Courts – MILESFORTIS

Analysis: Where Will SCOTUS Come Down on ‘Ghost Guns’?

The Supreme Court is set to consider a challenge to the ATF’s unfinished frames and receivers rule, and there are some clues as to how they might rule.

On Monday, the Court agreed to take up Vanderstok v. Garland. The case centers on whether the ATF overstepped its authority by significantly expanding its interpretation of what constitutes a “firearm” under federal law. The outcome will determine the viability of selling unfinished parts, such as “80 percent” AR-15 lowers, without a federal gun dealing license. It will likely have a major impact on the homemade gun market that commonly uses those precursor parts.

The Court’s decision to grant cert is the result of a government appeal against the ruling of a three-judge panel on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The lower court sided with gun-rights plaintiffs and found the rule was likely “unlawful.”

Taking up a case that went in favor of the gun-rights litigants could be a sign that the Court wants to reverse that lower court decision. In fact, the Court’s tendency to take up cases where it wants to overturn the lower court is one of the main reasons to think it will go in favor of the NRA in the group’s First Amendment case. But that’s probably not what’s going on in this case.

Unlike challenges to state laws or state law enforcement, this case deals with the enforcement of federal law. The federal government requested the Court take it up. It requires the Court to settle an issue to avoid incongruity in how federal law is enforced nationwide.

If the Court didn’t take up this case, it would leave the ATF’s rule in place everywhere but the Fifth Circuit. SCOTUS prioritizes settling these sorts of questions, and it’s a reason to think that granting the case doesn’t say much about why it took it up beyond that.

What does say something about where the justices might come down is the record they’ve already established in this case.

The Supreme Court has already intervened here twice. Both times, it sided with the government. Both times, it blocked lower court injunctions against the ATF’s rule.

That might suggest that the justices will side with them on the merits, but that’s probably not the right read of what happened.

Continue reading “”

Federal Judge Says Pennsylvania is Violating 2A Rights of Young Adults

While you have to be 21 years old to obtain a concealed carry license in Pennsylvania, adults under the age of 21 still have the ability to open carry at least on paper. But for several years that’s been an impossibility thanks to a quirk in state law that bars open carry during a state of emergency. Believe it or not, Pennsylvania has operated continuously under various declared states of emergencies since 2018, so the only option for those who want to carry a firearm is to acquire a concealed carry license; an impossibility for 18-,19-, and 20-year-olds.

The Second Amendment Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition, along with several young adults, challenged the status quo in federal court, and won their case at the district court level. The state of Pennsylvania appealed to the Third Circuit seeking a re-hearing, but the appellate court turned away their request last month. Now U.S. District Judge William S. Stickman, a Trump appointee, has enjoined the challenged statutes from being enforced.

In his order, Stickman not only informed the state that it can no longer prosecute young adults for openly carrying, even during a declared state of emergency, but local jurisdictions must begin accepting and processing concealed carry applications from adults under the age of 21; a resounding win for the 2A groups and gun owners throughout the state.

“Judge Stickman’s injunction has conferred the same Second Amendment rights upon 18-20-year-olds that those over 21 have had,” said Adam Kraut, SAF’s Executive Director. “Now 18-20-year-olds in Pennsylvania may apply for License to Carry Firearms and the state’s draconian transportation laws have been enjoined from enforcement. This is a victory for Second Amendment rights in PA.”

This victory comes on the heels of a decision last month by the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to deny a petition by the state for a rehearing in the case. The court had ruled that young adults could carry firearms openly during states of emergency, and now Judge Stickman has expanded that to include their ability to apply for carry licenses.

“This is a major win for gun rights in the Keystone State,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We’re encouraged the courts are finally looking at this issue in terms of the constitutional rights of young adults.”

Absolutely, and that goes for the Third Circuit too, not just Judge Stickman’s excellent decision in favor of the plaintiffs. I’ve actually been pleasantly surprised to see some of the decisions that have come out of the appellate court since Bruen. In addition to denying the state a rehearing in Lara v. Evanchik, the appeals court also ruled in Range v. Garland that Bryan Range should not have been permanently disqualified from possessing a firearm simply because he pled guilty to a crime punishable by more than a year in prison several decades ago.

The DOJ has appealed Range’s case to the Supreme Court, but it remains to be seen whether Pennsylvania AG Michelle Henry will ask the nine justices to overturn the edict Stickman issued today. It’s a stinker of an issue, given the lack of a national tradition preventing young adults from accessing their Second Amendment rights, and at this point, the gun control lobby may want to keep this case away from SCOTUS rather than risk a nationwide precedent allowing young adults in all 50 states to keep and bear arms.

We saw that same strategy deployed against the right to carry when Illinois’s ban was struck down by the Seventh Circuit in 2012. Instead of appealing to the Supreme Court, Illinois Democrats instead chose to craft a “shall issue” carry bill; not because they suddenly saw the light, but because anti-gun activists convinced them to take one for the team instead of giving the Court the opportunity to definitely state that we the people have the right to bear arms as well as keep them. It took a full decade for the Court to finally get ahold of a carry case, but in the 2022 Bruen decision gun control activists saw their worst fears confirmed when a 6-3 majority ruled New York’s “may issue” laws unconstitutional.

