These Two Cases May Be Our Last Chance At Establishing The Right To Carry
Young v. Hawaii
The issue: Challenge to Hawaii statutes regulating carry permits to carry openly or concealed as violating the Second Amendment.
NYSRPA v. Corlett
Issue: This case challenges NY’s “proper cause” requirement for a CCW.
Judge Slaps Down Biden’s Deportation Freeze
A federal judge has slapped down President Biden’s 100 day deportation freeze for illegal aliens, ruling in favor of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who sued against the measure.
VICTORY.
Texas is the FIRST state in the nation to bring a lawsuit against the Biden Admin.
AND WE WON.
Within 6 days of Biden’s inauguration, Texas has HALTED his illegal deportation freeze.
*This* was a seditious left-wing insurrection. And my team and I stopped it.
— Attorney General Ken Paxton (@KenPaxtonTX) January 26, 2021
Court rejects Gardner’s second appeal in McCloskey gun-waving case
ST. LOUIS — A Missouri appellate court Wednesday rejected another challenge from St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kimberly M. Gardner to continue prosecuting a St. Louis couple who pointed firearms at protesters outside the couple’s mansion in June.
The Missouri Court of Appeals in St. Louis denied Gardner’s claim that Circuit Judge Michael Stelzer shouldn’t have applied the disqualification of Gardner and her office from Mark McCloskey’s case to that of McCloskey’s wife, Patricia McCloskey.
Gardner would now need a Missouri Supreme Court order overturning her office’s exclusion from the cases. A spokeswoman for Gardner said the office will appeal. Continue reading “”
SAF SUES BATFE OVER ARM BRACE APA VIOLATIONS
BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a lawsuit in federal district court against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and the Department of Justice, alleging violations of the Administrative Procedures Act relating to its flip-flop regulation of arm braces on semiautomatic pistols.
SAF is joined by Rainier Arms, LLC and two private citizens, Samuel Walley and William Green. The lawsuit also names acting ATF Director Regina Lombardo and Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, in their official capacities. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The case is known as SAF et. al. v. BATFE, et. al.
“There are several issues at play in this case,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “It concerns the failure of the agencies and its officials to abide by long-established and Congressionally-mandated rulemaking requirements, threatening rights protected by the Second Amendment. This is especially important to disabled persons because these devices were originally developed to benefit shooters with physical disabilities.
“We think it is also important to file this case now,” he continued, “because the incoming Biden administration has made no secret it intends to take various regulatory actions and issue executive orders directly affecting gun owners. We’re putting the new administration on notice we will be watching their every move where the Second Amendment rights of American citizens are concerned.”
Plaintiff Walley is a distinguished disabled Army veteran who suffered a traumatic injury while serving in Afghanistan in 2012. He was wounded by an improvised explosive device resulting in partial amputation of his right leg and left arm, and a salvaged left leg limb. He uses arm braces to stabilize firearms he shoots recreationally.
Green is a police officer who suffered a line-of-duty injury resulting in permanent nerve damage to his right hand. He also uses arm braces to stabilize firearms while he is shooting.
“With some two million arm braces now in common use,” Gottlieb observed, “BATF can’t just regulate an accessory like this and constantly leave people confused. We’re asking the court for an injunction to prevent this sort of thing from happening again.”
Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Chad Flores, Hannah Roblyer and Daniel Nightingale at Beck Redden LLP in Houston, and Matthew Goldstein at Farhang & Medcoff in Tucson.
Supreme Court takes two, non-2A, gun law cases
Greer v. US, docket. Issue: Whether, when applying plain-error review based on an intervening United States Supreme Court decision, Rehaif v. United States [which held that, in a felon in possession case, the government must prove the defendant knew he’d been convicted of a felony}, a circuit court of appeals may review matters outside the trial record to determine whether the error affected a defendant’s substantial rights or impacted the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the trial.
US v. Gary, docket. Issue: Whether a defendant who pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon, is automatically entitled to plain-error relief if the district court did not advise him that one element of that offense is knowledge of his status as a felon, regardless of whether he can show that the district court’s error affected the outcome of the proceedings.
These are the results from Friday’s Conference, which must have been lively. Other cases then considered, with no results yet announced, include an abortion case, a church’s challenge to Covid closures that it argues favor other gatherings over religious services, two challenges to mail-in voting in Pennsylvania, the death sentence for the Boston Marathon bomber, and a case seeking to determine whether President Trump can ban people from his Twitter account (which may now be moot). Most conferences are not so lively!
NY Judge Says Mossberg Shockwave Not A Firearm Under State Law
When it comes to federal law, the ATF has designated the Shockwave a “firearm”, not “any other weapon,” which would require it to be registered under the National Firearms Act. So, it’s legal under federal law, and according to at least one judge on the New York Supreme Court, the Shockwave can be legally owned in that state without having to acquire a firearms license.
