venue". All those judges can make orders that are binding on anyone in the state regardless of where the case is venued (maybe I'm reasoning out my question…or Klavening). The next level is the Court of Appeals, divided into geographic districts, then the Oregon Supreme Court.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

That will be interesting. If the legislature make permit issuance a "shall" for people who pass background checks, I'm not sure the US Supremes will overturn the permit to purchase scheme. I know some NE states have the same thing, in effect for years now, and those permit schemes haven't been overturned and I suspect 2A advocates in those states are as motivated as here to take legal action.

The main problem with NY law in the Buren case is that the right to bear arms outside of the home for self defense purposes was limited by a discretionary permitting scheme. At the oral argument I recall that Justice Roberts did make a comment saying that (paraphrasing) it did seem odd to need a permit to exercise a constitutional right. Maybe that's a signal, but they didn't rule against permits in general, so I wouldn't bet on that outcome.

I'm more curious about what the Supreme's might do with the magazine capacity law, but I think we'll have an answer to that sooner from the 9th Circuit in revisiting CA's law to determine if Buren's holding changes the outcome.

I think re immergut's ruling (future) it will be a round and round thing. OSSA will cause a review of immergut's (future) ruling which will be found to be bs and using methodology Scotus said specifically not to do. SCOTUS will send it back to be fixed.

It won't be fixed correctly because immergut is anti-gun and likely working closely with CA 9th which is crazy anti-gun. Immergut has shown she is trying very, very, hard to find the boundaries of the bruen ruling and has blatantly ignored so many elements that were specifically laid out by scotus (Clement's response to immergut's ruling pointed out almost all the blatant problems where she is basically flipping the bird to scotus). So whatever she comes up with it will be another test of the boundaries of Bruen.

So around and around it will go. Immergut and the 9th will drag this out as long as they possibly can hoping for an eventual change in the makeup of scotus. If scotus should somehow step in during the process and say "enough is enough" essentially then the timeline might change.

We missed an opportunity for them to step in a big way in the recent NY case. Sotomayor prevented the recent NY case from being stopped but if you look at Thomas and ? (The other judge, I can't remember who) they basically said come back and keep trying because you will win. They also said it's simply too early (paraphrasing) in that case. So the m114 and even CA mag ban as they go round and round could be sent in one direction or another by one of these other major cases. All just my own crystal ball stuff fwiw...

FYI Here is a thread on that NY case. The four boxes diner video shown in the thread gives all the details of it.

Other State - Hochel's gonna get a spanking - SCOTUS taking up GOA petition

In the SC emergency petition, filed by GOA, against the 2nd districts reversal of the stay on NY's flipping off of the SC... the SC has responded. Basically demanding that the state of NY provide a reason, by no later than Jan 3rd, why SCOTUS should not vacate the 2nd districts ruling to vacate...

www.northwestfirearms.com

 

[MichaelH]

"…Immergut is anti-gun and likely working closely with CA 9th…."

I doubt this is true. She may be wrong and your predictions might be spot on, but there is no policy position supplied by the 9th Circuit. The 9th Circuit COA has some diversity of opinion, so who would she be taking direction from, other than considering 9th Circuit majority opinions which are the law in Oregon. That's just not how the courts work.

She may even come up with a different surprising ruling after the case is fully heard and briefed, but I do think we have an idea of her stance based on her decision re injunctive relief.

 

[br1sket]

"…Immergut is anti-gun and likely working closely with CA 9th…."

I doubt this is true. She may be wrong and your predictions might be spot on, but there is no policy position supplied by the 9th Circuit. The 9th Circuit COA has some diversity of opinion, so who would she be taking direction from, other than considering 9th Circuit majority opinions which are the law in Oregon. That's just not how the courts work.

She may even come up with a different surprising ruling after the case is fully heard and briefed, but I do think we have an idea of her stance based on her decision re injunctive relief.

The people of oregon should have zero faith in Immergut. She has clearly already decided she wants this law to pass and is going to pull out all the stops to come up with with a circumvention around Bruen (magazines are not firearms, etc) to make this law stick. Unless the US Supreme Court steps in on these issues (permint to purchase, magazine limits, etc) it will be a merry go round of back and forth as liberal states come up with new schemes and US Supreme Court strikes them down and tells them to try again.