We’re now arguing over the scope of the right to carry, but the gun control groups still have a vested interest in stalling SCOTUS from hearing cases where the law in question is so clearly contrary to the “history, text, and tradition” test laid out in Bruen. I wouldn’t be surprised at all to see Henry quietly stop defending the under-21 carry ban, but sooner or later this issue will get to the High Court… and I’m confident that once again anti-gun activists are going to be bitterly disappointed by what the majority has to say.

Judge Cites Second Amendment While Dismissing Gun Charge Against Former School Superintendent

A former Kentucky school superintendent who was charged with possessing a firearm on public school property had his case thrown out by a judge this week, who said prosecutors hadn’t been able to show a national tradition of prohibiting firearms on all property owned by a school district.

John Gunn, the former school superintendent in McCreary County, had just resigned his position in February, 2023 when he went to the board of education office around 6 a.m. to gather his personal belongings from his office. Gunn was allegedly wearing a .45 caliber pistol when he showed up at the building, but he left because his access card had been deactivated and he couldn’t get inside. When he returned during normal business hours he no longer had his gun with him, but he was still arrested by a school resource officer when he tried once more to collect his things.

Gunn’s attorney, David S. Hoskins, argued that the law was an unconstitutional infringement on Gunn’s right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.

Hoskins cited a 2022 case in which the U.S. Supreme Court set out a new standard for deciding the legality of gun restrictions, commonly called the Bruen case.

The high court said that gun laws must be assessed on whether they are consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

Hoskins argued there was no historical analogue regarding regulating carrying guns on school property — as opposed to schools themselves — and as a result Kentucky’s prohibition on carrying guns as it was applied to Gunn was unconstitutional.

The prosecutor, Commonwealth’s Attorney Ronnie Bowling, argued in response that the Supreme Court decision would still allow barring possession of guns in sensitive places such as schools.

Gunn’s act of carrying a gun at the school-board office “is not a traditional, historical recognized right” at the time the Second Amendment was ratified, Bowling said.

Bowling got it backward. Unless he could show a longstanding, national tradition of treating school administrative offices as “sensitive places”, Gunn presumably had the right to have his firearm with him that morning, and Judge Dan Ballou cited the Supreme Court’s “history, text, and tradition” test in dismissing the felony charge against the former superintendent.

Ballou ruled the prosecution had not shown “that the Nation’s historical tradition of regulating the possession of firearms extends to an individual carrying a firearm on property not utilized as a school, during a time when neither students nor school employees were present, and with no other alleged criminal acts being committed, regardless of the ownership of the property at issue.”

Honestly, this case never should have been filed to begin with. There were never any allegations that Gunn intended to do harm to anyone in the building. In fact, he went to the board of education building early in the morning so he could collect his things and be gone before anyone else had shown up for work. This was simply about possessing a firearm, and I can’t help but wonder if there was any underlying animosity from the school board that led to his arrest, when the easiest thing would have been to drop the matter once he’d cleared out his office.

Hopefully the Commonwealth Attorney will take the loss and let this be the end of Gunn’s ordeal instead of appealing Ballou’s ruling and continuing on with the prosecution. The judge made the right call in dismissing the case on Second Amendment grounds, and the interests of the public aren’t going to be served by trying to turn Gunn into a felon for merely possessing a gun outside of the school board’s building early one morning.

NY Judge: The Second Amendment Doesn’t Exist Here

There’s been a case in New York that I should have been following more closely. Dexter Taylor was a hobby gunsmith. He liked the nature of putting together guns from lawfully purchased parts.

However, the state of New York disapproved of this pastime. They arrested Taylor and, on Monday, he was convicted.

My friend Jeff Charles over at our sister site RedState has been covering this case pretty much from the jump, and in his story from Monday about the sentencing, there was something we had to talk about.

You see, the judge in the case has decided that a certain right of interest to Bearing Arms readers doesn’t actually exist in her state.

From the beginning of Taylor’s trial, it was evident that the court would be biased against the defendant, according to [Taylor’s attorney, Vinoo] Varghese, who explained that two judges presided over his case before the current official, Judge Abena Darkeh, took over.

The judge disrupted Varghese’s opening statement multiple times as he tried to set the stage for Taylor’s defense. Even further, she admonished the defense to refrain from mentioning the Second Amendment during the trial. Varghese told RedState:

She told us, ‘Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom. It doesn’t exist here. So you can’t argue Second Amendment. This is New York.’

Varghese said he had filed the appropriate paperwork to “preserve these arguments for appeal” but that the judge “rejected these arguments, and she went out of her way to limit me.”

The Second Amendment doesn’t exist there? Excuse the hell out of me?

“This is New York?”

This just smacks of “the Aloha spirit” nonsense where some parties seem to think that the Constitution doesn’t actually apply because they really, really don’t like it.

Is the judge in this case, Judge Abena Darkeh, suggesting that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply anywhere she doesn’t approve? What other rights don’t exist in New York under Judge Darkeh’s paradigm? Do defendants not have the right to representation? Is free speech non-existent?

