Category: Courts

Judge Refuses to Block Concealed Carry on Public Transportation

A United States District Court judge refused to stay an injunction against an Illinois law blocking the carrying of firearms on public transportation.

Last month, in a case brought by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled that the Illinois law banning firearms from being carried on public transportation by concealed carry holders was unconstitutional. The judge granted an injunction to the plaintiffs, blocking the enforcement of the law. Illinois vowed to appeal the judge’s ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Illinois would then ask U.S. District Court Judge Iain D. Johnston to stay his ruling pending an appeal by the defendants to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The state tried to appeal to the judge’s emotions by citing a recent shooting on public transportation, but this move would backfire. Only days after the judge’s decision, a person shot and killed someone on local public transit. The state tried to exploit the situation to prove how dangerous public transportation is without its restrictive laws against carrying concealed firearms.

The judges asked the defendants if the person who did the shooting was a concealed permit holder. The state could not answer the judge’s simple question. The judge was unhappy with the state’s lack of knowledge and read them the riot act. If the shooter didn’t have a concealed carry permit, he would have been in violation of the law, no matter if the judge sided with the state and never issued an injunction. The shooter turned out not to be a concealed firearms permit holder. Instead of the judge being swayed by the state’s argument to issue a stay, it seemed to make the Trump appointee even more determined not to give into the state’s demands.

Illinois tried to argue about interest balancing and why it should get a stay. Interest balancing weighs the rights of the people against the wishes of the state. Illinois tried to argue that “public safety” outweighed an individual right to bear arms. In the past, states would use this defense to push back against lawsuits filed by pro-gun organizations. States stopped using the tactic after the Supreme Court’s Bruen opinion. In that case, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas said that the “Second Amendment is not a second-class right.” SCOTUS stated that courts could not use interest balancing in determining if a law was constitutional. Only the history, tradition, and original text of the Second Amendment from the founding era can be used by the courts to decide if a gun law is constitutional.

The Illinois law was a response to the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision. It seemed like the state, through its argument for a stay, was once again thumbing its nose at the high court and its conservative majority. Even if a district judge is a liberal who disagrees with the opinion of SCOTUS, they are still bound by its ruling because the District Court is inferior to the Supreme Court.

For now, Illinois will remain enjoined from enforcing its concealed carry ban on public transportation. The state is expected to go to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the judge’s ruling. This case taught lawyers everywhere that emotions cannot persuade some judges and that those judges will stand firmly behind the Constitutional rights of Americans.

BLUF
The States’ Brief ends with the truism that policy concerns can’t trump statutory text. “Left with little in the way of textual support, many of ATF’s amici argue that this Court should depart from the statute’s plain meaning because excluding ‘ghost guns’ from the GCA’s scope would purportedly have dire consequences.” But that’s a matter for Congress, not the agency or the Court.

Second Amendment Roundup: Follow ATF into a Political Briar Patch?

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments next week, on October 8, in Garland v. VanDerStok, the challenge to the radical expansion of the regulatory definition of “firearm” in the Gun Control Act (GCA). Neither Congress nor the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) ever touched that statutory definition passed by Congress in 1968. And both left the non-controversial regulatory definition of “firearm frame or receiver” undisturbed since 1968. But suddenly in 2022 ATF promulgated a Final Rule redefining those terms to include materials, tools, and information that a person with knowledge and skill can use to fabricate a firearm or a frame or receiver.

One of the most hard-hitting amici briefs filed in support of the challengers to the regulation is the brief of the States of West Virginia and 26 other States. ATF, the brief argues, “is a political briar patch because of its rulemaking authority.” That characterization is from a law review article with the parodistic title “Almost Heaven, West Virginia?: The Country Road to Take Firearm Regulation Back Home to Congress and the States.” That play on words brings together John Denver’s “Take Me Home, Country Roads” with the major question doctrine set forth in West Virginia v. EPA, 142 S. Ct. 2587 (2022). If that rule of law applies to anything, it applies to ATF’s recent the regulatory rampage.

