Category: Courts

Firearms Policy Coalition
LEGAL ALERT: Maine federal judge issues preliminary injunction against the state’s 72-hour firearm waiting period. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco

“Though [Attorney General] Frey concedes that the Constitution makes inviolate a right to keep and bear arms, he asserts that it does not protect the corollary right to acquire arms, which is a curious construction indeed.”
“Acquiring a firearm is a necessary step in the exercise of keeping and bearing a firearm. Any interpretation to the contrary requires the type of interpretative jui jitsu that would make Kafka blush.”

Continue reading “”

Despite ATF’s Pistol Brace Ban Being Vacated, the Rogue Agency is Still Trying to Jail People Who Use Them.

Documents filed in an ongoing prosecution for illegal possession of a short-barreled rifle are raising new concerns about ATF’s enforcement policy concerning pistols with attached stabilizing braces. The government’s assertions of authority are truly breathtaking, claiming they can use the terms of an invalid rule to interpret the underlying statute and enforce it against U.S. citizens in felony prosecutions.

We have been reporting on the saga of ATF’s ill-fated 2023 administrative edict, Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached “Stabilizing Braces,” ever since the rule was proposed. The final version of that regulation reversed more than a decade of prior statements by ATF that attaching a stabilizing brace to a pistol did not create a short-barreled rifle (SBR) regulated under the National Firearms Act. Instead, ATF would use a series of vague and open-ended criteria to determine if the braced pistol was intended to be fired from the shoulder. But the rule provided no guidance to owners of such pistols how the criteria would be applied. Instead, ATF essentially claimed, “We’ll know an SBR when we see it.”

The pistol brace rule drew numerous legal challenges – including by the NRA – and several different courts found it defective on various grounds. A series of injunctions against its enforcement issued until, on June 13, 2024, a federal judge in Texas vacated the rule altogether. Owners of braced pistols breathed a sigh of relief as the threat of felony prosecution seemingly abated.

Last month, however, we reported on an alarming email to a gun owner sent by ATF’s Firearm Industry Programs Branch. The owner had asked ATF if attaching a stabilizing brace to a CZ Scorpion pistol would turn it into an SBR subject to the NFA. FIPB’s reply stated: “Federal law requires a pistol with an attached stabilizing brace or stock be registered as a short barreled rifle (SBR).”

The FIPB response also acknowledged that enforcement of ATF’s pistol brace rule was enjoined, and asserted, “While the appeal is pending, ATF is complying with the Court’s order.”

Yet ATF’s idea of “compliance,” according to the email, was to assert an even broader authority to treat ALL braced pistols as SBRs (not just ones fulfilling the “factoring criteria” specified in its rule), based on the agency’s reading of the underlying statutes.

After our reporting on that email, ATF quickly issued another statement, walking back the categorical statement about braced pistols. “ATF agrees that the statement ‘Federal law requires a pistol with an attached stabilizing brace or stock be registered as a short barreled rifle (SBR)’ is overbroad.” But the follow-up also continued to assert that ATF remained responsible for enforcing the underlying statutes.

“A firearm designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder that meets the statutory definition of a short-barreled rifle contained in the NFA must be made and transferred in accordance with the requirements of the NFA,” it stated. It did not, however, elaborate on how the agency would make this determination with respect to braced pistols or how owners of such guns might know whether ATF considers their firearms SBRs subject to the NFA.

Last week, however, NRA was made aware of a pending prosecution for illegal possession of a short-barreled rifle that answers this question in a shocking way. Documents the government filed in that case acknowledge ATF’s enforcement of the underlying statute continues to be informed by the terms of the agency’s illegal rule. The case is U.S. v. Taranto in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Continue reading “”

Yale Law Prof Backs Vance’s Claim: DOGE-Blocking Judge Violated Constitution

A Yale law professor says Vice President J.D. Vance is right: the federal judge who blocked the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from exposing wasteful spending by the Treasury Department violated the U.S. Constitution.