Oh, one might make the case that I’m being ridiculous, but I don’t think I am. Not based on Darkeh’s other actions.

Varghese also tries to take a jury nullification approach. Jury nullification basically means you convince the jury that while a crime might have occurred, the law in question is the real problem. It’s rare, but it’s still a thing. Judges aren’t supposed to encourage it, but they’re not supposed to stop it.

Yet Judge Darkeh did just that. She reportedly warned jurors in such a way as to suggest they could face consequences if they didn’t vote to convict.

So, basically, it feels like Taylor got railroaded and that Darkeh doesn’t actually think people have rights unless she, personally, approves of them.

Yet that’s not how rights work. They exist even if they’re inconvenient. They exist even if you don’t approve of how they’re used.

Varghese says he tried to preserve Darkeh’s comments for appeal and was stymied. However, her comments should still be on the record somewhere. If not, her attitude should be clear from the transcripts.

But either way, Darkeh makes it clear that at least some jurists in New York really don’t think the Second Amendment applies in either their courtroom or the state as a whole.

It’s time they’re disabused of that notion by higher courts.

SCOTUS Grants Cert in SAF VanDerStok Frames, Receivers ‘Finale Rule’ Case

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday granted certiorari in the case of the “Finale Rule” on frames, receivers and parts kits announced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in April 2022, and subsequently challenged by several entities including the Second Amendment Foundation.

The case is known as Garland v. VanDerStok. It has been described as a case about so-called “ghost guns” built without serial numbers, but the issue is far deeper. It is really about the ATF’s alleged violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), and usurping the authority of Congress.

In a statement from SAF, Executive Director Adam Kraut hailed the announcement.

“We are delighted that the Court has agreed to hear our challenge to ATF’s frames and receivers Final Rule,” Kraut said. “ATF has continuously exceeded its constitutional authority and violated the separation of powers by creating law – a job reserved exclusively for Congress. It is time for the Supreme Court to remind ATF that it may not do so and affirm the judgment of the Fifth Circuit.”

SAF was joined in its intervenor complaint by Defense Distributed, a Texas-based firm. In their original complaint, they stated, “To comply with the Second Amendment,” the complaint alleged, “the promulgating agencies needed to jettison balancing tests and consider only whether their regulation is ‘consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.’ Yet because that did not happen—itself a key APA violation—it is no surprise that the new Final Rule tramples true historical traditions.”

The Associated Press is reporting that arguments in the case “won’t take place before fall.” That could push a ruling back to possibly June of 2025.

According to SCOTUS Blog, “A federal district judge in Texas invalidated the rule and entered a national injunction against it. By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court then stayed the order pending resolution of an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit and any cert. petition; Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh voted to deny the stay.”

For more than a half-century, since passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968, the ATF did not consider parts kits or unfinished frames and/or receivers to be firearms. But that changed 15 months into the Biden administration.

“This case typifies the Biden administration’s war on the Second Amendment,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “Clearly under Joe Biden, the ATF has unilaterally set itself up as the sole authority on firearms regulation, bypassing Congress and arbitrarily changing long-standing regulations to suit the administration’s anti-gun agenda.”

As noted by NBC News, after the high court granted the stay while the trial moved forward, the 5^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals “mostly ruled for the challengers.”

“Because Congress has neither authorized the expansion of firearm regulation nor permitted the criminalization of previously lawful conduct, the proposed rule constitutes unlawful agency action, in direct contravention of the legislature’s will,” the Circuit Court ruled.

The Biden administration does not want to lose this case, which is not actually a Second Amendment case, but has considerable bearing on how far the government can go to regulate firearms without violating the right to keep and bear arms.

South Carolina Man Planning Suit Against ATF Over Wrongful Arrest

Imagine showing up for work one morning and finding multiple law enforcement agents waiting to put you in handcuffs for a crime you didn’t commit. That’s what happened to Bryan Wilson last December, when a drug task force comprised of officers from West Columbia, South Carolina and the ATF took him into custody in front of his co-workers and employer after accusing him of trafficking guns and drugs.

Wilson protested his innocence to everyone from the cops who arrested him to the judge who formally charged him, but those pleas fell on deaf ears until a federal public defender was assigned to represent him started to dig into his story and realized that Wilson was telling the truth.

It turned out there was one person in the courtroom who believed him — Jenny Smith, his court-appointed federal public defender — and over several hours, she convinced a federal prosecutor to double check the arrest and see if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives didn’t, after all, have the wrong man.

After more investigation that day, the feds realized they had blown it. They made a motion to drop all charges against Wilson. Federal prosecutors apologized. U.S. Attorney Adair Boroughs apologized.

Federal Judge Joe Anderson quickly granted a motion to dismiss the charges “with prejudice,” meaning they cannot be brought again.

No one has ever explained how the mixup happened. It apparently was not a case of mistaken identity.

We can add this to the ever-growing list of topics that ATF Director Steve Dettelbach should be grilled on the next time he makes an appearance on Capitol Hill. As the lawsuit details, while Wilson is a gun owner, he’s never dealt drugs or trafficked firearms, despite what police testified during his initial court appearance.