Sadly best bet is probably to leave the state of Oregon if you care about your your 2A rights. You can stay and deal with the back and forth of crazy regulations for another decade or just move to a free state and not deal with any of this stupidity.

I've lived in Portland for 20 years and the city has declined continually in that time (more crime, more taxes, more homelessness, more drug addicts, more stupidity from local government). Some of my family has moved out of Oregon to Tennessee, some to Texas. Personally i am considering Alaska as my next move, would like to enjoy the outdoors while i'm still young enough to do these things.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

She may even come up with a different surprising ruling after the case is fully heard and briefed, but I do think we have an idea of her stance based on her decision re injunctive relief.

I don't know how you can say this if you've read her 143 page ruling she supposedly wrote between Thursday afternoon and Tuesday morning and read her questions in the hearing. CA 9th has to have a way to uphold their mag ban being threatened by Benitez. If they follow Bruen, Heller, Macdonald they have no leg to stand on. They are both anti-gun and obviously and blatantly ignoring the previous precedents and the direct directions from scotus. Someone who had already prejudged the situation as shown by her questions at the hearing and her ruling is not going to suddenly become objective and start following scotus and the precedents which she has flagrantly disobeyed and ignored.

Good summary by OSSA here that catches many of the problems:

 

[MatthewDB]

I'm a lawyer and I don't know the answer to that offhand. He is a state court judge, not just a Harney County judge, and violation of his orders could be contempt of court. I wonder the same thing when some random federal district court judge enjoins a whole federal program. I must have not taken that class in law school. My follow up legal question is what would happen if there was a conflicting ruling from a different state court judge?

Another judge should not take any new cases. Any new parties for or against will be added to the existing case in Harney county.
We got screwed on the federal judge. I don't even understand how it got moved from Pendleton to Portland. But we got darn lucky with Harney county. My only hope is for the federal judge to get straightened out before the state case gets appealed.

 

[MatthewDB]

I think re immergut's ruling (future) it will be a round and round thing. OSSA will cause a review of immergut's (future) ruling which will be found to be bs and using methodology Scotus said specifically not to do. SCOTUS will send it back to be fixed.

It won't be fixed correctly because immergut is anti-gun and likely working closely with CA 9th which is crazy anti-gun. Immergut has shown she is trying very, very, hard to find the boundaries of the bruen ruling and has blatantly ignored so many elements that were specifically laid out by scotus (Clement's response to immergut's ruling pointed out almost all the blatant problems where she is basically flipping the bird to scotus). So whatever she comes up with it will be another test of the boundaries of Bruen.

So around and around it will go. Immergut and the 9th will drag this out as long as they possibly can hoping for an eventual change in the makeup of scotus. If scotus should somehow step in during the process and say "enough is enough" essentially then the timeline might change.

We missed an opportunity for them to step in a big way in the recent NY case. Sotomayor prevented the recent NY case from being stopped but if you look at Thomas and ? (The other judge, I can't remember who) they basically said come back and keep trying because you will win. They also said it's simply too early (paraphrasing) in that case. So the m114 and even CA mag ban as they go round and round could be sent in one direction or another by one of these other major cases. All just my own crystal ball stuff fwiw...

FYI Here is a thread on that NY case. The four boxes diner video shown in the thread gives all the details of it.

Other State - Hochel's gonna get a spanking - SCOTUS taking up GOA petition

In the SC emergency petition, filed by GOA, against the 2nd districts reversal of the stay on NY's flipping off of the SC... the SC has responded. Basically demanding that the state of NY provide a reason, by no later than Jan 3rd, why SCOTUS should not vacate the 2nd districts ruling to vacate...

www.northwestfirearms.com

The supreme court is being patent and waiting for the internal processes of the 2nd and 9th circuits to work things out. Meanwhile the two appellate courts seem to be bound and determined to give the middle finger with minimal reasoned explanation to back it up. We have to wait for the supreme court to get tired... but in the NY case it doesn't seem like it will be too much longer.

