Category: Courts

This makes no sense whatsoever, but then most goobermint doesn’t

State: ‘Government has no authority’ to impose penalties for not registering banned guns
Data shows 5,900 registered banned guns in Illinois after Jan. 1

(The Center Square) – The state of Illinois says “government has no authority” to impose criminal penalties for those not registering banned firearms.

Illinois State Police have updated the gun ban registration numbers to include those who registered after the Jan. 1 deadline. On top of the 29,357 individuals who registered before the deadline, 5,867 have registered since. The total of those registering before and after the deadline of 35,224 is 1.46% of the state’s more than 2.4 million Firearm Owners ID card holders.

Also updated is a list of how many individuals registered banned items per county. Cook County had the highest numbers of those registering at 6,364. Pope County had the fewest at five.

Lawsuits against the gun ban and registry continue in state and federal court.

In their response to a Fifth Amendment challenge to the state’s gun ban and registry in the Southern District of Illinois federal court, attorneys for the state say the right against self-incrimination isn’t violated by the registry.

The state’s lawyers argue the registration is a “voluntary benefit that exempts owners of certain” firearms from “otherwise applicable criminal penalties.” They also argue the “government has no authority to impose” penalties on those that don’t register and the idea someone would be prosecuted for what they file is “not real.”

“[T]he fanciful chain of events they have dreamed up has no serious chance of coming to fruition,” the filing said.

The filing is part of the ongoing litigation that plaintiffs’ attorney Thomas Maag predicts will get to the merits of the issues in the months ahead.

“It was clear from what [Judge Stephen McGlynn] said that he said that the lawyers should not plan on missing any breaks over the summer,” Maag told The Center Square. “That the judge wants to have a trial on the merits before June.”

Separately in state court last week, an Effingham County judge denied attorney Thomas DeVore’s attempt to reinstate his gun ban challenges that were vacated last year after the Illinois Supreme Court sided with the state in the case brought by state Rep. Dan Caulkins, R-Decatur.

DeVore said he’s taken the case to the appellate court.

“The judge just kicked the can down the road, he didn’t stop this case,” DeVore told The Center Square. “And the Illinois Supreme Court in their ruling in Caulkins did one good thing, is they gave me a roadmap on how I can win the arguments on equal protection.”

DeVore contends the state saying exempt classes of people, like active duty and retired police, security and prison guards, have specialized training is a “legal fiction.”

“If you break them down, you will find that almost none of them have a duty to protect the public order and the training,” he said.

All preliminary attempts in state and federal court at blocking the law from being implemented have not resulted in the law being overturned. It’s expected the issue will be taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court.

US appeals court revives Mexico’s $10 billion lawsuit against gun makers

BOSTON (Reuters) – A U.S. appeals court on Monday revived a $10 billion lawsuit by Mexico seeking to hold American gun manufacturers responsible for facilitating the trafficking of weapons to drug cartels across the U.S.-Mexico border.

The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower-court judge’s decision dismissing the case on the grounds that a U.S. law barred Mexico from suing Smith & Wesson Brands, Sturm, Ruger & Co and others.

That law, the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), provides the firearms industry broad protection from lawsuits over their products’ misuse.

Mexico’s lawyers argued the law only bars lawsuits over injuries that occur in the U.S. and does not shield the seven manufacturers and one distributor it sued from liability over the trafficking of guns to Mexican criminals.

U.S. Circuit Judge William Kayatta, writing for the three-judge panel, said that while the law can be applied to lawsuits by foreign governments, Mexico’s lawsuit “plausibly alleges a type of claim that is statutorily exempt from the PLCAA’s general prohibition.”
Lawyers for Mexico and the gun makers did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Mexico says over 500,000 guns are trafficked annually from the U.S. into Mexico, of which more than 68% are made by the companies it sued, which also include Beretta USA, Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, Colt’s Manufacturing Co and Glock Inc.

In its August 2021 complaint, Mexico estimated that 2.2% of the nearly 40 million guns made annually in the U.S. are smuggled into Mexico, including as many as 597,000 guns made by the defendants.

Mexico said the smuggling has been a key factor in its ranking third worldwide in the number of gun-related deaths. It also claimed to suffer many other harms, including declining investment and economic activity and a need to spend more on law enforcement and public safety.

The companies deny wrongdoing. Their lawyers say Mexico’s lawsuit is devoid of allegations the gun manufacturers’ gun sales themselves did anything that would create an exception to PLCAA’s broad protections.

The Supreme Court Just Took a Side in the Biden Border Crisis

The Supreme Court sided with the Biden administration on Monday in a split decision that will allow federal agents to cut razor wire installed by Texas officials along the U.S.-Mexico border amid the worsening crisis created by President Biden’s policies.