Given the political volatility of the “gun control” issue, Congress has historically been torn between constituents who support the Second Amendment and those who wish to criminalize various forms of acquisition and possession of firearms. Because that the issue is a “major question,” Congress writes gun statutes carefully and narrowly in a manner that leaves nothing to chance. As the States’ Brief says:

Given the sensitivity of this work, one might at least expect ATF to tread carefully before purporting to regulate in unexpected and aggressive new ways. But recently, it hasn’t. ATF has instead seemed determined to stretch the words found in statutes like the GCA and NFA [National Firearm Act] to reach conduct never anticipated by the lawmakers who passed them. This case, concerning ATF’s efforts to regulate gun kits and other forms of private firearms assembly under the guise of calling them “frames or receivers” subject to the GCA, is just the latest example of that effort.

This is not the first, and it won’t be the last, overreach by ATF. As the States’ Brief continues, “many of the Amici States here have been compelled to step in and sue ATF multiple times over the past few years just to return the agency to its actual area of authority.” Thus, “when the Court encounters another ATF regulation offering a purportedly creative solution to a long-standing problem, it should be wary.”

Continue reading “”

House Oversight Committee Subpoenas White House, ATF Over Chicago’s Glock Lawsuit

House Oversight Committee chair James Comer (R-OH) has issued congressional subpoenas to White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention Director Stefanie Feldman and ATF Director Steve Dettelbach seeking information about any role the office and agency had in Chicago’s lawsuit against gunmaker Glock.

Comer initially requested Dettelbach and Feldman provide the committee with any pertinent communication between the White House/ATF and Glock back in June, but according to the congressman the Biden administration hasn’t turned over a single document. In fact, in his letter informing Feldman of the subpoena, Comer says Deputy Counsel to the President Rachel F. Cotton responded to the Oversight Committee in early July with a letter that “did not even reference the Committee’s request for documents.” Instead, Comer says Cotton “impugned the motives of the Committee,” stating “[t]he House Majority . . . [is] doing the gun lobby’s bidding by launching a baseless political attack on the Biden Administration under the guise of an ‘investigation.’”

If that were the case, it would be easy enough for the White House and ATF to disprove the claims of collusion by whistleblowers. So why is the White House stonewalling the inquiry into communications between the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, ATF, and Glock officials? As Comer reminded Dettelbach in his subpoena request:

The Committee has learned that on December 20, 2023, the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention met privately with representatives from Glock, during which the Administration requested that Glock change their pistol designs so that it would be harder to illegally modify Glock pistols to shoot continuously with a single trigger pull.

On March 19, 2024, the City of Chicago filed suit in state court against Glock. Everytown Law, the litigation arm of Everytown for Gun Safety, is listed as counsel for the plaintiff. The day the suit was filed, John Feinblatt, President of Everytown for Gun Safety, posted on his X account “Today Everytown Law + the City of Chicago announced a historic lawsuit against Glock Inc. to hold them accountable for the unconscionable decision to continue selling its easily modified pistols even though it could fix the problem.”

Later in the post, Mr. Feinblatt said “[f]ederal Officials recently contacted Glock to discuss implementing new ways to modify Glock pistols to make it harder for Glock switches to be installed. Rather than help, Glock falsely insisted there is nothing they can do.”

Because the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention’s meeting with Glock was private, Mr. Feinblatt appears to have had insider information regarding your office’s meeting with Glock, which raises questions about whether your office colluded with Everytown for Gun Safety to initiate their lawsuit against Glock.

Chicago is seeking a court-ordered ban on the sale of Glock pistols to city residents “and Illinois gun stores that serve the Chicago market”, while Joe Biden recently used an executive order to set up an Emerging Firearms Threats Task Force that’s supposed to issue a report and an interagency plan to deal with machine gun conversion devices, which are already illegal under federal law.

Retired ATF Deputy Assistant Director Pete Forcelli previously told Bearing Arms that the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention had pushed Dettelbach to have the ATF reclassify Glocks as machine guns under the NFA, but Dettelbach has so far resisted the move. Chicago’s lawsuit, along with the task force established by Biden, seem designed to give the ATF another push towards reclassifying some of the most popular handguns on the market as machine guns after the November elections have taken place.

