Video Highlights
- Judge Benitez has issued an order setting a consolidated hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction and trial on the merits of the California ammunition ban case called Roti v. Bonta.
- The hearing is set for July 17th and will address the plaintiff's standing, the Second Amendment's applicability, relevant historical analogs, the impact of the Bruin decision, the dormant Commerce Clause, preemption under 18 USC section 926a, judicial deference to ballot measure laws, and the need for additional discovery.
- If Judge Benitez decides that no additional discovery is needed, he may make a final ruling on the entire case without issuing a preliminary injunction.
- This signals that Judge Benitez is eager to move these cases forward and potentially send them to the Ninth Circuit for a final resolution.
- The consolidation of the hearing and trial on the merits may also make the case more appealing if it reaches the Supreme Court in the future.
- There are concerns that this may delay progress in the Duncan v. Bonta magazine ban case, but it is unclear if this will be a broader trend or specific to the Roti case.
- All eyes will be on the July 17th hearing to see how Judge Benitez proceeds in the California ammunition ban case.
Video Summary
In a surprising move, Judge Benitez has set a consolidated hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction and trial on the merits of the California ammunition ban case called Roti v. Bonta. This case, also known as the Roadie case, has been eagerly awaited by California gun owners since February, when Judge Benitez had remained silent on this case as well as the Duncan and Miller cases, which deal with California's magazine ban and ban on so-called assault weapons, respectively.
Last week, Judge Benitez issued an order setting the Roadie case for a consolidated hearing on July 17th, 2023. This hearing will address several key issues, including the plaintiff's standing, the applicability of the Second Amendment, relevant historical analogs, the impact of the Bruin decision, the dormant Commerce Clause, preemption under 18 USC section 926a, judicial deference to ballot measure laws, and the need for additional discovery.
What makes this order interesting is that it combines the hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction with a trial on the merits of the case. This means that Judge Benitez may forego issuing a preliminary injunction altogether if he determines that no additional discovery or fact-finding is necessary. Instead, he may make a final ruling on the entire case based on the briefs and arguments presented to him.
This move by Judge Benitez suggests that he is eager to move these cases forward and potentially send them to the Ninth Circuit for a final resolution. It also increases the appeal of the case if it eventually reaches the Supreme Court, as it would be a final resolution rather than an interlocutory issue.
However, there are concerns that this consolidation of the hearing and trial on the merits may delay progress in the Duncan v. Bonta magazine ban case. It is unclear if this is a broader trend or specific to the Roadie case.
All eyes will be on the July 17th hearing to see how Judge Benitez proceeds in the California ammunition ban case. This hearing has important implications not only for the Roadie case but potentially for other cases, including Duncan. Gun owners and Second Amendment advocates will be watching closely to see if this case progresses towards a final resolution and what it means for the future of firearms rights in California.