Tilem says that it’s his hope that prosecutors will now “think twice before charging law abiding individuals with simple possession of firearms,” adding that the Nolan case, “along with so many others, demonstrates the injustices caused by complex, opaque, and confusing gun control statutes that even law enforcement and prosecutors do not understand.”
I truly hope that he’s right, but I suspect that instead Andrew Cuomo and the Democrats in control of the New York legislature are going to try to “fix” the issue; either by rewriting the portion of state law defining a firearm or adding a provision that “any other weapon” that fires a projectile must also be registered with the state. They could also approach their restriction from an ammunition angle; requiring a separate license to purchase ammunition in New York.
St. Louis Prosecutor Kim Gardner Can’t Prosecute Gun-Wielding Mark McCloskey, Judge Affirms
A Missouri Court of Appeals judge denied St. Louis prosecutor Kim Gardner’s appeal challenging the disqualification of her office from prosecuting Mark McCloskey.
The decision upholds Judge Thomas Clark II’s ruling from December that removed Gardner and her office from prosecuting the case after emails from Gardner showed she used the case for fundraising, according to KY3.
Friday’s ruling only applies to Mark, but attorneys for the couple are trying to have the decision also apply to Patricia McCloskey, according to the report.
Gardner is expected to appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court, according to KY3
Federal judge Leslie Abrams Gardner just blocked 4,000 votes from being purged from voter rolls in Georgia ahead of the Jan. 5 runoff elections that will decide control of the U.S. Senate. On Monday, the Obama-appointed judge who also happens to be the sister of Stacey Abrams, ordered two counties to reverse a decision to remove more than 4,000 voters from voter rolls.
The judge concluded that the counties appeared to have improperly relied on unverified change-of-address data to invalidate registrations in the two counties of Muscogee and Ben Hill. Voting officials in the two counties had previously agreed to remove the 4,000 voters.
The Muscogee County board filed a motion on Monday arguing that Judge Gardner must remove herself from the case based on her relationship with her sister. The board also noted the involvement of Stacey Abrams in controversial voting rights groups ho are in hot water over their tactic.
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RECUSAL
“The Court has reviewed the motion and finds no basis for recusal.”
Stacey Abram has been involved in questionable voting rights groups that are currently under investigation:
A Supreme Court in Hiding is Dangerous for Our Country
In accordance with Art VI of the Constitution, every sitting Supreme Court justice has taken an oath swearing that he or she will “support this Constitution.” The Constitution the justices have sworn to protect is predicated upon free and fair elections so that the government reflects the will of the People. When the justices refuse to protect election integrity, they are violating their sworn oath and putting our constitutional republic at grave risk.
I recently wrote a suggested Supreme Court opinion. It said the Court must decide “credible and significant” claims of election wrongdoing on their merits before elected officials are sworn in—-except for the President, where the Constitution provides a fallback political method of election. My article suggested what the Supreme Court should do. This article discusses their inaction and warns of the consequences if the justices continue to run and hide.
U.S. appeals court blocks NY governor’s limits on religious gatherings.
The federal appeals court in Manhattan on Monday blocked New York state restrictions on the size of religious gatherings put in place to combat the spread of the coronavirus.
In a 3-0 decision, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, the Orthodox Jewish group Agudath Israel of America and two synagogues in enjoining New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s Oct. 6 attendance caps at “houses of worship.”
The governor limited attendance to the lesser of 10 people or 25% capacity in “red” zones where the coronavirus risk was highest, and 25 people or 33% capacity in slightly less risky “orange” zones, even in buildings that seat hundreds.
Circuit Judge Michael Park said the plaintiffs established irreparable harm by showing the restrictions impaired their free exercise of religion.
He also said “no public interest is served by maintaining an unconstitutional policy when constitutional alternatives are available to achieve the same goal.”
On December 21st, 2020, Maryland Shall Issue, Inc., filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari before the Supreme Court of United States in Maryland Shall Issue, Inc et al. v Hogan. Read the petition HERE.
This is our challenge to Maryland’s 2018’s Senate Bill 707, which criminalizes the mere possession of so-called “rapid-fire trigger activators.” This legislation forced existing lawful owners of the affected devices who purchased these devices long before SB 707 became law to dispossess themselves of this lawfully acquired and lawfully owned property without any sort of compensation.
MSI’s suit challenged this lack of compensation under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights and under the Maryland Constitution. The Federal district court and Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that this forced dispossession of lawfully acquired private property was not a “Taking” because SB 707 did not require that the items be turned over to the government or third parties. That’s just wrong.