The 5-4 decision granted an emergency appeal filed by the Biden administration to reverse an injunction from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and now allows the feds to dismantle concertina wire while the lawsuit over Texas’ efforts to assume the duties of enforcing the international border — a responsibility that’s been abdicated by the Biden administration — moves ahead.

According to the Court’s order in Department of Homeland Security et al. v Texas:

The application to vacate injunction presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is granted. The December 19, 2023 order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, case No. 23-50869, is vacated.

Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Kavanaugh would deny the application to vacate injunction.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the liberal wing constituted by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson to grant the Biden administration’s appeal.

As Fox News Channel’s Bill Melugin noted on X following the Supreme Court’s ruling, this is “potentially setting up a significant state vs federal showdown.” That’s because most of the razor wire installed by state officials in Texas lies in Eagle Pass’ Shelby Park which was seized by Texas as it fights to secure the border amid Biden’s failures. Texas booted federal agents from the park, but the SCOTUS order means Border Patrol needs access to the park to cut the razor wire.

NH Supreme Court Affirms No Duty to Retreat When Acting in Self-Defense

It feels like it’s a rare occasion these days for any court with more than one judge to issue a unanimous decision, much less one that comes down on the side of our right to keep and bear arms, but that’s exactly what happened in New Hampshire on Monday as the state Supreme Court sided with a man who drew his gun to ward off an aggressor in a road rage incident, only to find himself charged (and convicted of a crime).

It was almost three years go when Joshua D. Shea’s was convicted on a single charge of criminal threatening with a deadly weapon, but the court has now thrown out that conviction after ruling that the judge overseeing the case erred by instructing the jury to consider whether Shea had the opportunity to retreat from the encounter. As the court pointed out in its ruling, lawmakers had removed any such duty to retreat from state statutes a decade earlier, and the judge had no basis to demand the jury consider the long-repealed law when weighing the evidence against Shea.

“After 2011, a person is justified in using deadly force when he reasonably believes that another person is about to use unlawful, deadly force against him, and he is not required to retreat if he is anywhere he has a right to be and was not the initial aggressor,” wrote Associate Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi.

Shea claims he pulled his gun after another driver threatened to “beat his ass” following a close call on Route 28 in Epsom, according to the ruling’s recitation of the case. While the complainant claimed Shea pointed the gun at him, Shea testified he merely showed the gun to warn the other man off.

The incident started when the other man pulled his car in front of Shea’s truck as they drove on Route 28, forcing Shea to slam on his brakes and hit his horn. After the two men “exchanged middle fingers” they both pulled into a gas station parking lot off a traffic circle, according to the ruling.

In the gas station parking lot, according to Shea’s testimony at trial, the complainant began “aggressively swearing and saying he was going to . . . rip (Shea) out of [his] car.”

Shea further testified that the complainant said he would “beat (Shea’s) ass,” and asked the defendant to pull into the parking lot next door where there were no cameras.

At this point, Shea testified, the complainant began walking toward Shea’s truck and he was in serious fear for his safety. Shea testified he unclipped his pistol from its holster and warned the other driver he had a gun. Shea says he brought the gun up to his chest to show the man the gun, while the other man claimed Shea pointed the gun at him.

Despite the fact that no duty to retreat exists in New Hampshire law, Judge Andrew Schulman still informed the jury that one of the factors in the case was whether Shea “could have completely and safely left the area without any risk to himself or others.” In doing so, the judges ruled, Schulman went above and beyond what is allowed by law and contradicted what the state legislature has had to say about retreating in the face of danger; namely, that there is no requirement to do so if they were not the initial aggressor. Even when deadly force is not used, merely the display of a firearm to prevent the threat from escalating, the gun owner has no duty to retreat or present their back to the individual threatening to commit an act of violence against them.

I have to say, it’s nice to be able to cover a decision involving our right to self-defense that doesn’t include anti-gun judges trying to twist the law to suit their own purpose. Granted, four of the five justices on the court were appointed by Republican Gov. Chris Sununu, but even the lone justice named to the bench by Democrat John Lynch didn’t try to play any games with the decision. The five justices all made it clear that folks who aren’t the aggressor are not compelled to walk, run, or drive away instead of taking steps to lawfully protect themselves, and I’m glad that the court reiterated that fact in no uncertain terms. Hopefully Schulman’s jury instruction was just an aberration to begin with, but now there’s no excuse for any other Granite State judge to assert a duty to retreat that doesn’t exist in state law, and that’s a big win for those of us who believe in the human right of self-defense

Baldwin Facing Involuntary Manslaughter Charges After Grand Jury Indictment

A few months ago it looked like Alec Baldwin was going to avoid having to choose between a trial and a plea bargain for his role in the death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins. Last April prosecutors dropped the original charge against the actor, citing new evidence that the gun in question might have been modified or malfunctioned, though they did say at the time that the “decision does not absolve Mr. Baldwin of criminal culpability and charges may be refiled.”