At that hearing, a law officer “falsely told the judge that ATF had been watching Mr. Wilson for 13 months and then listed dates the ATF falsely claimed he sold drugs. The agent also falsely told the judge that the Government had Mr. Wilson on tape committing these crimes,” the lawsuit said.

After the hearing, Wilson continued to tell his lawyer there had been a mistake. The lawyer pressed the issue with federal prosecutors and after several hours, the mistake was acknowledged.

Wilson was freed.

But Wilson has suffered since the events of that day, the lawsuit said.

He has begun having migraines. Rumors have been spread about him among his co-workers. He gets messages on Facebook. Some rumors say he “rolled” on other defendants and worse, the lawsuit said.

“He has stopped going to the gym or doing fight training — his fitness passion. He worries about his teenage daughter learning what happened to him. He also worries for his parents, specifically his mother who continues to feel paranoia and anxiety stemming from the incident and now calls her son while he is at work to check on his well-being,” the lawsuit said.

Wilson hasn’t officially filed suit against the ATF yet, but Christopher Kenney, who’s now serving as Wilson’s attorney, says that’s likely going to come once he’s waited the required six months before he can challenge the agency’s actions under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The ATF should be served with Wilson’s lawsuit at some point in June, and it will probably be July before the DOJ files its response, which might tell us something about how the agency managed to screw up so badly.

Kenney said one of the purposes of the lawsuit is to find out exactly how this happened. Ordinarily, law officials in the federal system take great care in identifying the proper people whose names they bring before a federal grand jury. Prosecutors who work with front line law enforcement officers can ask about the suspects.

“Bryan is misidentified from the very first incident,” Kenney said. “One of the reasons to bring this case is to figure out what happened.”

If Wilson was “misidentified”, as Kenney believes, then who was the ATF surveilling for more than a year? How did Wilson show up on the ATF’s radar when it came time to issue an arrest warrant if he wasn’t the actual subject of the investigation? And what happened to the person the ATF was supposed to arrest if Wilson wasn’t their man? Was the actual suspect ever correctly identified and taken into custody after the snafu with an innocent man?

I’m glad that Wilson isn’t going to let this go with just an apology from the U.S. Attorney’s office, but I’d love to see Congress take an interest in this wrongful arrest as well. Bryan Wilson deserves answers, and with Biden’s DOJ going to bat for the agency the House Oversight Committee needs to Dettelbach to account for the inexplicable failure that happened under his watch.

LEFT: Attack women, get released with no bail, out on the streets immediately to brutally attack a little girl.

RIGHT: Don’t attend your son’s graduation or we will lock you up.

NYC Justice. pic.twitter.com/ppwkNxQMsY

— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) April 15, 2024

San Diego federal lawsuit challenges law banning most non-California residents from carrying guns

A firearms advocacy group and three people who live in Pennsylvania, Idaho and New Mexico filed a lawsuit Thursday in San Diego federal court challenging a state law that mostly bans non-California residents from carrying guns in the state.

The lawsuit alleges that the regulation violates the Second Amendment and 14th Amendment and should be overturned. It claims the law is “unconstitutionally restrictive” and bars the plaintiffs from carrying guns in California even though each have been issued concealed-carry permits in their home states.

“Individuals like Plaintiffs do not lose protection of their rights under the First Amendment’s speech or religion clauses when they cross state lines. Nor do they lose their protections under the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures,” the lawsuit alleges. “They likewise do not surrender their Second Amendment protected rights when they travel outside their home state.”

Included among the plaintiffs is Christopher Hoffman, a Pittsburgh resident who lived in San Diego County between 1990 and 2012. According to the lawsuit, the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department previously issued Hoffman a concealed-carry weapon, or CCW, license on multiple occasions when he resided in the county.

“Hoffman … frequently returns to San Diego County to visit family and friends,” the lawsuit states. “Hoffman desires to carry a firearm in public for self-defense while he visits California and would do so if California law permitted him to.”

Continue reading “”

Oregon Court of Appeals denies motion on gun control law

PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) — The Oregon Court of Appeals on Friday has declined a motion by the state to put a hold on a Harney County judge’s ruling, which found Measure 114, Oregon’s gun control law, unconstitutional.

The measure, which was narrowly passed by voters in 2022, requires people to undergo a background check and gun safety courses for a gun permit and bans magazines carrying over 10 rounds. The law has been unable to go into effect amid various federal and state legal challenges.

Bob Day permanently named Portland police chief by Mayor Wheeler
For one, in November, Harney County Judge Robert Raschio struck down the law after he found the permit-to-purchase scheme under Measure 114 is unconstitutional based on the law’s 30-day-minimum delay to buy a firearm, the measure’s use of language from concealed handgun statutes, and because the Federal Bureau of Investigation refuses to conduct criminal background checks.

The state then appealed the ruling in early February.

In a statement, Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum said, “Research indicates that mass shootings and gun violence have decreased in other states after adopting permit requirements and magazine restrictions. We are making a very reasonable request: Let Measure 114 take effect now so Oregonians’ lives can be saved—now!”