My guess is that the White House and ATF will stonewall Comer’s subpoena just as they ignored his initial request for information. But if Kamala Harris wins election next month, don’t be surprised if the candidate who says she’s not taking anyone’s guns away suddenly decides that its time to make the sale of Glocks (and perhaps all other striker-fired pistols as well) off-limits to the civilian market; essentially imposing a ban on the sale of commonly-owned semi-automatic handguns through ATF regulation.

NSSF Praises SCOTUS Decision to Review Mexico’s Baseless $10 Billion Lawsuit Against Firearm Manufacturers

WASHINGTON, D.C. — NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, praised the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to grant Smith & Wesson’s petition to hear Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al., Mexico’s frivolous $10 billion lawsuit against American firearm manufacturers seeking to blame them for the harm caused by lawless narco-terrorist drug cartels in Mexico. Mexico’s lawsuit also seeks to dictate how firearms are made and sold throughout the United States through a federal court injunction, in effect usurping the role of Congress and 50 state legislatures.

NSSF filed an amicus brief earlier this year in support of the Supreme Court granting the case, arguing that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit’s flawed decision, “blows a gaping hole in the PLCAA and rolls out the red carpet for a foreign government intent on vitiating the Second Amendment.” The U.S. Supreme Court will now set a briefing schedule and hold argument, likely early in the new year.

“Today’s announcement by the U.S. Supreme Court that they are granting Smith & Wesson’s petition to hear Mexico’s frivolous $10 billion lawsuit against lawful American firearm manufacturers is welcomed news to the entire firearm industry. Mexico’s lawsuit seeks to blame lawful American firearm businesses for violence in Mexico perpetrated by Mexican narco-terrorist drug cartels and impacting innocent Mexican lives.

It is not the fault of American firearm businesses that follow strict laws and regulations to lawfully manufacture and sell legal products,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “This case represents exactly why Congress passed, and President George W. Bush enacted, the bipartisan Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).

The case was rightly dismissed by a federal judge before the First Circuit Court of Appeals’ erroneous ruling earlier this year that reversed the district court order and reinstated the case. Lawful American firearm manufacturers follow American laws to make and sell lawful and Constitutionally-protected products. The Mexican government should instead focus on bringing Mexican criminals to justice in Mexican courtrooms.”

Mexico alleges U.S. firearm manufacturers are liable for the criminal violence perpetuated by narco-terrorist drug cartels by refusing to adopt gun control restrictions that exceed what the law requires for the strictly-regulated production and sale of firearms. A U.S. District court in Massachusetts dismissed the case, finding the claims were barred by the PLCAA. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, however, revived the case on Mexico’s appeal earlier this year.

The First Circuit held that Mexico’s claims alleging that the defendants know their regular business practices contribute to illegal firearm trafficking fit within a narrow exception to the PLCAA. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al, the petitioners, argue the First Circuit erred when it reversed the lower court’s decision to dismiss the case.

The petitioners also noted the First Circuit’s decision to allow for an exception to PLCAA fails because there is no evidence U.S. firearm manufacturers violated federal laws against aiding and abetting firearm trafficking. The petitioners explained to the Supreme Court that Mexico’s complaint “fails to identify any product, policy, or action by the American firearms industry that is deliberately designed to facilitate the unlawful activities of Mexican drug cartels.”

NSSF’s amicus brief concluded by urging Supreme Court action and pointing out that the First Circuit’s decision to reinstate the case was incorrect because it is “… emblematic of a recent trend of anti-gun governments (and courts) mendaciously skirting the PLCAA and using the resulting threat of bankruptcy-inducing tort liability to destroy a lawful industry that is vital to the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right. This Court’s intervention is imperative.”

Latest ‘Ghost Gun’ Claims Have Tons of Problems

Ages ago, I owned an AK-47 clone. I built it from a kit I purchased along with a less than 80 percent receiver I bought, then took it to a build party with some friends and got a great gun out of the deal as well as a fun day.

This was long before so-called ghost guns were the scourge of the world. No one had even heard the term and a few years later, when we did, we laughed at it and for good reason.

Now, though, the term is everywhere. What’s more, rules got put in place–without Congress, it should be noted–to supposedly stem the tide.

And it seems that we’re getting some mixed signals on the efficacy of those restrictions.

Continue reading “”

Second Amendment Roundup: Textualism and ATF’s Redefinition of “Firearm”
The statutory history of the Gun Control Act cuts in favor of the VanDerStok respondents.