The investigation continued after the dismissal, and prosecutors received another analysis of the revolver by the Arizona company Forensic Science Services, which concluded that despite Baldwin’s claims that he never pulled the trigger of the gun before it discharged the round that killed Hutchins, “the trigger had to be pulled or depressed sufficiently to release the fully cocked or retracted hammer of the evidence revolver.”

Prosecutors recently brought that analysis before a grand jury, and now its members have indicted Baldwin on the same charge that was dismissed in 2023.

While the proceeding is shrouded in secrecy, two of the witnesses seen at the courthouse included crew members — one who was present when the fatal shot was fired and another who had walked off the set the day before due to safety concerns.

Baldwin, the lead actor and a co-producer on the Western movie “Rust,” was pointing a gun at cinematographer Halyna Hutchins during a rehearsal on a movie set outside Santa Fe in October 2021 when the gun went off, killing her and wounding director Joel Souza.

Baldwin has said he pulled back the hammer, but not the trigger, and the gun fired.

Baldwin’s not the only one facing charges, of course. Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, who was Rust’s armorer, has pleaded not guilty to involuntary manslaughter and evidence tampering in the case. Her trial was supposed to take place last month, but is now scheduled for February 21.David Halls, who was an assistant director as well as film’s safety coordinator, ended up taking a plea deal last March; pleading no contest to a single count of unsafe handling of a firearm in exchange for six months of probation, suspended.

Baldin’s attorneys offered a brief comment to Variety after the indictment was announced, telling reporters only, “We look forward to our day in court.” With the possibility of an 18-month prison sentence hanging over his head, my guess is that Baldwin and his legal team are also looking to see what kind of deal might be on the table before a trial takes place.

This case has been a hot mess from almost Day 1; with multiple prosecutors recusing or resigning from the case, charges filed, dropped, and now refiled, and conflicting reports about the gun in Baldwin’s hand when Hutchins was killed. Despite enough drama to serve as the inspiration for a whole season of Law & Order episodes, the case ultimately boils down to this: can prosecutors prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted negligently and without due care by violating some of the cardinal rules of gun safety on the set? They’re probably going to need more than a forensic report, so it will be interesting to see if either of the two crew members spotted at the courthouse where the grand jury met is willing to state that they actually saw Baldwin pull the trigger with Hutchins and Souza in front of him.

Speaking of the rules for gun safety, if nothing else, Baldwin’s legal woes are a good opportunity to remind him and everyone else of the four fundamentals:

  • Always keep your gun pointed in a safe direction
  • Keep your finger off the trigger until you’re ready to shoot
  • Know your target and what’s beyond
  • Treat all guns as if they are loaded at all times

Follow these rules (and I’d throw in the fifth rule of never mixing guns and alcohol/drugs as well) and you’ll be fine. Ignore them and it might not be just your own future you put in peril but your friends, family, range buddies, or even co-workers.

3 Gun Rights Cases Before the Supreme Court You Should Know About

Both sides of the Second Amendment debate will be watching the U.S. Supreme Court closely in 2024 as it applies the standards from previous decisions to new high-profile cases.

In the 2022 New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen decision, the Supreme Court ruled that, to be constitutional, new gun laws must match the plain text of the Constitution and the “history and tradition” of the United States.
“The test that … applies today requires courts to assess whether modern firearms regulations are consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority in June 2022.

One of the first major post-Bruen cases, United States v. Rahimi has court watchers curious about how Bruen will be applied. The high court heard oral arguments on Rahimi on Nov. 7, 2023.

Federal law currently bars those who are under domestic violence restraining orders from possessing guns. The Supreme Court in the Rahimi case will decide if it stays or goes.

Gun control advocates say the “text and tradition” standard of the Bruen decision, if applied in Rahimi, would allow violent abusers access to guns, resulting in the deaths of domestic violence victims.

“The Supreme Court must reverse this dangerous [Bruen] ruling,” Janet Carter, senior director of issues and appeals at Everytown Law, wrote on the Everytown for Gun Safety website. “Domestic abusers do not have—and should not have—the constitutional right to possess a firearm.”
Gun rights advocates say the Rahimi case has been mischaracterized as an attempt to arm violent criminals when it’s really about protecting society without preemptively suspending constitutional rights.

“It’s going to answer one issue, which is, do we as a country have a historical tradition of disarming people that we believe to be dangerous?” William Kirk, a Washington state-based lawyer who specializes in the Second Amendment, told The Epoch Times.