Lewis & Clark College faces class action lawsuit over 2023 data breach
Plaintiffs in the Harney County suit include Joseph Arnold, Cliff Asmussen, Gun Owners of America, Inc. and the Gun Owners Foundation, who argue the law violates the right to bear arms under the state constitution. They further argued the magazine limit prohibits self-defense.

This current ruling by the appeals court means the measure will not go into effect until the court makes a final decision.

r/GunMemes - Was nice while it lasted

Second Amendment Roundup: A Double Shot of Oral Arguments.

Once it decided N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022), the Supreme Court acted on several Second Amendment cases it had been holding, granting petitions for writs of certiorari, vacating the judgments, and remanding the cases for reconsideration in light of Bruen. One was a challenge to California’s ban on magazines holding over ten rounds, and another was Maryland’s “assault weapon” ban. With sparks aplenty flying, these cases were argued en banc on March 19 and 20 before the Ninth and Fourth Circuits respectively.

These cases should be decided in favor of a straightforward application of the constitutional test for addressing challenges to “arms ban” laws set forth in District of Columbia v. Heller.

Bruen simply made more explicit the “plain text first, and then historical analogue laws second” methodology adopted by Heller when it declared that the District of Columbia’s handgun ban violated the Second Amendment. Applying that methodology, Heller held that arms that are in common use by Americans for lawful purposes cannot be banned.

First, as a matter of plain text, Heller held that the Second Amendment extends, “prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms.” And Heller made clear that “arms” includes all “weapons.” If the instruments in question are bearable arms, the burden shifts to the government to provide a sufficient number of representative historical analogue laws (not the musings of anti-gun historians) from our early history to demonstrate that the challenged arms ban falls within the country’s tradition of firearms regulation. In fact, the American tradition of firearms regulation is really a history of no or very limited prohibition of arms.

Second, Heller looked at two historical traditions that spoke to the arms ban question. At the outset, the Heller Court acknowledged the history of Americans bringing their own privately-owned firearms and ammunition with them to militia musters. These protected weapons were “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes such as self-defense. The Court further found that the “in common use” test was “fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.'”

Putting these two historical practices together, the Court held that arms that are “in common use,” and therefore not “dangerous and unusual,” cannot be banned. In other words, Heller already conducted the historical analysis for arms ban cases, and it concluded that once an arm is found to be “in common use” – and therefore by definition not “dangerous and unusual” – there is no more work to be done. That arm cannot be banned, period.

Because millions and millions of law-abiding Americans possess both the magazines banned by California and the rifles banned by Maryland, those bans are unconstitutional under a straightforward reading of Heller.

Unfortunately, the en banc Fourth and Ninth Circuits appear to be poised to defy Heller and hold that the California and Maryland laws are constitutional.

Continue reading “”

3rd Circuit Denies Rehearing In SAF Pennsylvania Gun Rights Victory.

The Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied a petition for a rehearing in the Second Amendment Foundation’s victory in a case challenging Pennsylvania statutes that prohibit law-abiding young adults from carrying firearms for self-defense and prevents them from acquiring a state license to carry (LTCF) because of their age. The case is known as Lara v. Evanchick.

The petition for an en banc rehearing had been filed by attorneys representing the Commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Police. SAF is joined in the case by the Firearms Policy Coalition and three private citizens, including Madison M. Lara, for whom the case is named. They are represented by attorneys David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and John D. Ohlendorf at Cooper & Kirk, Washington, D.C.

Writing for the majority, Circuit Judge Kent A. Jordan explained, “The petition for rehearing filed by appellant in the above-entitled case having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this Court and to all the other available circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the judges of the circuit in regular service not having voted for rehearing, the petition for rehearing by the panel and the Court en banc, is DENIED.”

“We’re satisfied with the court’s decision,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “It’s an important win. The Third Circuit has affirmed that the Second Amendment applies to young adults, and that 1791 is the historical marker for understanding the right to keep and bear arms. Finally, the court has said 18-to-20-year-olds can open carry during a state of emergency in Pennsylvania.”

“We’ve been fighting this battle for more than three years,” noted SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, who is a Pennsylvania resident and practicing attorney in the state. “The court’s decision is an important step forward to getting this issue resolved.”

Ruling: Millions of NRA Members Exempt From Pistol Brace Ban

The ATF can’t go after NRA members over guns with pistol braces on them.

That’s the outcome of a preliminary injunction issued by a federal judge on Friday. US District Judge Sam A. Lindsay sided with the gun-rights group and enjoined the federal agency from enforcing its rule reclassifying pistol-brace-equipped guns as short barrel rifles (SBRs) under the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA). The decision keeps any NRA member who owns a braced gun from facing six-figure fines or imprisonment if they didn’t register their gun by last year’s deadline–something most owners didn’t do.

“[C]ompliance with the Final Rule is not discretionary, and the NRA’s members face severe penalties for their failure to comply with the Final Rule,” Judge Lindsay wrote in NRA v. ATF. “Accordingly, both of the final requirements for injunctive relief are satisfied because the threatened injury to the NRA’s members outweighs the threatened harm to the Defendants, and enforcement of the Final Rule under the circumstances will not disserve the public interest.”