This is my second installment preceding the upcoming October 8 argument in Garland v. VanDerStok, a challenge to the regulatory redefinition of the term “firearm” in the Gun Control Act.  By expanding the statutory definition, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives (ATF) in its 2022 Final Rule purports to criminalize numerous innocent acts that Congress never made illegal.

Until the new rule, a kit with partially-machined raw material that can be fabricated into a firearm was not considered to have reached a stage that it is a “firearm.”  To prevent Americans from making their own firearms from such material, which has always been and remains lawful, the bugbear term “ghost guns” was recently coined.  In its VanDerStok brief, the government argues that “anyone with basic tools and rudimentary skills” can “assemble a fully functional firearm” from such kits “in as little as twenty minutes.”

As explained in my last post, that is refuted by none other than the former Acting Chief of ATF’s Firearm Technology Branch, Rick Vasquez, who reviewed and approved hundreds of classifications about whether certain items are “firearms.”  As he explained in his amicus brief, fabrication of a firearm from these kits is a complex process requiring skill and special tools beyond the capacity of the average person.

In this post I’ll trace the statutory history of the term “firearm” to gain insight into its meaning.  The Gun Control Act defines “firearm” as “(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon….”  18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3).  An ATF regulation on the books from 1968 to 2022 defined a “frame or receiver” as “that part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock and firing mechanism,” i.e., the main part of a firearm to which the barrel and stock attach.

Continue reading “”

Second Amendment Roundup: VanDerStok Tests Limits of Yet Another ATF Rule
The Supreme Court is set to decide whether the agency may expand criminal liability under the Gun Control Act.

On October 8, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Garland v. VanDerStok, a challenge to the Final Rule of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives (ATF) from 2022 redefining and drastically expanding the meaning of the terms “firearm” and “firearm frame or receiver.”  This is the first of several posts in which I’d like to highlight some of the enlightening amici curiae briefs that have been filed in support of the respondents who challenged the rule.

Continue reading “”

Minnesota Update: Eighth Circuit Court Strikes Down Minnesota’s Firearm Carry Age Restrictions

The U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a mandate on September 20, officially shutting down the Minnesota Attorney General’s efforts to preserve the state’s ban on firearm carry for individuals aged 18 to 20. The decision follows a legal challenge backed by the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC).

The challenge was brought forward by plaintiffs Kristin Worth, Austin Dye, and Axel Anderson, who argued that Minnesota’s restrictions on carrying firearms for adults under 21 violated their Second Amendment rights. In April 2023, U.S. District Court Judge Katherine Menendez ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, but delayed an injunction against the law pending appeal.

In July, a three-judge panel from the Eighth Circuit had unanimously affirmed the lower court’s ruling. Circuit Court Judge William Benton, who wrote the opinion, noted that the language of the Second Amendment does not specify an age limit. He highlighted that while the Founders included age restrictions in other areas, such as running for political office, no such limits were placed on the right to bear arms.

“In other words, the Founders considered age and knew how to set age requirements but placed no such restrictions on rights, including those protected by the Second Amendment,” Benton wrote in the decision.

Following the panel’s ruling, Minnesota sought to have the case reheard, either by the same three-judge panel or by the full bench of the Eighth Circuit. The appeals court rejected both requests in an August 21 order, effectively setting the stage for the mandate that was issued on Friday.

With the mandate now in place, Minnesota must either revise its laws to comply with the court’s decision or appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Minnesota Attorney General’s office has not yet commented on whether it plans to pursue further legal action.

Following the mandate, the FPC celebrated the decision on social media.

“This formalizes our victory, and the ban is now officially dead,” the FPC wrote in a post. “If it wishes to continue defending its tyranny, Minnesota must take its tears to SCOTUS.”

The ruling represents a significant win for gun rights advocates in Minnesota, marking the end of a long legal battle over age-based firearm restrictions. For now, the state’s law barring 18- to 20-year-olds from carrying firearms is effectively nullified, pending any potential appeal to the nation’s highest court.