Continue reading “”

MONUMENTAL DECISION: THIRD CIRCUIT RULES THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT APPLIES THOSE 18 YEARS OF AGE AND OLDER

Today, Chief Counsel Joshua Prince secured a major victory for Second Amendment jurisprudence in Lara, et al. v. Commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Police, docket no. 21-1832, where the Third Circuit held that Pennsylvania’s banning of 18-to-21-year-olds from carrying firearms outside of their homes during a state of emergency is unconstitutional.

In so holding, the Third Circuit declared

The words “the people” in the Second Amendment presumptively encompass all adult Americans, including 18-to-20-year-olds, and we are aware of no founding-era law that supports disarming people in that age group.

In that vein, the court went on to emphasize that

It is undisputed that 18-to-20-year-olds are among “the people” for other constitutional rights such as the right to vote (U.S. Const. art. I, § 2; id. amend. XVII), freedom of speech, peaceable assembly, government petitions (id. amend. I), and the right against unreasonable government searches and seizures (id. amend. IV)…and there is no reason to adopt an inconsistent reading of “the people.”

In turning to whether the relevant historical timeframe is 1791 (ratification of the Second Amendment) or 1868 (ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment), the court declared

[That] to maintain consistency in our interpretation of constitutional provisions, we hold that the Second Amendment should be understood according to its public meaning in 1791.

In turning to the statutory sections at issue, the court acknowledged that

[t]aken together, §§ 6106, 6107, and 6109 – when combined with a state or municipal emergency declaration – have the practical effect of preventing most 18-to-20-year-old adult Pennsylvanians from carrying firearms

and that “that the Commissioner cannot point us to a single founding-era statute imposing restrictions on the freedom of 18-to-20-year-olds to carry guns.”

Accordingly, the Third Circuit remanded the issue with “instructions to enter an injunction forbidding the Commissioner from arresting law-abiding 18-to-20-year-olds who openly carry firearms during a state of emergency declared by the Commonwealth.”

Observation O’ The Day
“If you’re deferring to the agency’s interpretation of the law, you’re allowing the agency to be a judge in its own case,” said Mark Chenoweth, president of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which is representing fishermen based in Rhode Island.

A little fish at the Supreme Court could take a big bite out of regulatory power.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Business and conservative interest groups that want to limit the power of federal regulators think they have a winner in the Atlantic herring and the boats that sweep the modest fish into their holds by the millions.

In a Supreme Court term increasingly dominated by cases related to former President Donald Trump, the justices are about to take up lower profile but vitally important cases that could rein in a wide range of government regulations affecting the environment, workplace standards, consumer protections and public health.

In cases being argued Wednesday, lawyers for the fishermen are asking the court to overturn a 40-year-old decision that is among the most frequently cited high court cases in support of regulatory power. Lower courts used the decision to uphold a 2020 National Marine Fisheries Service rule that herring fishermen pay for monitors who track their fish intake. A group of commercial fishermen appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.

Billions of dollars are potentially at stake in front of a court that, like the rest of the federal judiciary, was remade during Trump’s presidency by conservative interests that were motivated as much by weakening the regulatory state as social issues including abortion.

The 1984 decision in the case known colloquially as Chevron states that when laws aren’t crystal clear federal agencies should be allowed to fill in the details.

Supporters of limited government have for years had their sights set on the decision, which they say gives power that should be wielded by judges to experts who work for the government.

Continue reading “”

Increasing Defendant’s Sentence Based on Lawful Gun Possession Is Forbidden

From Nelson v. State, decided today by the Florida Court of Appeal, in an opinion by Judge Jordan Pratt, joined by Judges Eric Eisnaugle and John Harris:

This appeal presents the question whether a trial court may rely on a defendant’s lawful firearm possession in sentencing him. We conclude that it may not. Courts deprive defendants of due process when they rely on uncharged and unproven conduct during sentencing, and this principle holds especially true where the uncharged conduct is the lawful exercise of a constitutional right….

Defendant had been convicted of selling marijuana and related charges. Then,

At the sentencing hearing, the court entertained argument from both Nelson and the State, with Nelson urging the court to impose 36 months, and the State urging the court to impose 87.23 months. During its argument, the State presented two photos of firearms found in Nelson’s home, noting that “a possible murder a couple of months ago that was probably related to the sale of cannabis” had occurred in Citrus County. However, the State did not argue that Nelson himself was in any way connected to the murder, and it conceded that it did not bring any firearm-related charges against him.

After hearing a brief rebuttal argument from Nelson’s counsel, the court announced his sentence. The court applied the discretionary trafficking enhancement and sentenced Nelson to 87.23 months of incarceration on counts 1 and 2 (to run concurrently).

Immediately after pronouncing this sentence, the court stated: “And what hurts you the most, Mr. Nelson, was … the photographs of the guns. They did not charge with those. I did not take that into account; but why you did this, I do not know.” The court then imposed three-year sentences on the remaining felony counts, with the sentences to run concurrently with the concurrent 87.23-month sentences….