Indeed, the Fourth Circuit’s holding is not limited to these devices but is equally applicable to all types of personal property and would thus allow the General Assembly to pass a law ordering the dispossession of any lawfully owned private personal property, all without paying just compensation. The potential for abuse is endless. And we all know from sad experience that if power can be abused, it will be, sooner or later.
FPC Challenges California’s ‘1-in-30’ Firearm Purchase Ban in New Second Amendment Lawsuit
Today, FPC announced the filing of a new federal Second Amendment lawsuit, Michelle Nguyen, et al. v. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, et al., challenging the State’s ban on purchasing more than one handgun or semiautomatic, centerfire rifle in a 30-day period. Plaintiffs in this action include Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, three individuals, and two licensed firearm retailers in San Diego County. The complaint can be found at FPCLegal.org.
The State of California “unconstitutionally prohibit[s]—under pain of criminal penalty—the average, adult individual who is not prohibited from possessing and acquiring firearms— even those known to Defendants as such—from purchasing or receiving more than one handgun at a time,” the plaintiff’s complaint says. “And as of July of 2021, that prohibition will extend to all semiautomatic centerfire rifles, thus applying to two large categories of constitutionally protected firearms that are unquestionably in common use for lawful purposes.” Continue reading “”
Reading the Second Amendment SCOTUS Tea Leaves
On Monday, the Supreme Court denied cert in Torres v. United States, the first case that presented a direct Second Amendment issue since Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the Court. Torres raised the question of whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)—which categorically forbids those with felony convictions from possessing firearms—can be challenged on an as-applied basis. We know that Justice Barrett believes it can. She concluded as a circuit judge, in Kanter v. Barr, that not only can courts review as-applied challenges, but that the plaintiff in that case succeeded in establishing the unconstitutionality of the law as to him. In doing so, she invoked a “dangerousness” principle that limits the scope of constitutionally permissible legislative authority to disarm classes of people. Other courts and scholars have argued that virtue, not dangerousness, is the touchstone. The Third Circuit recently wrestled with this question of the justification for felon disarmament, so it does not seem like the issue is going away.
And yet, the Supreme Court has continuously declined to hear these cases. Justice Thomas repeatedly, joined occasionally by Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, has dissented from the Court’s refusal to hear a Second Amendment challenge, but I am not aware of any dissent of his from a case challenging the felon prohibitor. This past summer, after the majority dismissed New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York on mootness grounds, the Court considered 10 other Second Amendment challenges it had been holding for that decision. It denied them all, with Justice Thomas, joined in part by Justice Kavanaugh, dissenting in only one case concerning public carry restrictions. In fact, according to my review, of the several Second Amendment cert petitions filed between the time the Court granted cert in NYSRPA and the time it issued its decision, there was only one that it did not hold: Medina v. Barr. The Court denied cert outright even while it had NYSRPA under review. That case, like Kanter and Torres, was an as-applied challenge to 922(g)(1). In my view, these are some strong hints that the Supreme Court is not eager to wade back into the Second Amendment morass with a prohibited person case. Continue reading “”
Let me add a bit more context about what I meant by “here’s why.” Roberts obviously was rationalizing his pre-disposition not to take the politically controversial Texas case. This report is a plausible puzzle piece that fits that obvious explanation.
— Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) December 17, 2020
Gun Maker Smith & Wesson Sues New Jersey to Block Subpoena
Democratic attorney general is seeking evidence of fraudulent marketing by firearms manufacturer, according to lawsuit
BLUF:
State District Judge fiddled around trying to find a way to not order the man’s guns returned. Man files Appeal with Appeals Court and wins.
Right to Get Guns Back Once Temporary Anti-Stalking Injunction Is Dismissed
“We certainly would not fault a trial judge’s desire to ensure public safety. But judicial concern, understandable as it may be, does not confer judicial power.” Continue reading “”
Justice Samuel Alito’s Gift to America Will Keep Giving Year-Round
When Santa Clara County (Calif.) Superior Court Judge Peter Kirwan imposed $55,000 in fines on Calvary Chapel San Jose for defying the state’s ban on indoor worship, he warned church officials against resistance.
“Even if you disagree with those opinions, these orders do have a purpose,” Kirwan told Pastor Mike McClure and the church’s attorneys. “You can’t just ignore those rules and regulations, nor can you ignore a court order just because you disagree with them.”
Judge Kirwan should spend a little time reading the New Testament book of Acts, especially in its fifth chapter, which relates what happened when Peter and the Apostles were jailed by the Sanhedrin for talking about Jesus’ resurrection.
When told to stop doing so, Acts tell us, “Peter and the apostles answered, ‘We must obey God rather than men.’” The chapter concludes by noting that “every day, in the temple and from house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching that the Christ is Jesus.”