Legal Showdown Looms Over Suppressor Bans & 2nd Amendment Rights: Carlin Anderson vs. Kwame Raoul

Editor’s Note: Judge Stephen McGlynn is currently presiding over several consolidated cases challenging Illinois’ “assault weapons” ban, including Harrel v. Raoul, Barnett v. Raoul, Langley v. Kelly, and Foster v. Raoul. These cases collectively question the constitutionality of the state’s restrictions on firearms and large-capacity magazines under the Second Amendment.

Additionally, Judge McGlynn is overseeing Carlin Anderson vs. Kwame Raoul, referenced below, which challenges Illinois’ ban on suppressors. The outcome of this case holds significant implications for gun rights advocates nationwide, particularly regarding the legal status of suppressors as protected “arms.”

The ongoing battle for Second Amendment rights took center stage in the courtroom once again in the 2nd Amendment challenge to Illinois’ assault weapons ban.  However, as that case proceeds, Mark Smith notes some of the takeaways that may impact the upcoming case of Carlin Anderson vs. Kwame Raoul.

At the heart of the 2nd case, Carlin Anderson vs. Kwame Raoul is the legal conflict of Illinois’ ban on suppressors—a critical piece of legislation that has ignited passionate debates about its constitutionality. The implications of this case extend far beyond state lines, with the potential to set a precedent in suppressor regulation across the country. U.S. District Court Judge Stephen McGlynn’s courtroom has become a pivotal battleground in determining whether these firearms accessories, often demonized by big Hollywood and anti-gun advocates, fall under the protection of the Second Amendment.

Continue reading “”

Engineer testifies during 2nd Amendment challenge to Illinois assault weapons ban

An engineer who spent decades designing weapons for one of the world’s leading gun manufacturers testified Tuesday that the assault-style weapons now banned in Illinois are intended only for civilian use and cannot be easily converted into military-grade firearms.

James Ronkainen, a former engineer for the Remington Firearms, said the AR-style rifles and many other weapons that are now heavily restricted under the Protect Illinois Communities Act, are classified in the industry as “modern sporting rifles,” or MSRs, and he said ordinary users of such weapons cannot easily convert them into fully automatic weapons.

“I don’t think they can,” he said. Ronkainen testified during the second day of a bench trial before U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn in a case challenging the constitutionality of the assault weapons ban. In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to keep and bear the type of arms that are commonly used for lawful purposes such as self-defense.

But it also said not all firearms are protected under the Constitution, including certain “dangerous and unusual” weapons. Ronkainen testified that the AR-style weapons restricted under the Illinois law are widely popular with consumers and that they are intended for legal purposes, including self-defense, hunting and target shooting.

But attorneys for the state have said they plan to argue the weapons covered by the law are commonly used in mass shootings, including the one at a Fourth of July parade in Highland Park in 2022 that left seven people dead and dozens more injured. That shooting prompted Illinois lawmakers to quickly pass PICA in January of 2023.

The attorneys for the state also said they will argue that the way gun manufacturers market and sell their products to consumers should not determine whether the weapon is protected under the Constitution. The trial is scheduled to continue through Friday, but attorneys in the case have suggested it could wrap up as early as Wednesday or Thursday.

 

Federal Judge Upholds Gun Ban: What This Means for the 2nd Amendment

In a recent case out of Hawaii, a U.S. District Court has upheld a federal gun ban, denying a motion to dismiss the indictment of Christopher Chan, who was charged with unlawfully possessing a machine gun and a short-barreled rifle. Judge Derek Watson, appointed by President Obama, ruled that these types of firearms are not protected under the Second Amendment. While the court’s decision isn’t surprising, given the political landscape in Hawaii, it raises critical issues about how the Second Amendment is being interpreted today.

The Case: U.S. v. Christopher Chan

The case stems from an incident where Christopher Chan was found in possession of a short-barreled rifle and a machine gun. These are firearms that, under the National Firearms Act (NFA), must be registered, and in this case, they weren’t. Chan’s legal team argued that the charges violated his Second Amendment rights, asserting that these firearms are “arms” protected by the Constitution. They also challenged the Commerce Clause, arguing that Congress didn’t have the authority to regulate the possession of these firearms.