 

[MichaelH]

I don't know how you can say this if you've read her 143 page ruling she supposedly wrote between Thursday afternoon and Tuesday morning and read her questions in the hearing. CA 9th has to have a way to uphold their mag ban being threatened by Benitez. If they follow Bruen, Heller, Macdonald they have no leg to stand on. They are both anti-gun and obviously and blatantly ignoring the previous precedents and the direct directions from scotus. Someone who had already prejudged the situation as shown by her questions at the hearing and her ruling is not going to suddenly become objective and start following scotus and the precedents which she has flagrantly disobeyed and ignored.

Good summary by OSSA here that catches many of the problems:

View attachment 1348921

In theory and more often in practice than not, judges will follow clear statements of the law provided the fact record is clear enough to be applicable, even if they do personally disagree. They don't really want to be appealed and their job is to follow the law. They can tweak the end results in a case if the law as expressed in relevant appeals court decisions or Supreme Court opinions aren't completely clear or on point and the facts of the case don't exactly fit the holding.

I'm not a 2A or con law lawyer so I haven't seriously considered the entire Buren decision, but there ARE some problems with it and it hardly makes all firearms regulation unconstitutional. Re 114 the central holding of Buren involves a statute that is not all that similar to 114 except to the extent that 114's permit is not expressly a shall issue scheme. Buren didn't strike concealed carry permitting outright and we can expect that the court won't strike laws regulating firearms purchases in general*, so I see the permit to purchase requirement surviving IF the state can get it's juicyfruit together and people can get the permits.

*[From Alito's separate concurring opinion responding to Bryer's dissent:
Our holding decides nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun. Nor does it decide anything about the kinds of weapons that people may possess. Nor have we disturbed anything that we said in Heller or McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010), about restrictions that may be imposed on the possession or carrying of guns.]

Hanging the constitutionality of a firearms regulation on a historical analysis can make that analysis and a court's conclusions about that history as applied to the case's facts subject to more potential judicial discretion than the Supremes probably intended in articulating it's new test. Historical analysis can be pretty subjective because history isn't math and history itself is also subjective. Lawyers will often joke that a law or judicial opinion will benefit lawyers because there will be lots more legal fighting over the subject, but Buren is more of a full employment for American history PhDs. My take is the historical analysis test is what the magazine capacity limit hangs on. I can't recall that the Supremes have ever explicitly ruled on a law that regulates a firearm characteristics* so my big question on how Immergut will eventually rule on that issue is does it depend solely on how the question is framed by the opposing sides' lawyers and who has the "better" supporting history (and how is better/more credible determined)? If there is that much potential judicial discretion then arguably there may be MORE room for a judge/Appellate panel's preference to uphold a firearms regulation than the intermediate constitutional scrutiny the Supremes got rid of in Buren. Buren is great for the idea that individuals have a right to bear firearms for self defense, both at home and outside of the home, but not so great on giving any clue as to what firearms individuals can carry and how courts should sort that out.

*However in Buren the court said:
Indeed, the Court recognized in Heller at least one way in which the Second Amendment's historically fixed meaning applies to new circumstances: Its reference to "arms" does not apply "only [to] those arms in existence in the 18th century." 554 U. S., at 582.

 

[MichaelH]

The supreme court is being patent and waiting for the internal processes of the 2nd and 9th circuits to work things out. Meanwhile the two appellate courts seem to be bound and determined to give the middle finger with minimal reasoned explanation to back it up. We have to wait for the supreme court to get tired... but in the NY case it doesn't seem like it will be too much longer.

Unless the conservative majority issues a broad new standard or substantially clarifies Buren, the issues and questions presented in that case—the parts being challenged are the time and place restrictions not the super detailed concealed carry permit requirements most similar to 114– will probably yield an opinion that does nothing to help the 114 cases.

Honestly, after looking over Buren tonight my bet is the permit to purchase part of 114 is not going anywhere based on Federal Con law, provided the state feasibly and uniformly implements it and clarifies it is a shall issue system. Perhaps state law will help.

Regarding black rifles and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, it'd be good to get a case challenging those restrictions (if any) before the Supremes sooner rather than later, provided there is a good one to challenge. CA's is a problem bc it doesn't expressly outlaw them, but it sounds like WA is trying for a ban now. Scalia commented in Heller that laws prohibiting unusual weapons ARE constitutional. Though that comment was dicta (not central to the main holding) I suspect that historical analysis and the fact that semiauto box magazine fed versions of select fire military weapons are and were legal under Federal law—hey, even sold by the CMP—since they were invented, except for one 10 year period, are completely normal in America AND not regulated in the vast majority of states there'd be a good chance of getting a regulating law overturned and having that be precedent moving forward.