It’s hard not to hear echoes of Acts in the battles being waged today by McClure, Grace Community Church’s Senior Pastor John MacArthur in Los Angeles, Godspeak Calvary Chapel’s Pastor Rob McCoy in Thousand Oaks, and nearly a dozen other pastors and congregations throughout the Golden State.
And it’s not just in established churches and it’s not just in California. Early in the early summer weeks of the national lockdown, hundreds of people turned out for worship and baptisms at Huntington Beach in California.
“What we’re seeing now is a return back to a gritty, raw Gospel, Jesus people movement foundation. A lot of that is in part because we can’t be in our churches,” worship leader Sean Feucht told Christian Post.
“We are kind of forced to be outside of our buildings and forced to be innovative and creative and come up with alternate solutions,” said Feucht, who went on to lead gatherings on beaches and elsewhere in Seattle, Portland, Chicago, and Washington, D.C.
Something is stirring spiritually in the nation’s collective consciousness, it seems. And the timing of a November address to a group of lawyers by Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito just might be providential as well. Continue reading “”
Giuliani to Newsmax TV: Legal Fight Will Go On
Rudy Giuliani says President Donald Trump’s legal battle will go on despite the Supreme Court rejecting a bid Friday from Texas’ attorney general to block the ballots of millions of voters in battleground states that went in favor of Joe Biden.
“The case wasn’t rejected on the merits, the case was rejected on standing,” Giuliani said Friday during an appearance on Newsmax TV’s “Stinchfield.”
“The answer to that is to bring the case now in the district court by the president, by some of the electors, alleging the same facts where there would be standing and therefore get a hearing.”
The court’s order was issued with no public dissents. The Electoral College will convene Monday to affirm Biden’s win.
“The worst part of this is, basically the courts are saying they want to stay out of this, and they don’t want to give us a hearing and they don’t want the American people to hear these facts.,” said Giuliani.
“That’s a terrible, terrible mistake. These facts will remain an open sore in our history unless they don’t get resolved. They need to be heard, they need to be aired and somebody needs to make a decision on whether they’re true or false and some court’s going to have the courage to make that decision.”
The lawsuit, brought by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, sought to sue Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin and Michigan and invalidate their election results. The Supreme Court said Texas had not demonstrated “a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.”
I actually didn’t think SCOTUS could decide to not hear a case when they are the court of ‘original jurisdiction’ in the Constitution. I guess we’re in land now where TPTB can make it up as they go. So, I guess that means the people can make it up as they go too. “Law? What Law?”
Supreme Court (?)Unanimously(?) Denies Texas Emergency Relief, Refuses to Grant Motion for Leave to File
The Supreme Court, 7-2, voted to deny Texas AG Paxton’s motion for leave to file its election complaint. Justices Alito and Thomas would grant Motion for Leave, but provide no other relief.
This evening, in Texas v. Pennsylvania, a unanimous Supreme Court refused to grant Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton an injunction or other relief that would bar the selection of presidential electors in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. As detailed in the just-released order, seven justices would deny the Texas AG’s Motion for Leave to file a complaint, citing a lack of Article III standing. Justices Alito and Thomas, citing their long-standing belief that the Court lacks the discretion to deny the motion, would have granted the motion, but would have provided Texas with no other relief. In other words, not a single justice believed Texas deserved the extraordinary relief it sought.
The Court’s order reads:
The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.
Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.
Judge Sullivan’s Final ‘Verdict.’
It’s tempting to say that Judge Emmet Sullivan’s final ruling in the Michael Flynn case reduced the judiciary to the level of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. But that would be unfair to today’s law enforcement.
Judge Sullivan finally, belatedly, churlishly dismissed the Flynn case as moot on Tuesday, two weeks after President Trump pardoned the former national security adviser. But the self-important Judge Sullivan couldn’t resist delivering a parting “verdict.” He issued a 43-page opinion in which he all but declared Mr. Flynn guilty of lying and perjury and the entire Justice Department corrupt.
Attorney General William Barr has at least been attempting to atone for the FBI’s and Justice Department’s scurrilous behavior during the 2016 campaign and after Mr. Trump’s election. Earlier this year Mr. Barr assigned a veteran prosecutor, Jeffrey Jensen, to review the original Flynn case—amid growing evidence the FBI had entrapped him and that special counsel Robert Mueller’s prosecutors had pressured him to plead guilty of lying to the bureau. Mr. Jensen’s findings were unequivocal. He said the FBI’s January 2017 interview of Mr. Flynn should never have happened, as it was “untethered” to a legitimate investigation. Mr. Jensen recommended the charges be dropped, which the department officially asked Judge Sullivan to do in May. Continue reading “”