However, Judge Watson’s decision struck down both arguments, claiming that neither the short-barreled rifle nor the machine gun falls within the scope of the Second Amendment’s protection. This ruling is significant because it highlights the ongoing tension between federal gun laws and the constitutional right to bear arms.

Continue reading “”

Appeals court upholds Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for minors.

Sept. 13 (UPI) — An appeals court Thursday ruled against a challenge to Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for minors, saying the state can continue to prohibit the controversial anti-LGBTQ intervention.

In a 2-1 decision, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the prohibition does not impinge free speech nor does it target religion. The ban aligns with the medical consensus that conversation therapy is “ineffective and harmful” and “rationally serves” the interests of the state to protect minors, the court said.

“We thus have no trouble concluding the [Minor Conversion Therapy Law] is rationally related to Colorado’s interest in protecting minor patients seeking mental healthcare from obtaining ineffective and harmful therapeutic modalities,” Judge Veronica Rossman, a President Joe Biden appointee, wrote in the ruling.

Judge Nancy Moritz, a President Barack Obama appointee, agreed with Rossman, while Judge Harris Hartz, an appointee of President George W. Bush, dissented.

Continue reading “”

Georgia judge tosses two criminal counts against Trump in Fani Willis case
Willis indicted Trump and 18 co-defendants in August of last year on Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) charges.

Fulton County Judge Scott McAfee on Thursday dismissed two counts against former President Donald Trump in Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’s election case.

Willis indicted Trump and 18 co-defendants in August of last year on Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) charges. Trump has pleaded not guilty.

McAfee specifically dropped charges related to the alleged filing of false documents in federal court, finding that prosecutors did not have the authority to bring them, Reuters reported.

While the dismissal of two counts marks a win for Trump, it was not a complete victory as McAfee permitted the case to proceed with the remaining charges.

The case, however, has been on ice amid Trump’s appeal of McAfee’s decision to permit Willis to remain on the case amid concerns over her romantic relationship with Nathan Wade, a special prosecutor whom she hired to pursue the case. McAfee ordered that either Wade or Willis step down, which Wade did the following day.

But Trump has sought to have Willis removed as well and a Georgia Appeals Court paused proceedings in June, pending oral arguments, which are set for December.

Well, of course under Bruen’s Text History and Tradition test, ALL guns ban laws are unconstitutional

Court Rules Federal Machinegun Law Cannot Be Justified under Bruen

A district court in Kansas has ruled that the federal law prohibiting the possession of “machineguns” failed the test set out in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen (2022). “The court finds that the Second Amendment applies to the weapons charged because they are ‘bearable arms’ within the original meaning of the amendment. The court further finds that the government has failed to establish that this nation’s history of gun regulation justifies the application of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) to Defendant.”

The case is United States v. Morgan, No. 23-10047-JWB (D. Kan. Aug. 21, 2024; the ruling was modified slightly on August 26). The defendant, Tamori Morgan, was charged with two counts of possessing a “machinegun” (a machinegun, and a full-auto switch “machinegun conversion device”) in violation of federal law.

That law, 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), makes it a crime, with some exceptions, to possess a “machinegun,” defined to include “any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.” Unlike other definitions in 26 U.S.C. § 5845, this lacks any reference to weapons that use the energy of an explosive to fire a projectile.

Continue reading “”

More of the Nashville Trans Shooter’s Manifesto Just Dropped

The Tennessee Star has published 90 pages of the manifesto belonging to the “transgender” Nashville shooter who slaughtered six victims, including three children, at a private Christian elementary school on March 27, 2023.

According to the never-before-seen excerpts legally obtained by the local newspaper, Covenant School killer Audrey “Aiden” Hale, a 28-year-old biological woman who identified as a “transgender man,” wrote about wanting “a boy body in heaven” and craving “brown love.”

“If God won’t give me a boy body in heaven, then Jesus is a f*gg*t,” Hale wrote on one page.

On another, she said, “Brown love is the most beautiful kind.”

Hale had repeatedly questioned, “why does my brain not work right?” Concluding, “Cause I was born wrong,” she lamented, “Nothing on earth can save me…never ending pain. Religion won’t save.”

In an undated entry, Hale wrote, “The [cocoon] of my old self will die when I leave my body behind and the boy in me will be free; in the butterfly transformation; the real me.”