On Saturday, Judge Paul Engelmayer sided with 19 pro-waste state attorneys general who filed a lawsuit against the President Trump-created, Elon Musk-led DOGE seeking to prevent scrutiny of how Treasury is spending taxpayer dollars.

Judge Engelmayer issued a temporary injunction preventing DOGE and Treasury officials from examining Treasure expenditures – and declared that the Democrats have a strong case for a permanent ban.

However, as Vice President Vance wrote on X.com (formerly Twitter), judges don’t have the legal authority to dictate the actions of generals, prosecutors and the president:

“If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal.

“If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that’s also illegal.

“Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.”

In his response, Yale Law Prof. Jeb Rubenfeld agreed with Vance and explained how Judge Engelmayer violated the Constitution with his ruling:

“JD is correct about this, and his examples are exactly right. Where the Executive has sole and plenary power under the Constitution–as in commanding military operations or exercising prosecutorial discretion–judges cannot constitutionally interfere.”

intranet image

Following the ruling on Saturday, Musk called for Judge Engelmayer to be impeached for being “a corrupt judge protecting corruption.”

​Vance and Yale Law Prof​​

Leak Shows ATF Continues to Disregard Court Orders on FRTs

The ATF is still informing law enforcement agencies that FRTs are machineguns.

In a recent Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) leak released by AmmoLand News and Gun Owners of America (GOA), the government agency shared its fears about 3D-printed machinegun conversion devices (MCD), but not everything the ATF listed is an MCD.

The ATF included the Super Safe AK in its documents, claiming it was in a drop-in auto-sear (DIAS). The issue with that designation is that the Super Safety is not a machinegun or an MCD. It is a forced reset trigger (FRT), and the Bureau might be violating a court order by designating the device as a machinegun in its January 15, 2025, documentation.

Each time a shooter uses the AK Super Safe, they must pull the trigger. The statute definition of a machinegun is a firearm that expels more than one round per function of the trigger. For each function of the trigger, the Super Safety only expels a single round. It does not fit the definition of a machinegun as defined under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). The Supreme Court has already ruled that the ATF cannot change the statutory definition of a machinegun in the Cargill case.

The Cargill case involved a bump stock. SCOTUS found that since a shooter must pull the trigger between each round, a bump stock is not a machinegun. The Cargill case has been referenced in NAGR v. Garland, which challenged the ATF’s definition of FRTs as machineguns. In that case, the judge found that only one round is expelled per trigger function. The judge issued an injunction against the ATF from taking enforcement actions against the owners and manufacturers of FRTs. Yet, the ATF is still informing law enforcement agencies that FRTs are machineguns.

The ATF also refers to the AK Super Safe as the AK-DIAS. The AK-DIAS is not the same as the AK Super Safe. The AK-DIAS is a separate project and is a machinegun conversion device. It does convert a semi-automatic AK into a fully automatic firearm. The AK Super Safe engages the safety between every round making it impossible to fire automatically. It appears that the ATF is trying to conflate the two different devices which could lead to confusion amongst law enforcement, and the false arrest of Americans for possessing something that is completely legal.

This situation isn’t the first time the ATF rebelled against the courts or the White House. The ATF was criticized for disregarding an executive order demanding that diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) positions be eliminated. The order explicitly stated that those employees should be placed on administrative leave, and agencies should not try to hide them. The ATF did the opposite of the order. Lisa T. Boykin was the ATF’s “Chief Diversity Officer” responsible for implementing DEI at the Bureau. After President Trump issued the order, her title was changed to “Senior Executive.”

The ATF also recently came under fire for disregarding multiple court orders blocking the pistol brace rule. In that case, the ATF told a Gun Owners of America (GOA) member that their CZ Scorpion equipped with a brace would have to be registered with the NFA division of the ATF and pay a $200 stamp fee, or they could be charged with a federal felony. The ATF said that even though the rule was blocked, they could interpret the statute however they wanted. GOA forced the issue, and the ATF finally issued a retraction.