The ruling is a concrete, if temporary, win for the NRA. While the group has lost millions of members due to an ongoing corruption scandal, and it’s unclear exactly how many remain, those who’ve stuck with the group will now enjoy protection from the long arm of the ATF. The decision puts NRA members under the same legal umbrella employed for members of the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Gun Owners of America through previous rulings.

Continue reading “”

Hawaii Man Victorious in Case involving Suitable Persons’ and Carry Permits

So-called “suitable persons” provisions in permitting laws are verboten per several Supreme Court opinions. When an issuing authority makes a subjective decision through their own thought process rather than through objective and definable criterion, it’s unconstitutional. Back in December I wrote about a guy that was denied a carry permit in Hawaii for allegedly being “not of ‘good moral character’ and/or ‘suitable.’” They other day Mr. Blake Day’s case received a stipulation to dismiss his case with prejudice, since he was eventually issued a Hawaii license to carry.

Mr. Day was denied a license to carry in the County of Hawaii for being “not of ‘good moral character’ and/or ‘suitable.’”

Drawing details from the complaint that was filed on the 6th of December, 2023, Mr. Day’s alleged lack of “good moral character” and suitability arises from what the Hawaii County Chief of Police stated was “due to ‘recent violent conduct.’” The so-called “violent conduct” is in reference to an incident where Mr. Day was forced to defend himself – with non-lethal force – while executing his duties as a contractor for a bank. The conflict resulted in no criminal charges.

The non-lethal force Mr. Day used was “a pepper spray air gun, firing it several times in self-defense,” because he was aggressively approached by a resident of a property that was supposed to be vacant. The resident was “yelling obscenities and ‘what are you doing at my house?’” at Mr. Day. Day stated that the resident “appeared to have something in his right hand and [he] believed it was a weapon.”

The stipulation was filed on March 28, 2024 and is as follows:

Continue reading “”

FPC and FPCAF File Brief in Support of Lawsuit Challenging NYC Long Gun License Requirements

NEW YORK (March 21, 2024) – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and FPC Action Foundation (FPCAF) announced the filing of an important brief with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in support of Plaintiff-Appellee Joseph Srour in Srour v. New York City, which challenges New York City’s shotgun and rifle licensing requirements. The brief can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“There is no historical tradition of requiring a license to possess a firearm,” argues the brief. “The only historical laws requiring a license to possess a firearm applied to persons without recognized rights at the time, namely African Americans and American Indians. These repugnant laws cannot form the historical tradition necessary for the government to satisfy its burden for several reasons.”

“New York City continues the existing trend of authoritarian governments relying on blatantly racist and discriminatory laws in an attempt to justify their modern gun control efforts,” said Cody J. Wisniewski, FPC Action Foundation’s Vice President and General Counsel, and counsel for FPC. “In reality, there is no historical basis for New York City’s modern requirement that individuals acquire a license merely to possess firearms. As such, its law is blatantly unconstitutional.”

Ninth Circuit Denies Rehearing En Banc of Panel Decision Holding Gun Ads Restriction Is Likely Unconstitutional

The order came down today; it noted that no judge called for a vote on the en banc rehearing petition. Here’s my post on the panel decision, from September.

[* * *]

California Restriction on Gun Ads That “Reasonably Appear[] to Be Attractive to Minors” Likely Unconstitutional

From Junior Sports Magazines, Inc. v. Bonta, decided today [Sept, 13, 2023] by Ninth Circuit Judge Kenneth Lee, joined by Judges Randy Smith and Lawrence VanDyke:

This case is not about whether children can buy firearms. (They cannot under California law.) Nor is this case about whether minors can legally use firearms. (California allows minors under adult supervision to possess and use firearms for hunting, target practice, and other activities.) And this case is not about whether California has tools to combat the scourge of youth gun violence. (It does.)

Rather, this case is about whether California can ban a truthful ad about firearms used legally by adults and minors—just because the ad “reasonably appears to be attractive to minors.” So, for example, an ad showcasing a safer hunting rifle with less recoil for minors would likely be unlawful in California. Under our First Amendment jurisprudence, states can ban truthful and lawful advertising only if it “materially” and “directly” advances a substantial government interest and is no more extensive than necessary. California likely cannot meet this high bar.

While California has a substantial interest in reducing gun violence and unlawful use of firearms by minors, its law does not “directly” and “materially” further either goal. California cannot straitjacket the First Amendment by, on the one hand, allowing minors to possess and use firearms and then, on the other hand, banning truthful advertisements about that lawful use of firearms.

There is no evidence in the record that a minor in California has ever unlawfully bought a gun, let alone because of an ad. Nor has the state produced any evidence that truthful ads about lawful uses of guns—like an ad about hunting rifles in Junior Sports Magazines’ Junior Shooters—encourage illegal or violent gun use among minors. Simply put, California cannot lean on gossamers of speculation to weave an evidence-free narrative that its law curbing the First Amendment “significantly” decreases unlawful gun use among minors. The First Amendment demands more than good intentions and wishful thinking to warrant the government’s muzzling of speech.