 

[Librarian]

Interesting thought.

But "BRUen", please - it's like a small stone in my shoe ...

Also read Benitez's analysis for Duncan,
https://michellawyers.com/wp-conten...-2019-03-29-Order-Granting-Plaintiffs-MSJ.pdf and then

https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/2020-08-14-Opinion.pdf

List of docs: https://michellawyers.com/duncan-v-becerra/

You could review the en banc ruling, but that is the one that drew the GVR from SCOTUS. https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/2021-11-30-Opinion.pdf, 367 pages of twisting like a barrel of snakes.

I rather expect something similar from Benitez in the 4 cases he is currently handling at the District Court. And then they'll be appealed to the 9th ...

 

[Ura-Ki]

Unless the conservative majority issues a broad new standard or substantially clarifies Buren, the issues and questions presented in that case—the parts being challenged are the time and place restrictions not the super detailed concealed carry permit requirements most similar to 114– will probably yield an opinion that does nothing to help the 114 cases.

Honestly, after looking over Buren tonight my bet is the permit to purchase part of 114 is not going anywhere based on Federal Con law, provided the state feasibly and uniformly implements it and clarifies it is a shall issue system. Perhaps state law will help.

Regarding black rifles and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, it'd be good to get a case challenging those restrictions (if any) before the Supremes sooner rather than later, provided there is a good one to challenge. CA's is a problem bc it doesn't expressly outlaw them, but it sounds like WA is trying for a ban now. Scalia commented in Heller that laws prohibiting unusual weapons ARE constitutional. Though that comment was dicta (not central to the main holding) I suspect that historical analysis and the fact that semiauto box magazine fed versions of select fire military weapons are and were legal under Federal law—hey, even sold by the CMP—since they were invented, except for one 10 year period, are completely normal in America AND not regulated in the vast majority of states there'd be a good chance of getting a regulating law overturned and having that be precedent moving forward.

The real issue isn't misapplying the Buren test, or it's command based History as informed by text and traditions, it is actually even better then that, in that it states, among other things, that Weapons include ALL bearable interments and cannot be challenged outside the courts command as written in Heller and affirmed in Bruen! Furthermore, the larger subject of permitting, regulating, or other historical discrepancies is now fully settled in bruen, where there was some question after Heller, Bruen settled it for good! I'm no expert in Constitutnal law, however, these rulings are pretty black and white within the context of the specific subject they each cover, and more importantly, ( As the late justice Scallia stated,) it Says what it says, and dosn't say what it doesn't say, meaning what these rulings don't do is hinder any later court findings in other cases, such as the constitutnality of AR 15's and Standard Capacity Mags, or Constitutnal permitless carry! ONLY that such a challenge has not been brought to the high court to be decided yet! SOme folks believe the Bruen ruling is incorrect, or there are work arounds, but I think we will all learn that is NOT TRUE, and the SCOTUS isn't done with the States or District Courts who still insist on using the two part Needs test, which Bruen specifically stated is NOT acceptable, which is what Immergut was trying to do here in OryGun!

 

[MichaelH]

If you're at all interested in the con-law background of 2A issues at least through Heller this podcast by a Radiolab side project called More Perfect is pretty informative and objective. If you don't normally listen to public radio or get news and information from 2A zealots or hard right leaning media it'll sound like it has a left slant—the hosts are legitimately addressing the issue of gun violence BUT they give a fairly detailed history of the 2A movement. I though it presented the 2A side very credibly even though Dick Heller's own off the cuff remarks when being interviewed suggest that on a personal level he's one of those guys who mistakenly thinks he's smarter than everybody and is also either a racist Dbag or not good at reading audiences and making jokes.

‎More Perfect: The Gun Show on Apple Podcasts

‎Show More Perfect, Ep The Gun Show - Oct 12, 2017

podcasts.apple.com

That's the Apple podcast link, but Google has it too. The episode is called "The Gun Show" but there is another podcast called "The Gun Show" that's actually about guns…which could be interesting for other reasons.