Impermissible, the court said:

Trial courts generally enjoy wide discretion in sentencing convicted defendants within the range of sentences established by the Legislature. However, “an exception exists, when the trial court considers constitutionally impermissible factors in imposing a sentence.”

Reliance on constitutionally impermissible factors deprives a defendant of due process and therefore constitutes fundamental error. As relevant here, “[a] trial court’s consideration of unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct in sentencing constitutes a due process violation.”

In short, just as “[d]ue process prohibits an individual from being convicted of an uncharged crime,” it also prohibits him from being sentenced for one based on “unsubstantiated allegations.” [The court cites various Florida state precedents throughout this paragraph. -EV]

This basic principle of due process carries no less force when the uncharged conduct is the lawful exercise of a constitutional right. Both the Florida and federal constitutions guarantee the fundamental, preexisting right to keep and bear arms….

At sentencing, the State presented no evidence to establish that Nelson’s possession of firearms within his home contravened the law. The State did not claim that any law prohibited Nelson from possessing firearms at the time of his arrest, much less point to such a law that would pass muster under the Second Amendment. Nor did it charge him with any firearm-related offense.

The State introduced no evidence establishing that Nelson possessed his firearms within the home to further his illicit activities or for any other unlawful purpose. Indeed, at sentencing, the State affirmatively conceded that it had not charged Nelson with armed trafficking, as the firearms were not found near the cannabis. Moreover, Nelson had no prior convictions.

In short, not only did the State decline to charge Nelson with a firearm-related offense; the State failed to argue, much less establish by evidence, that his firearm possession constituted anything other than the lawful exercise of his constitutional right to keep and bear arms “in defense of hearth and home.” …

The court’s statements indicate that it may have relied upon Nelson’s lawful firearm possession in imposing his sentence, and the State has failed to carry its burden to show otherwise. By declaring that “the photographs of the guns” were “[w]hat hurts [Nelson] most,” the court suggested that it weighed Nelson’s lawful firearm possession against him.

At best, the State [in arguing that the court didn’t consider the lawful firearms possession] has shown that the court made two contradictory statements: one that it took the firearm possession into account, and one that it did not. That showing does not suffice. “[W]e cannot ignore the nature and extent of the trial court’s discussion of irrelevant and impermissible factors during the sentencing hearing.”

“Because the court’s comments could reasonably be construed as basing the sentence, at least in part, [on impermissible factors], and because we cannot say that the sentence would have been the same without the court’s impermissible consideration of [that factor],” we must “vacate appellant’s sentence and remand for resentencing before a different judge.”

If due process prohibits a trial court from relying on “uncharged and unproven crimes” when pronouncing a sentence, then, a fortiori, it prohibits a trial court from relying on the lawful exercise of a constitutional right. The State has failed to carry its burden to show that the sentencing court did not rely, at least in part, on Nelson’s lawful exercise of his constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Accordingly, we vacate Nelson’s sentences, remand these cases for resentencing, and direct the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court to reassign the cases to a different judge for the resentencing.

Victoria E. Hatfield O’Brien Hatfield Reese, P.A.) represents Nelson.

Bruen Strikes Again: Ban on Guns in Post Offices Tossed Out, Ruled Unconstitutional

Thanks to a decision by a federal judge in Florida on Friday, American citizens who are legally carrying concealed sidearms can no longer be barred from carrying inside a United States Post Office — buildings that are a quasi-part of the federal government and, in effect, the property of the American people.

 A federal judge in Florida on Friday ruled that a U.S. law that bars people from possessing firearms in post offices is unconstitutional, citing a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling from 2022 that expanded gun rights.

U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, an appointee of Republican former President Donald Trump in Tampa, reached that conclusion in dismissing part of an indictment charging a postal worker with illegally possessing a gun in a federal facility.

If there is anywhere, honestly, that the Bill of Rights applies, it should be in federal buildings and federal installations. Oh, there’s an argument to be made for barring carry in the Capitol, the White House, in courthouses, and so on – but those are places that are already secured by armed law enforcement (when they aren’t throwing the doors open for “insurrectionists.”) The post offices, not so much. Most post office buildings are pretty small, often crowded, and until now, “gun-free” zones. In other words, target-rich environments for would-be mass shooters.

This ruling is another victory for pro-Second Amendment activists, and once more, we have NY State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen to thank for it.

Mizelle said that charge violated Emmanuel Ayala’s right to keep and bear arms under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, saying “a blanket restriction on firearms possession in post offices is incongruent with the American tradition of firearms regulation.”

She declined to dismiss a separate charge for forcibly resisting arrest. Ayala’s lawyer and a U.S. Justice Department spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment.