The situation is similar in this case. Even though the courts have barred the ATF from taking action against FRTs by a permanent injunction, they seem to be doing just that. Many view the Bureau as an out-of-control rogue government agency that ignores the law and does what it wants to do. This situation doesn’t instill confidence in those running the ATF, including the default head of the Bureau, Marvin Richardson.

Some have campaigned for Richardson to become the permanent head of the ATF, but this situation is the third time in a month that the ATF has disregarded a Presidential or court order. It leads many to wonder if Richardson is complacent or incompetent.

The Unexpected Silencer Lawsuit in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
Sanchez v. Bonta 24-5566

Many years ago, a wise, white-haired, old lawyer told me that lawsuits are not won because you have the law on your side. Lawsuits are lost by the guy who makes the first fatal procedural error.

That is why I spent well over a year preparing before I filed my California Open Carry lawsuit in November of 2011, and that is why my lawsuit is still standing today. I haven’t made a fatal procedural mistake. When the State’s attorney argued to the Court of Appeals that it could affirm the 2014 judgment of the district court on any grounds, the State’s attorney did not, and could not, point to any grounds by which the three-judge panel could have affirmed.

And so you can imagine my surprise when, after receiving an email PACER notification yesterday, I read the “briefs” and final judgment in this civil lawsuit challenging California’s silencer ban. The Order read:

ORDER FILED. Lisa B. Fitzgerald, Appellate Commissioner.

The court is inclined to appoint pro bono counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. Appellant may file a written objection within 14 days. If appellant does not object, the court will appoint counsel and set a new briefing schedule. [Entered: 02/03/2025 02:36 PM]

This is both impressive and curious.

The Order states, “The Court is inclined…” The Court is a three-judge panel that was picked long ago. Three-judge panels are formed long before they are assigned a particular case on appeal. Internally, two rosters of three-judge panels are formed. One roster consists of judges who will hear cases that will dispose of cases in unpublished memorandum opinions. The other roster consists of judges who will decide cases on the merits, via published, precedential opinions.

Each appeal goes through an internal screening panel of staff attorneys and judges. Most appeals are disposed of without any opinion being published because they suffer from some fatal procedural defect, such as filing a late notice of appeal.

Those cases that survive the initial screening process are assigned to a panel on one of the rosters.

In this particular case, it could have been assigned to a panel on either roster. But regardless of which roster the screening panel assigned it to, at least two judges think the case should be decided in a published, binding opinion.

That doesn’t mean the case will result in a published, binding opinion, but it is far more likely than not, given that the panel has, sua sponte, decided to appoint pro bono counsel to represent the Plaintiff-Appellant in his appeal.

Continue reading “”

D.C. Federal Judges Join the Resistance
Overriding the President’s Control of the Department of Justice

U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell (Nice when PID is provided)

Some judges have seized upon a new form of resistance to President Trump’s policies and agenda — Refusing to dismiss criminal cases with prejudice in accordance with the President’s instructions to the Attorney General. Three of the eight federal district judges in D.C. who are on senior status,1 joined by one of their colleagues, have tried to undercut Presidential authority in this manner.

This article will consider one such case before Senior Judge Beryl A. Howell. Judge Howell has frustrated the President’s clear intent by refusing to dismiss indictments against Nicholas DeCarlo and Nicholas Ochs with prejudice. She did this despite the fact that, as she admitted, “It has long been settled that the Judiciary generally lacks authority to second-guess those Executive determinations, much less to impose its own charging preferences.”

In her explanatory Memorandum and Order (“Memorandum”) Judge Howell not only refused to dismiss the indictments with prejudice but went out of her way to take gratuitous and irrelevant shots at the President and the pardons he granted pursuant to his Constitutional powers.