 

[MichaelH]

Interesting thought.

But "BRUen", please - it's like a small stone in my shoe ...

Also read Benitez's analysis for Duncan,
https://michellawyers.com/wp-conten...-2019-03-29-Order-Granting-Plaintiffs-MSJ.pdf and then

https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/2020-08-14-Opinion.pdf

List of docs: https://michellawyers.com/duncan-v-becerra/

You could review the en banc ruling, but that is the one that drew the GVR from SCOTUS. https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/2021-11-30-Opinion.pdf, 367 pages of twisting like a barrel of snakes.

I rather expect something similar from Benitez in the 4 cases he is currently handling at the District Court. And then they'll be appealed to the 9th ...

Yeah. I misspelled it. Probably will in the future too.

I wonder how many cases didn't get heard when Judge Benetiz wrote that tome. Obviously he expected it to be reviewed, maybe all the way.

I'm a total dork for this stuff, so thanks for the links.

 

[SonicBlue03]

Yeah. I misspelled it. Probably will in the future too.

I wonder how many cases didn't get heard when Judge Benetiz wrote that tome. Obviously he expected it to be reviewed, maybe all the way.

I'm a total dork for this stuff, so thanks for the links.

You may really like https://mobile.twitter.com/MorosKostas as a follow. He weighs in on suits and legislation generally wrt firearms, but is part of the plaintiffs team against Bonta in the CA mag case. He does a great job explaining the arguments and counters as they go forward.

Your perspectives here have been invaluable. Please keep bringing that perspective to the conversation.

 

[SonicBlue03]

Unless the conservative majority issues a broad new standard or substantially clarifies Buren, the issues and questions presented in that case—the parts being challenged are the time and place restrictions not the super detailed concealed carry permit requirements most similar to 114– will probably yield an opinion that does nothing to help the 114 cases.

Honestly, after looking over Buren tonight my bet is the permit to purchase part of 114 is not going anywhere based on Federal Con law, provided the state feasibly and uniformly implements it and clarifies it is a shall issue system. Perhaps state law will help.

Regarding black rifles and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, it'd be good to get a case challenging those restrictions (if any) before the Supremes sooner rather than later, provided there is a good one to challenge. CA's is a problem bc it doesn't expressly outlaw them, but it sounds like WA is trying for a ban now. Scalia commented in Heller that laws prohibiting unusual weapons ARE constitutional. Though that comment was dicta (not central to the main holding) I suspect that historical analysis and the fact that semiauto box magazine fed versions of select fire military weapons are and were legal under Federal law—hey, even sold by the CMP—since they were invented, except for one 10 year period, are completely normal in America AND not regulated in the vast majority of states there'd be a good chance of getting a regulating law overturned and having that be precedent moving forward.

The "dangerous and unusual" in Heller and again in Bruen reads to me as giving constitutional protections to NFA. Which is why I'm a little surprised the Dems haven't pushed in Congress to add AR-platform rifles of all types to it. That would create a whole host of other issues and arguments, but it's the path I'm supremely surprised they haven't gone full court press on.

 

[PiratePast40]

The main problem with NY law in the Buren case is that the right to bear arms outside of the home for self defense purposes was limited by a discretionary permitting scheme. At the oral argument I recall that Justice Roberts did make a comment saying that (paraphrasing) it did seem odd to need a permit to exercise a constitutional right. Maybe that's a signal, but they didn't rule against permits in general, so I wouldn't bet on that outcome.

Kavanaugh issued an opinion that permits could be required for carry outside the home, but did not say anything about permit for purchase. Roberts joined that opinion.

Oregon could easily say that the permit to purchase would qualify you for a permit to carry outside the home since the training requirements are almost the same. There are several bills in committee right now, i.e., HB2007, HB2004, and SB686. That will make prohibited to carry areas so widespread that it will be impossible to tnavigate the pawchwork of prohibited areas. You won't be able to tell if you're legal from one minute to the next.