The decision marked the latest court decision declaring a gun restriction unconstitutional following the conservative-majority Supreme Court’s June 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

Things in the last year or two sure seem to be swinging in favor of the Second Amendment, although the pro-gun community should not take any time to rest on its laurels.

Now that this ruling is in place – assuming it goes nationwide and survives any possible appeal to the Supreme Court – it would be interesting to see it as a precedential springboard into other federal facilities, such as (especially) military bases. Military bases in particular should be removed from the federal “gun-free zone” list; military members are in the profession of arms, and they are charged with enormous responsibility. It’s common to have an 18-year-old soldier, when on duty, handling and firing a weapon as formidable as a .50 caliber machine gun, and yet is prohibited from possessing a personal firearm on base. That makes little sense; in light of several publicized incidents on military bases in recent years, it would make more sense to have every officer and non-commissioned officer issued a sidearm to be carried loaded at all times when in uniform.

Post offices, granted, are a different kettle of fish. But now, at least, this decision recognizes that the Second Amendment rights of the citizenry are not negated by some bureaucrat mandating that every such building be a free-fire zone for would-be mass shooters. Self-defense is a fundamental human right, and now that right has been confirmed yet again.

SCOTUS denies one appeal of assault weapons ban while another waits in the wings

SPRINGFIELD – The U.S. Supreme Court has denied one request to review the Illinois assault weapon ban, but many believe the court is more likely to take up another challenge to the law later this year.

The high court turned down a request by Republican State Rep. Dan Caulkins, of Decatur, to hear an appeal of the case he lost before the Illinois Supreme Court in August.

In his appeal, Caulkins argued that he was denied a fair hearing at the state supreme court because two of the state justices had received large campaign contributions from Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker, who signed the assault weapon ban into law.

Caulkins also claimed the law is unconstitutional because it allows some people to keep their assault weapons if they acquired those guns before the ban took effect.

The justices at the U.S. Supreme Court gave no reason for declining to hear Caulkins’ appeal. But many people expect the court to take up a separate challenge to the law from the National Association for Gun Rights, which argues more broadly that the ban violates the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the gun rights group in November. The group is expected to file its appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court within the next several weeks.

INDIANA LAWMAKER LOOKS TO END GUN CONTROL’S MANIPULATIONS OF COURTS

If one Indiana lawmaker is successful, the abuse of the legal system by gun control advocates in Gary, Ind., might finally end after nearly a quarter century of costly litigation.

Indiana Republican state Rep. Chris Jeter introduced House Bill 1235, legislation that “provides that only the state of Indiana may bring or maintain an action by or on behalf of a political subdivision against a firearm or ammunition manufacturer, trade association, seller, or dealer concerning certain matters.” The bill “prohibits a political subdivision from otherwise independently bringing or maintaining such an action.”

This is legislation that might finally put an end to a series of moves to manipulate the courts into keeping alive a lawsuit filed in August of 1999 by the City of Gary, Ind., against members of the firearm industry claiming their lawful sales constitute a “public nuisance.”

The City of Gary, Ind., first filed their claims in 1999, as part of a coordinated effort by 40 big city mayors who conspired together through the U.S. Conference of Mayors with gun control activist from Brady United (formerly known as the Brady Center), lawyers and trial lawyers.

All these municipal lawsuits have either been dismissed by the courts, e.g., Atlanta, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, San Fransico, Detroit and St. Louis, or simply dropped by several cities, e.g., Boston, Cincinnati and Camden.. Many of these municipal lawsuits were dismissed based on state preemption laws enacted between the 1999 to 2001 time period upon which H.B. 1235 is modeled. Like H.B. 1235, these laws – that have been upheld by the courts – reserve to the state the exclusive authority to sue members of the industry except that they allow for breach of warranty and related claims for firearms a political subdivision purchased. 

Continue reading “”

 

ROCKY MOUNTAIN GUN OWNERS FILE LAWSUIT CHALLENGING COLORADO’S “GHOST GUN” BAN

Rocky Mountain Gun Owners [RMGO], Colorado’s only no-compromise gun rights lobby, announced Monday that they have filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Colorado’s newly enacted homemade firearm ban, Senate Bill 23-279. The federal court lawsuit aims to overturn the ban, which infringes on Second Amendment rights.

Three members of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, along with the National Association for Gun Rights, joined as plaintiffs in the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the ban on the ground that it infringes their right to keep and bear arms.

“This law is an outright assault on the constitutional rights of peaceable Coloradans. It’s not just an overreach; it’s a direct defiance to our Second Amendment freedoms,” Rhodes stated. “We believe that this law, much like others that attempt to restrict gun rights, will not stand up under scrutiny, especially in light of the recent Supreme Court decision in Bruen.”