Hale often signed off with an octagonal symbol, which first appears on the journal’s cover. The shape was drawn on the very first page, opposite where Hale wrote, “Why does my brain not work right? Cause I was born wrong!!!”

The journal, which was written between January and March of 2023, is one of many Hale had in her possession.

Police initially identified this journal, along with a spiral notebook found in the car she used to drive to the school, as the shooter’s “manifesto.” Authorities also seized approximately 20 additional journals Hale authored over a 15-year period from 2007 to 2022. Those writings are said to span about 1,000 pages.

According to the local outlet, a source familiar with the Metro Nashville Police Department (MNPD) investigation handed over the handwritten journal, which The Tennessee Star is referring to as “The Covenant Killer’s 2023 Journal” in order to distinguish it from the numerous ones predating 2023, in early June of this year.

“We believe it to be authentic,” The Tennessee Star’s editor-in-chief Michael Patrick Leahy wrote in a statement on the outlet’s website. MNPD further confirmed its authenticity in court, with a court filing submitted by MNPD Lieutenant Alfredo Alevado authenticating it.

“We have had a First Amendment right to publish these unredacted documents from the moment we legally obtained them,” Leahy stated.

Leahy then outlined in great detail the legal avenues The Tennessre Star meticulously took to acquire the manifesto:

Continue reading “”

Massachusetts Supreme Court: Switchblade Carry Ban Violates Second Amendment

The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled Tuesday the state’s ban on carrying switchblade knives violates the Second Amendment.

The case is Commonwealth v. David E. Canjura.

Canjura was arrested on July 3, 2020, and a search of his person uncovered a knife “with a spring-assisted blade.” He was charged with “carrying a dangerous weapon,” among other charges, but challenged the constitutionality of the switchblade carry ban “in a pretrial motion to dismiss.”

He “argued that because a switchblade is an ‘arm,’ [the] prohibition on carrying a switchblade violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms for self-defense.”

The Massachusetts Supreme Court weighed Canjura’s motion via the U.S. Supreme Court’s Heller (2008) and Bruen (2022) decisions, noting, “The central component’ of the Second Amendment is the ‘inherent right of self-defense,’ which “guarantee[s] to ‘all Americans’ the right to bear commonly used arms in public subject to certain reasonable, well-defined restrictions.”

They observed, “While both Heller and Bruen involved handguns, Second Amendment protections subsume more than just firearms.”

The Massachusetts Supreme Court then focused specifically on Bruen’s “two part test” and found “the Commonwealth does not identify any laws regulating bladed weapons akin to folding pocketknives generally, or switchblades particularly, in place at the time of the founding or ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

They subsequently observed that the Commonwealth “has not met its burden of demonstrating a historical tradition justifying the regulation of switchblade knives…”

The Massachusetts Supreme Court wrote: “In this case, we are asked to decide whether…[the] prohibition against carrying a switchblade knife violates the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, considering…Bruen. We conclude it does.”

Analysis: The First Crack Forms in Federal Machinegun Ban

For the first time, a federal judge has ruled the Second Amendment protects civilian machinegun possession.

On Wednesday, US District Judge John W. Broomes dismissed charges against a Kansas man for possessing a fully automatic .300 blackout AR-15 and Glock 33 handgun. He ruled that the federal ban on possessing or transferring machineguns (with limited exceptions) was unconstitutional as applied to the defendant.

“To summarize, in this case, the government has not met its burden under Bruen and Rahimi to demonstrate through historical analogs that regulation of the weapons at issue in this case are consistent with the nation’s history of firearms regulation,” Judge Broomes wrote in US v. Morgan.

In many ways, the decision is the epitome of what some gun-rights advocates hoped the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision and the new test it laid down would bring to bear on America’s gun laws. The 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA), which marked the first time the federal government regulated machineguns by requiring registration and a $200 tax stamp, has rankled a vocal section of activists. The same is true of the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act, a provision of which known as the Hughes Amendment—18 USC § 922(o)—functionally banned civilian ownership of automatic weapons manufactured after its enactment.