 

[SonicBlue03]

What's going to be interesting to me is how the courts handle the examples being submitted by defendants (the State, whichever state it is) as law precedents in history to justify the restricting of arms (or mags or pick one) - looking at the 130+ examples California submitted, not only were they almost exclusively laws that were very overtly racist ("no black, mulatto, indian, mexican can own or possess...") but not one of them is about banning a specific type of firearm. The laws were exclusively banning firearms or other weapons from types of people.

 

[SonicBlue03]

If you're at all interested in the con-law background of 2A issues at least through Heller this podcast by a Radiolab side project called More Perfect is pretty informative and objective. If you don't normally listen to public radio or get news and information from 2A zealots or hard right leaning media it'll sound like it has a left slant—the hosts are legitimately addressing the issue of gun violence BUT they give a fairly detailed history of the 2A movement. I though it presented the 2A side very credibly even though Dick Heller's own off the cuff remarks when being interviewed suggest that on a personal level he's one of those guys who mistakenly thinks he's smarter than everybody and is also either a racist Dbag or not good at reading audiences and making jokes.

‎More Perfect: The Gun Show on Apple Podcasts

‎Show More Perfect, Ep The Gun Show - Oct 12, 2017

podcasts.apple.com

That's the Apple podcast link, but Google has it too. The episode is called "The Gun Show" but there is another podcast called "The Gun Show" that's actually about guns…which could be interesting for other reasons.

I'm guessing it's the latter with Heller, although there's probably a tablespoon of dbag in there. I'm basing that off having watched his Twitter comments for a while.

 

[MichaelH]

Kavanaugh issued an opinion that permits could be required for carry outside the home, but did not say anything about permit for purchase. Roberts joined that opinion.

Oregon could easily say that the permit to purchase would qualify you for a permit to carry outside the home since the training requirements are almost the same. There are several bills in committee right now, i.e., HB2007, HB2004, and SB686. That will make prohibited to carry areas so widespread that it will be impossible to tnavigate the pawchwork of prohibited areas. You won't be able to tell if you're legal from one minute to the next.

Re prohibited areas, the new post-Bruen NY carry law has pretty excessive time and place restrictions on carrying and are being challenged in the courts now. The Supremes just declined to enjoin the law but I expect it'll be invalidated, at least in part, for mass pubic transit, parks and unposted private property prohibitions so if OR's are too broad the principle is already in play.

 

[MatthewDB]

Honestly, after looking over Buren tonight my bet is the permit to purchase part of 114 is not going anywhere based on Federal Con law, provided the state feasibly and uniformly implements it and clarifies it is a shall issue system. Perhaps state law will help.

I can foresee a couple of things that could trip up Oregon.

One would be the wait time. It has become unbearable ever since covid. I think there is some level of sympathy among the justices that "a right delayed is a right denied." I could see them do a split the baby type thing. Something more than 3 days, but longer than XXX and you can walk the permit or walk the gun.

The other is the BS that LEVO did about "shall issue". The term "shall issue" already has a meaning, and LEVO flipped it on its head by saying "if the LEO decides it is OK with them, then they shall issue the permit." They describe a may issue system and call it a shall issue system and hope nobody notices. Note that the democrat party of Oregon does not support measure 114, due to the may issue leaving LEOs to discriminate against minorities and the worry about enforcement against minorities.

Regarding black rifles and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, it'd be good to get a case challenging those restrictions (if any) before the Supremes sooner rather than later, provided there is a good one to challenge. CA's is a problem bc it doesn't expressly outlaw them, but it sounds like WA is trying for a ban now. Scalia commented in Heller that laws prohibiting unusual weapons ARE constitutional. Though that comment was dicta (not central to the main holding) I suspect that historical analysis and the fact that semiauto box magazine fed versions of select fire military weapons are and were legal under Federal law—hey, even sold by the CMP—since they were invented, except for one 10 year period, are completely normal in America AND not regulated in the vast majority of states there'd be a good chance of getting a regulating law overturned and having that be precedent moving forward.

Many of us have already been following the schnenanigans between Saint Benitez and the 9th circuit. It is notable that the supreme court voided the 9th circuits overruling of Judge Benitez's injunction of Duncan v. Bonta and remanded it instructing the 9th to align Duncan v. Bonta with Bruen. The supreme court wouldn't have done that if they didn't think there is a connection somehow. It doesn't prove they'll side for Duncan, but it indicates they are leaning that way.