California’s law is also more extensive than necessary, as it sweeps in truthful ads about lawful use of firearms for adults and minors alike. For instance, an advertisement directed at adults featuring a camouflage skin on a firearm might be illegal because minors may be attracted to it….

Judge VanDyke concurred, adding:

California wants to legislate views about firearms. The record for recently enacted California Assembly Bill 2751 (AB 2751) indicates a legislative concern that marketing firearms to minors would “seek[] to attract future legal gun owners,” and that that’s a negative thing. No doubt at least some of California’s citizens share that view. They may dream that someday everyone will be repulsed by the thought of using a firearm for lawful purposes such as hunting and recreation. But just as surely some of California’s citizens disagree with that view.

Many hope their sons and daughters will learn to responsibly use firearms for lawful purposes. Firearms are controversial products, and don’t cease to be so when used by minors. But as the majority opinion explains well, there are a variety of ways a minor can lawfully use firearms in California. And the State of California may not attempt to reduce the demand for lawful conduct by suppressing speech favoring that conduct while permitting speech in opposition. That is textbook viewpoint discrimination.

That is precisely what California did in Assembly Bill 2751. Under this law, those who want to discourage minors from lawfully using firearms (such as for hunting or shooting competitions) are free to communicate their messages. Certain speakers (“firearm industry members”) who want to promote the sale of firearms to minors, however, are silenced.

I agree with the majority opinion that, even assuming intermediate scrutiny applies, California’s nascent speech code cannot withstand it. I write separately to emphasize that laws like AB 2751, which attempt to use the coercive power of the state to eliminate a viewpoint from public discourse, deserve strict scrutiny. Our circuit’s precedent is ambiguous about whether viewpoint- discriminatory laws that regulate commercial speech are subject to strict scrutiny. In the appropriate case, we should make clear they are…

Anna M. Barvir (Michel & Associates PC) argued for plaintiffs; Chuck Michel (Michel & Associates) and Donald Kilmer also represent plaintiffs. Thanks to Don Kilmer for the pointer on the denial of en banc rehearing.

Supreme Court Refuses to Block Texas From Arresting Illegal Immigrants.

The Supreme Court has acted. Texas is free to deal with illegal migrants in violation of immigration law by arresting them.

The Biden administration failed in its attempt to block a Texas law that allows the state to arrest those suspected of violating U.S. Immigration law. The Biden administration argued that the federal government may enforce or ignore immigration law as it sees fit. It said states like Texas have no say in the matter and no recourse to defend themselves.

The court majority said no to this overreaching, and some justices were not happy.

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote, “Today, the Court invites further chaos and crisis in immigration enforcement.” The court may still reopen the issue as a constitutional matter later, but for now, the Biden administration may not interfere with Texas.

Biden had wanted an administrative stay to halt any action by Texas as a way of shortcutting the process of appeals.

The Texas migration law makes unauthorized entry into the state, except at a port of entry, a state felony. While such entry is already a federal crime, the Biden administration has turned a blind eye to the law. Texas now has a free hand to defend its state borders.

A federal judge attempted to stay the law’s implementation, but the 5th Circuit overturned that ruling. The Biden administration hoped the Supreme Court would overrule the 5th Circuit. It did not.

The state argued, “Plaintiffs urge the Court to rush straight to the merits of their claims. But these cases do not belong in federal court at all—even apart from the fact that no state court has yet had an opportunity to construe any provision of S.B.4.”

The Supreme Court majority agreed.

“So far as I know, this Court has never reviewed the decision of a court of appeals to enter—or not enter—an administrative stay,” wrote Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh in ruling against the federal government. “I would not get into the business. When entered, an administrative stay is supposed to be a short-lived prelude to the main event: a ruling on the motion for a stay pending appeal. I think it unwise to invite emergency litigation in this Court about whether a court of appeals abused its discretion at this preliminary step.”

Further legal action is expected, but in the meantime, the state of Texas has been given the green light to proceed with enforcing its border.

BLUF:
After consideration of the arguments, the Utah Supreme Court agreed with the district court that Clara “presented evidence showing a reasonable belief that the snowplow posed an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to him and his passenger.”

Utah Supreme Court upholds prior ruling in first challenge of 2021 self-defense law

SALT LAKE CITY – The Utah Supreme Court sided with a man who fought felony firearm charges by claiming self-defense under a law that went into effect in 2021.

The case in question stems from a shooting in 2019. Jon Michael Clara fired several shots toward a truck with a snowplow that had repeatedly rammed into the SUV he was driving. One of the bullets flew through the cab of a nearby uninvolved vehicle, narrowly missing a child.

A blue truck with a snowplow rammed into an SUV multiple times, spinning it around to face oncoming traffic on Nov. 23, 2019.

Several charges against Clara were dismissed after he made use of a new self-defense law he urged lawmakers to pass. However, in an unusual move, the judge who presided over the case urged prosecutors to appeal his decision. In an opinion released Friday, Utah’s Supreme Court justices concluded that the district court “did not err” in its handling of Clara’s case.