The lawsuit specifically references the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which set a precedent that any gun control law must be consistent with the nation’s history and tradition of firearms regulation. Bruen prohibits judges from giving any credence to government arguments that the benefits of a firearm regulation outweigh the burden on citizen’s constitutional rights.

Continue reading “”

‘historical tradition’ my foot. Show me where there were any historical restrictions on accessories in 1791 or 1866. The judges who hate RKBA will pretzel a ruling anyway they can.

Gun Silencer Regulations Are Held Valid Under Second Amendment

A federal law requiring registration of firearm silencers is an allowable restriction under the Second Amendment, a Louisiana federal judge ruled.

The US District Court for the Western District of Louisiana rejected Brennan James Comeaux’s motion to dismiss a two-count indictment charging him with possessing five silencers that weren’t registered to him and weren’t identifiable by serial number, in violation of the National Firearms Act. Comeaux argued the law violates his Second Amendment right to possess firearms.

The federal law is supported by the historical tradition of regulating gun silencers, US District Judge David C. Joseph wrote

NRA Claims LaPierre Won’t be on Payroll After Resignation, Has ‘Chronic Lyme Disease’

Wayne LaPierre won’t receive any money from the National Rifle Association (NRA) once he steps down at the end of the month, the group’s lawyers claim in a new filing.

After LaPierre announced his resignation on the eve of the group’s corruption trial, New York Attorney General Letitia James’s (D.) office objected to the NRA using the unexpected move as part of its defense during the corruption trial that began on Monday. In a letter to Judge Joel M. Cohen, she demanded the NRA answer a series of questions about what relationship the group would have with its leader of more than 30 years once he officially left at the end of the month. The NRA’s outside lawyers, Brewer Attorneys and Counselors, responded by arguing LaPierre’s resignation undermined her case and insisted LaPierre would not receive compensation from the group after he leaves.

“After January 31, 2024, payments under the 2021 Employment Agreement will cease. There are no superseding employment or post-employment agreements with Mr. LaPierre,” Noah Peters wrote in a letter to Judge Cohen. “Mr. LaPierre will not undertake any other employment, independent contracting, consulting or other work for the NRA or any affiliate, vendor or contractor[.]”

The NRA’s claims come as it faces down a civil suit from James that could see LaPierre and other leaders barred from working at non-profits in the state as well as repay the group money it is accused of diverting to personal expenses. She is also seeking to have a court-appointed overseer in charge of the NRA. One of the accusations at the core of the case against the NRA is that it kept paying other executives, such as former treasurer Woody Phillips, after they left the group. But LaPierre’s alleged impropriety has been the main focus of the case. So, whether he will keep getting NRA money after he steps down could be an important consideration in the jury’s decision on if further reforms are needed.

To that end, Peters said, “Mr. LaPierre has no arrangements or agreements with the NRA or its affiliates regarding his resignation, severance, licensing, or consulting,” and he “holds no other position with the NRA, nor will he hold a position after his final day.”

Continue reading “”

Gun Carry Lawful Again in California as Ruling Against ‘Unconstitutional’ Restrictions Put Back into Effect

Californians with a gun-carry permit can lawfully carry a gun in most areas of the state once again.

A three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals removed a stay applied to a lower court ruling against California’s SB2, which created a near-total ban on gun carry in the state. The action reinstates the lower court ruling that found the law violated the Second Amendment rights of those with gun-carry permits.

“The administrative stay previously entered is dissolved,” the panel wrote in May v. Bonta. “The emergency motion under Circuit Rule 27-3 for a stay pending appeal and for an interim administrative stay is denied pending further order of the court.”

The administrative move, like the one that preceded it, has a huge practical effect. The stay allowed the state to implement dozens of expansive “gun-free” zones at the beginning of the year, including one on every piece of private property unless the owner explicitly authorizes gun carry. The cumulative effect of the new “sensitive places” restrictions added up to an effective ban on gun carry.

Undoing the stay practically undoes enforcement of those new zones as the case against them proceeds on appeal. California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D.) did not respond to a request for comment on the order. However, gun-rights advocates celebrated the stay being dissolved.

“The right to carry in California was unconstitutionally eliminated for almost a week,” Kostas Moros, a lawyer for plaintiffs California Pistol and Rifle Association, told The Reload. “We are relieved the status quo has been restored, and Californians with CCW permits, who are among the most law-abiding people there are, can resume carrying as they have for years.”

The panel’s actions reinstate the preliminary injunction issued against the law by U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney in December. Carney found SB2 “unconstitutionally deprive” permitholders “of their constitutional right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense.” He further accused California of intentionally ignoring and undermining the Supreme Court’s decision in 2022’s New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, which established carrying a gun for self-defense is protected by the Constitution.

