This case was held at the Ninth Circuit court pending the Supreme Court’s opinion in Bruen. The Supreme Court then Granted certiorari to Duncan v. Bonta, vacated the opinion of the Ninth Circuit Court, then Remanded it back to the Ninth Circuit court to do the right thing. The Ninth Circuit Court, instead of making an opinion themselves vacated and remanded the District Court’s opinion (which found FOR Duncan on text, history, and tradition) with instructions to have the parties re-argue the case.

At the same time, the Ninth Circuit Court vacated and remanded Rupp v. Bonta back to the district court for for further proceedings consistent with” Bruen. — Defendant’s Combined Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motions to Exclude Testimony Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702

Rupp v. Bonta is still in progress. The state submitted testimony from 12 different “expert” witnesses. The plaintiffs(good guys) have filed motions under Federal Rules Of Evidence 702 to exclude the testimony of 5 of those “experts”. Of course the state objects.

The state is manipulating the question in front of the court. In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. — New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 – Supreme Court 2022 at 2126 The state restates this as i.e., that the challenged regulation prevents law-abiding citizens from “keep[ing]” or “bear[ing]” protected “Arms,” — Id. Opposition to exclude at 10.

I don’t remember the word “protected” in the Second Amendment. The actual text of Bruen affirming and quoting Heller says that if the plain text covers the conduct, it is protected conduct. Noting about “protected arms”.

The concept of the Second Amendment only covering “protected arms” is a new argument. It is designed to allow the inferior courts to make a determination if a particular arm is protected, if it is not then the conduct is not protected.

The state continues their argument that they should be allowed a “more nuanced” approach to matching historical regulations because there is an “unprecedented societal concerns or dramatic technology changes.” Here the state is claiming that semi-automatic firearms with detachable magazines and scary looks is “dramatic technology changes”. Dramatic is something new that happened rapidly. Semi-automatic firearms, or “self loading” firearms have existed for at least a 100 years. It wasn’t dramatic. It was a simple progression.

Maybe Star Trek’s phasors would be dramatic technology change but even that is not clear. We are already working on laser weapons.

There is no “unprecedented societal concerns”. The busy-bodies have always had their noses in other peoples business for years. Murder has been around since before recorded history. Mass murder has been going on for a very long time.

And the media has told us that “mass shootings” aren’t a real concern because the media is making more of two state representatives being expelled for obstructing of an official proceeding. The President of the United States has been more upset that people might be angry with transgenders than of the shooting. So it must not be a big deal.

Thus, contemporary public-safety concerns remain relevant to determining whether a challenged law warrants a “more nuanced” historical analysis and is comparably justified. — Id. at 13 The state so wants a multi-step process back. Means-end is the only way they can continue to infringe.

The state is saying that as long as you get a barrel and the ability to load and fire it you don’t need any of those fancy things like a pistol grip. There is NOTHING in this guys testimony that has anything to do with whether or not this is conduct protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment. There is nothing in his testimony that has anything to do with historical regulation.

What this all comes down to is that the state recognizes that there are no historical regulations that match an AWB or a magazine ban or a “unsafe” handgun ban. Since they haven’t been able to find those historical regulations, they have to attack the question of “is it an arm?” and “is there something that allows us to bring up things other than historical regulations to support our infringement.”