Utah’s self-defense law

HB227 sailed through the Utah legislature in 2021. The law allows people who are charged with a crime and claim self-defense to have a justification hearing before the case goes to trial. If prosecutors cannot disprove a self-defense claim with clear and convincing evidence in that early hearing, the case is permanently dismissed.

That is what happened in Clara’s case in March 2022. Third District Judge Todd Shaughnessy ruled the state had not met its burden of proof, and despite evidence he said “troubles” him, he dismissed the case.

“This is one instance in which the state can appeal,” Shaughnessy said. “I would encourage the state to do that to seek some clarity on exactly what this new law means. But, as I say, I believe my hands are tied.”

The case is one of several the KSL Investigators followed after first reporting on the unintended consequences of the new law.

Utah Supreme Court arguments

During arguments before the Utah Supreme Court in May 2023, Assistant Attorney General Andrew Peterson argued Clara was not acting in self-defense, while defense attorney Ann Taliaferro argued Clara had acted reasonably given the circumstances.

Continue reading “”

Supreme Court Seems Sympathetic to NRA’s Claims Against New York Debanking Pressure Case
The oral hearings suggest an overall degree of favorability towards the NRA’s allegations of First Amendment violations.

The case, NRA v. Vullo, brought by the National Rifle Association (NRA) against a New York official and alleging freedom of speech violations, has reached the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) and, overall, the justices appeared overall sympathetic toward NRA’s claims.

The respondent to the NRA’s petition to allow the lawsuit to proceed, former New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) Superintendent Maria Vullo, is accused of influencing banks and insurance firms to drop the NRA.

The case concerns two actions taken by Vullo – first seven years ago when DFS started investigating insurance programs in cases of gun injuries tied to NRA. The following year, this resulted in three insurers stopping programs covering such claims in New York, and paying $7 million in fines.

And then, after the Parkland, Florida school shooting in 2018, the official decided it was a good idea to publish a “guidance” letter to banks and insurers (thousands of them), warning how their “reputation” might suffer if they worked with a pro-gun organization. Vullo found success here as well, as a number of insurance companies and banks heeded the warning.

But the NRA’s federal lawsuit that followed accused Vullo of violating NRA’s First Amendment rights. A court first allowed the lawsuit to proceed, but then the court of appeals overturned this ruling. And it is now up to SCOTUS to decide.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is representing the NRA, explaining its involvement as necessary to prevent the government from going after other groups in a similar way – even though the ACLU’s own ideological slant and that of the NRA are clearly on the opposite ends of the spectrum in the US.

The ACLU’s David Cole told the justices on Monday that SCOTUS should adhere to the Bantam Books v. Sullivan decision in this case, adding that “informal, indirect government efforts to suppress or penalize speech by threatening private intermediaries violate the First Amendment.”

In Bantam Books v. Sullivan (1963), the Supreme Court ruled that the Rhode Island Commission to Encourage Morality in Youth’s practice of notifying distributors about certain books deemed objectionable for minors under 18 amounted to unconstitutional state censorship. This informal censorship violated the First Amendment as it lacked procedural safeguards, leading to the suppression of book distribution without formal legal action. The Court emphasized that while states have the authority to regulate obscene material, they must ensure that such regulation does not infringe on constitutionally protected speech, thus requiring a balance between protecting minors and upholding free speech rights.

Continue reading “”

Law Enforcement Trainers File Scotus Amicus Brief against Maryland Rifle Ban: Citizens should be able to choose the same high-quality defensive arms that peace officers choose.

Last week the International Law Enforcement Educators & Trainers Association filed an amicus brief in a U.S. Supreme Court case challenging Maryland’s ban on many common semiautomatic rifles. The case is Bianchi v. Brown, and it has an unusual procedural posture; it is a petition for certiorari before judgement. Yet the case is one on which the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled.

This post will first summarize the amicus brief, and then provide the procedural background, which is detailed in the Bianchi plaintiffs’ cert. petition.

The facts about the banned rifles

As detailed in the amicus brief, the semiautomatic rifles banned by the Maryland General Assembly fire only one shot each time the trigger is pressed. This is the same rate of fire as the most common semiautomatic handguns, such as those made by Glock, Smith & Wesson, or Ruger.

The claim by gun prohibition advocates that such guns fire 300 to 500 times per minute has no basis in fact, and is contrary to common sense. It would take a superhuman trigger finger pull a trigger at the rate of 5 to 8 times per second, let alone do so for a full minute.

Nor are the banned rifles, including those based on the AR-15 platform, more powerful than nonbanned rifles. To the contrary, their standard ammunition is .223 inch or 5.56mm bullets that are small compared to most other rifle ammunition. Accordingly, their kinetic energy is lower.

Because the banned rifles are more powerful than handguns, but less powerful than most other rifles, the relatively low wounding power of this ammunition has been confirmed by decades of study by the US Army’s Ballistic Research Laboratory.

Moreover, as documented in police training manuals, the banned rifles are the safest for defensive use within buildings, because their ammunition is especially unlikely to penetrate a wall.

Continue reading “”