“SB2’s coverage is sweeping, repugnant to the Second Amendment, and openly defiant of the Supreme Court,” Carney, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote. “The law designates twenty-six categories of places, such as hospitals, public transportation, places that sell liquor for on-site consumption, playgrounds, parks, casinos, stadiums, libraries, amusement parks, zoos, places of worship, and banks, as ‘sensitive places’ where concealed carry permitholders cannot carry their handguns. SB2 turns nearly every public place in California into a ‘sensitive place,’ effectively abolishing the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding and exceptionally qualified citizens to be armed and to defend themselves in public.”

The panel could still reconsider part of the stay before arguments in the case are actually heard. Those arguments are currently scheduled to occur in April.

NY AG Letitia James Flips NRA’s Former Second-In-Command

A new court filing in Letitia James’ case against the NRA reveals that she has flipped the former chief of staff of the NRA. In exchange for limiting his personal liability, he has agreed to testify against his former employer in court.

The Settlement

In a settlement (download a copy here), Joshua Powell agrees that he was guilty of misusing funds and not being true to his duty as an officer of the NRA. His damages in the case, or money that he officially owes the NRA, are limited to $100,000, which will be held in trust by the New York Attorney General’s office. In exchange for this, Powell has agreed to not dispute his guilt or the guilt of the organization, and agrees to testify against the NRA at trial.

This is very likely why the NRA held an emergency meeting today, with Wayne LaPierre resigning.

It’s worth noting that after being fired from the NRA, Powell started shilling for gun control. Whether this was a sincere view on his part or an attempt to get on Letitia James’ good side to limit his own personal exposure to the case is unknown and probably unknowable. But, we do know that he advocates for moving the whole organization more toward training and away from politics, and he may be influential in the outcome of the trial through his testimony.

What This Means For The Trial

With this flipping, the NRA has basically no chance at winning the trial. Between existing evidence and Powell’s testimony, the judge is extremely likely to award damages, meaning that existing corrupt NRA leadership will owe the NRA money. They are also very likely to be removed and barred from ever serving on the board of a New York non-profit organization in the future.

The court has already denied a motion to dissolve the NRA, so the organization will continue to exist. But, with the NRA decapitated, the court will have to appoint a special master to run the organization and rebuild its leadership.

The Big Question: What Does The NRA Become?

While it’s basically a foregone conclusion that the existing leadership is gone, what we don’t know is what kind of an organization will emerge from the process. Who chooses the new leadership, how the members will be involved, and what continuing oversight the new NRA will have to live with are all going to be decided during and after the trial.

At this point, there’s not a lot that members and instructors can do to influence the outcome, unfortunately. But, we do need to keep an eye on the trial and see what happens. When a special master is appointed and when a new board is selected, NRA members need to make sure to be as involved in the process as possible and push for a better organization to come out of this.

The NRA might not be allowed to continue engaging in legislative efforts, but the possibility of a vastly improved training and education department could end up being a very good thing.

For gun rights advocates, a ‘Bruen’ bonanza
Upholding weapons ban just one development

In a Dec. 22 press release, the Attorney General’s Office trumpeted the fact that it had successfully defended the state’s assault weapons ban in federal court.

But not only has the final chapter in that case, Capen and National Association for Gun Rights v. Campbell, not yet been written, there is no end in sight — here and across the country — to the battles spawned by the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

In Bruen, the Supreme Court refined the Second Amendment jurisprudence it had previously laid out in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, clarifying that it believed that appellate courts had gone astray in interpreting Heller.

Since Heller, the appeals courts had developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges, combining history with means-end scrutiny, which the Bruen court said was one step too many. The proper test should involve drawing analogies to the country’s history of firearm regulation alone, the Supreme Court ruled.

The court stressed that it was attempting to create “neither a regulatory straightjacket nor a regulatory blank check.” As courts were engaging in “analogical reasoning,” they need only find “a well-established and representative historical analogue, not a historical twin,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the six-member majority in Bruen.

Since that ruling, courts in Massachusetts and elsewhere have begun fleshing out the standard, often prompted by cases filed by emboldened gun rights advocates. Recent weeks have not only seen U.S. District Court Chief Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV’s denial of the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction in Capen but a Superior Court judge similarly rejecting a post-Bruen challenge to Massachusetts’ ban on anyone under the age of 21 obtaining a license to carry a handgun outside their home.

Meanwhile, gun rights advocates are celebrating a Lowell District Court judge’s decision to dismiss a charge of carrying a firearm without a license that a New Hampshire man had been facing for bringing the weapon he was licensed to carry in his home state across state lines.

Bruen has also revived a challenge to the state’s “gun roster” in the federal case Granata, et al. v. Campbell, et al., and spawned a new lawsuit challenging gun license delays of six months or more in Boston in White, et al. v. Cox.

Continue reading “”