The Presidential Amnesty Proclamation

The date he was inaugurated, President Trump a signed a Proclamation that essentially granted amnesty for all “offenses related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.” The Proclamation addressed separately defendants who had been convicted and those who had been indicted but not convicted. Of those who had been convicted, they either had their sentences commuted “to time served as of January 20, 2025,” or were granted a “full, complete and unconditional pardon” for their offenses.

However, there were other defendants who were still subject to pending indictments for which there were not yet final convictions. For these, the President’s Proclamation directed the Attorney General “to pursue dismissal with prejudice to the government of all pending indictments against individuals for their conduct related to the events at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.” (bolded emphasis added)

The “dismissal with prejudice to the government” clause was intended to ensure that the government would never again be able to prosecute this category of defendants who were not yet burdened with a final order of conviction. It was the functional equivalent of a pardon. Judge Howell has now done everything she can to thwart that Presidential intent.

Continue reading “”

Colorado Supreme Court Rules Elephants Are Not Human and Must Stay in a Zoo.

One of these days, one of these animal rights nutcases will come before an equally nutty judge and win a case that frees some wild animal from a zoo.

Fortunately, that day has not yet arrived. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled 6-0 on Tuesday that six elephants in the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo cannot be transferred to an elephant sanctuary based on the legal theory that they have the same rights as human beings.

The court said the decision “does not turn on our regard for these majestic animals.”

“Instead, the legal question here boils down to whether an elephant is a person,” the court said. “And because an elephant is not a person, the elephants here do not have standing to bring a habeas corpus claim.”

You have to admit that it’s a very clever fundraising strategy by the Nonhuman Rights Project, which has sued a dozen times over the last decade trying to free elephants and chimpanzees from various zoos. They haven’t once been successful, but that doesn’t matter as long as the cash keeps coming in.

The elephants — Missy, Kimba, Lucky, LouLou and Jambo — had no intelligible comment.

That doesn’t mean they can’t communicate. Researchers have discovered an incredible number of sounds that elephants make at an amazing number of frequencies. We don’t know what they’re saying, of course, but that it’s a sophisticated example of cognitive thinking is undeniable.

However, until elephants can submit a legal brief on their own, they are out of luck in American courts.

Continue reading “”

Truckers File Lawsuit Arguing They Shouldn’t Lose Second Amendment Rights Just Because They Cross State Lines.

Do rights granted under the U.S. Constitution end at the border of one state when a citizen enters another? Generally speaking, no. The privileges and immunities clause of Article IV, Section 2, of the Constitution says that citizens of one state are “entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens” in other states. This includes the right to travel for employment and recreation. However, there are limitations.

The scope of the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms for self-defense across state lines is the issue at the heart of a case filed on January 7, 2025, against Bob Jacobson, in his official capacity as commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety.

The complaint challenges Minnesota’s refusal to recognize lawfully issued firearms permits of other states, including those held by plaintiffs David McCoy and Jeffrey Johnson in their home states of Texas and Georgia, respectively. Johnson also holds a permit from Florida, where he used to live.

The plaintiffs are professional long-haul 18-wheel truck drivers who crisscross the country, 300 days a year. According to the complaint, both maintain firearm competency with safety courses and memberships in various firearms organizations. Each regularly passes background checks required by their employment. Neither has any history of violence, felony convictions, or class one misdemeanors. Their backgrounds include experience as firefighters and emergency medical technicians.

The men consider themselves good Samaritans, their “personal ethos” impelling them to “make the road a little safer” by “helping stranded motorists, coming to the aid of accidents, assisting law enforcement and emergency workers.”

While driving, McCoy and Johnson regularly carry firearms for the purposes of self-defense, as well as defense of others, their home, and cargo. But whenever they reach the Minnesota border, Minnesota law requires them to unload their firearms and stow them in a closed, fastened container, rendering them not readily accessible. Other states have analogous restrictions.