Those activists view the federal regulations, enacted for the first time more than 140 years after the ratification of the Second Amendment, as incompatible with the Bruen standard because it prioritizes Founding-era approaches to weapons regulation when evaluating modern regulations. They see the ultimate liberalization of machinegun, suppressor, and short-barreled rifle regulations as the natural apotheosis of courts faithfully applying the Bruen test to America’s modern gun-control regime.

But court after court to address the question in recent years has rejected the idea the Second Amendment protects machineguns, largely based on the Supreme Court’s own words. Most often, they cite a section of the majority opinion in DC v. Heller that discusses the idea that fully automatic M-16s, which are functionally identical to the rifle at issue in Morgan, “may be banned.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority in Heller. “Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”

Broomes interrogated this reliance on Heller’s brief discussion of M-16 rifles and reached a different conclusion on how much it binds courts confronting an explicit challenge to the federal ban on new machineguns.

Continue reading “”

The Fourth Circuit ignores Bruen again

The Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision held, with crystal clarity, the Second Amendment is an individual right, which extends to keeping and bearing arms not only in one’s home or on one’s property, but in public, with some limited exceptions. Not only did Bruen reaffirm the Second Amendment as a fundamental unalienable right–no second-class right—it established strict scrutiny, the highest level of judicial analysis, for Second Amendment cases. Equally important was this holding:

When the  Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the  Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”

In other words, anti-liberty/gun schemes are only constitutional if there was a clear historical analogue at the time of the founding.  As one might suspect, some states—Like Maryland—are determined to ignore the Second Amendment and Bruen.

Under current Maryland law,  no one may own, rent, or even touch a firearm without a 16-hour class which includes live fire. There is an 8-hour class required for each permit renewal. Only upon passing the 16-hour course, can one apply for a permit, and the State Police have 30 days to approve or deny applications. So while Maryland is, at least ostensibly, a “shall-issue” state the state puts as many barriers as possible in the path of gun owners, including a seven day waiting period for purchase, and gun registration.

In 2023 a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals took up a challenge to the licensing law and struck it down in consonance with Bruen:

“The challenged law restricts the ability of law-abiding adult citizens to possess handguns, and the state has not presented a historical analogue that justifies its restriction; indeed, it has seemingly admitted that it couldn’t find one.”

On would reasonably think that would have been the end of it. No historical analogue, presumptively unconstitutional. Then the entire Court got into the act (decision available here):

We conclude that the Supreme Court in Bruen foreclosed the plaintiffs’ “temporary deprivation” argument by stating that, despite some delay occasioned by “shall-issue” permit processes, this type of licensing law is presumptively constitutional because it operates merely to ensure that individuals seeking to exercise their Second Amendment rights are “law-abiding” persons.

We hold that the plaintiffs have failed to rebut this presumption of constitutionality afforded to “shall-issue” licensing laws like the handgun qualification statute. So the plaintiffs’ challenge to the HQL statute fails, and we affirm the district court’s award of summary judgment to the state of Maryland.

Continue reading “”

SAF SCORES VICTORY IN CALIFORNIA NON-RESIDENT CARRY CASE

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners, in a challenge of California’s ban on non-resident concealed carry, won a victory when a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction in the case.

U.S. District Court Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett, a 2022 Joe Biden appointee, granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. The state has 21 days to file a response, and within 30 days plaintiffs must “meet and confer” with the state and Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department “to submit a proposed order entering the preliminary injunction consistent with the specific findings” made by the court order.

SAF is joined by the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of California and seven private citizens. The LA County Sheriff’s Office is the main defendant, along with Attorney General Rob Bonta and the La Verne Police Department.

In her decision, Judge Garnett observed, “the State bears the burden of showing whether California’s residency requirements for a CCW license is ‘consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” A few pages later, she notes, “the State has not carried its burden at this stage to show that the limitation of CCW licenses to California residents is part of a historical tradition of this Nation.”

“Americans do not leave their Second Amendment right to bear arms at the California border,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “California is behind the curve in recognizing that the Second Amendment was incorporated to the states via the 14th Amendment since SAF’s Supreme Court victory in the 2010 McDonald ruling.”

“The writing is clearly on the wall,” added SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, “when Judge Garnett noted the Court already found that we are likely to succeed on the merits of our argument that California’s residency requirement for CCW applications is unconstitutional. We are confident our challenge will continue to prevail.”