Continue reading “”

Supreme Court Second Amendment Update 1-17-2025

In my last update, I wrote, “If a cert petition reaches its scheduled conference date without a justice requesting a response, then we know it was placed on the deadlist and never voted on. It was simply denied.” That remains true. Every Second Amendment cert petition that went into last Friday’s SCOTUS conference, where the respondents had either filed a waiver or did not file any response, was denied. In one case, the Feds asked for the cert petition to be granted, the lower court’s decision vacated, and the case remanded (GVR’d) back to the lower court for proceedings consistent with US v. Rahimi. With only one exception that I can recall when the Feds ask for a GVR, they get it.

I also wrote The “assault rifle” and “large capacity” magazine cert petitions were today relisted to this Friday’s SCOTUS conference of January 10th.” They survived that conference and were relisted to today’s conference. We won’t know until Tuesday whether they and the other petitions scheduled for today’s conference survived.

A response was requested for one of the petitions scheduled for today’s conference, but the Second Amendment was just one of three questions presented to the justices. I suspect that one of the other questions (most likely question 3) in Jarvis Parker, Petitioner v. Florida No. 24-6146 resulted in a response being requested.

In any event, when a justice requests a response after a waiver has been filed and the response hasn’t been filed before the petition goes to its scheduled conference, the petition survives that conference.

Last Friday’s SCOTUS conference resulted in 13 denials, 1 GVR, and two relists.

The petitions that were scheduled for today’s conference are:

Continue reading “”

This Gun Store Owner Just Forced the ATF to Reverse an Anti-Gun ‘Zero Tolerance’ Policy

Score another victory for gun rights. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) has reversed its “zero tolerance” policy created under the Biden administration to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

The policy allowed the ATF to revoke the licenses of firearms dealers who make common clerical errors on their paperwork. Several small gun shops have been forced out of business because of the rule.

Michael Cargill, owner of Central Texas Gun Works, joined with the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) in a lawsuit against the White House over the unconstitutional measure. The Biden administration capitulated before the lawsuit could be decided in the courts and reverted back to the previous policy, which only allows the ATF to revoke licenses for “willful” offenses, not small clerical errors, according to a press release issued by the TPPF.

Continue reading “”

SCOTUS Rejects Multiple Second Amendment Cases, Relists Gun Ban Challenges

On a day when gun-rights advocates hoped that the Supreme Court would announce its next big Second Amendment case, it only informed them which ones it was turning away.

On Monday, the High Court denied petitions for certiorari in Maryland Shall Issue v. Moore and Gray v. Jennings. The cases challenged Maryland’s handgun-purchase licensing requirements and the preliminary injunction standard set in the case against Delaware’s sales ban on “assault weapons” and “large-capacity” ammunition magazines.

None of the justices wrote separately to explain or dissent from the denials.

Monday’s orders list dashes the hopes of gun-rights activists looking to overturn lower court decisions upholding the gun-control laws in question. It continues the Supreme Court’s recent streak of rejecting Second Amendment petitions, even as it agrees to hear government requests for review of decisions striking gun laws down. It could fuel further concern among gun-rights activists about the Court’s resolve to expand on the standard it set in 2022’s New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen and address state-level gun bans or several other of its longest-standing constitutional concerns.

However, the Court left open the possibility it would take some of the highest-profile gun cases still pending before it. The Court relisted two other closely watched Second Amendment cases, Snope v. Brown and Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island, to be considered again at this Friday’s conference. That keeps gun-rights supporters’ hopes alive for a Supreme Court grant of review of state bans on so-called assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.

With no guidance on how the justices feel about those two cases and the possibility that the Court could relist them multiple times before deciding whether to take them up, those wondering about the future of Second Amendment jurisprudence face an uncertain timeline for further clarity. Still, Monday’s order list indicated what areas of gun law the Court won’t expound upon for the foreseeable future.

Continue reading “”