Category: Courts

BREAKING: California’s ‘High Capacity’ Magazine Ban Ruled Unconstitutional Under Bruen.

The opinion is here.

If you’ll remember, back in 2017, Judge Roger Benitez struck down California’s ban on standard capacity magazines the state had arbitrarily ruled to be “high capacity.” That ruling was, of course, overturned by an en banc Ninth Circuit ruling. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court where it sat until Bruen was decided.

After Bruen, the Supreme Court granted cert, vacated the ruling, and remanded it for reconsideration. Today, Judge Benitez has, as expected, struck down the ban as clearly unconstitutional.

As he wrote . . .

Removable firearm magazines of all sizes are necessary components of semiautomatic firearms. Therefore, magazines come within the text of the constitutional declaration that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Because millions of removable firearm magazines able to hold between 10 and 30 rounds are commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, including self-defense, and because they are reasonably related to service in the militia, the magazines are presumptively within the protection of the Second Amendment.
There is no American history or tradition of regulating firearms based on the number of rounds they can shoot, or of regulating the amount of ammunition that can be kept and carried.
The best analogue that can be drawn from historical gun laws are the early militia equipment regulations that required all able-bodied citizens to equip themselves with a gun and a minimum amount of ammunition in excess of 10 rounds.

Oh, and this . . .

One government solution to a few mad men with guns is a law that makes into criminals responsible, law-abiding people wanting larger magazines simply to protect themselves. The history and tradition of the Second Amendment clearly supports state laws against the use or misuse of firearms with unlawful intent, but not the disarmament of the law-abiding citizen.

That kind of a solution is an infringement on the Constitutional right of citizens to keep and bear arms. The adoption of the Second Amendment was a freedom calculus decided long ago by our first citizens who cherished individual freedom with its risks more than the subservient security of a British ruler or the smothering safety of domestic lawmakers. The freedom they fought for was worth fighting for then, and that freedom is entitled to be preserved still.

It doesn’t get any clearer than that.

Benitez has issued an injunction blocking enforcement of the law, but stayed his order for 10 days to give Attorney General Rob Bonta time to cry in his beer, inform all of California’s relevant law enforcement authorities, and almost surely seek a stay of the order. Even in the Ninth Circuit, that’s less likely to happen now that Bruen is the law of the land.

As California Rifle & Pistol Association president Chuck Michel tells TTAG . . .

Today’s rulings represent continued affirmation that the Bruen decision, and Heller before that, represent a sea change in the way courts must look at these absurdly restrictive laws. Sure, the state will appeal, but the clock is ticking on laws that violate the Constitution

Judge Benitez used a thoughtful and in-depth approach to this ruling and we are pleased that he came to the conclusion, once again, that California’s magazine ban is not constitutional. CRPA was been fighting this magazine ban from day one and we are one step closer to a final victory for gun owners.

This is a very big win and will likely be the basis for many more to come, including the Golden State’s “assault weapons” ban.

FPC Files Amended Complaint in Lawsuit Challenging Massachusetts Handgun Roster

BOSTON, MA (September 21, 2023) – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of an amended complaint in its Granata v. Campbell lawsuit, which challenges Massachusetts’ ban on constitutionally protected, modern handguns commonly possessed and used for lawful purposes throughout the United States. The filing comes after the First Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case to be reheard in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen. The complaint can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

In addition to state laws requiring that gun owners obtain a Firearms Identification Card or License to Carry Firearms, Massachusetts also prohibits the commercial sale of handguns that are not on its “Approved Handgun Roster” nor prohibited by Attorney General Maura Healey’s “Handgun Sales Regulations.” As a result, Massachusetts residents are prevented from purchasing a large number of popular makes and models of constitutionally protected handguns.

“The analysis is straightforward: (a) Plaintiffs are not prohibited from exercising their right to keep and bear arms; (b) because Plaintiffs’ proposed conduct is covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text, the government must justify the Handgun Ban as being consistent with this Nation’s tradition of firearm regulation; and (c), as Heller and Bruen establish, there is no historical basis for banning arms in common use for lawful purposes,” argues the complaint. “Therefore, the Handgun Ban must be declared unconstitutional and enjoined.”

“Massachusetts’ law preventing residents from acquiring some of the most commonly possessed arms in the Nation is blatantly unconstitutional,” said Cody J. Wisniewski, FPC Action Foundation’s General Counsel and Vice President of Legal, and FPC’s counsel. “Massachusetts residents have the constitutionally protected right to acquire and possess these arms, and we’re looking forward to proving as much in court.”

Harney County judge calls police, sheriffs’ testimony on number of rounds they carry ‘highly relevant’ for Measure 114 trial

Although police are exempt from Measure 114′s gun control restrictions, Harney County Circuit Judge Robert S. Raschio ruled Wednesday that testimony from law enforcement about the number of rounds they use for self defense is relevant for his judgment on whether Oregon’s gun control Measure 114 violates the state constitution.

Raschio said he was partly swayed by a “friend of the court” brief that the National Police Association had filed with the Oregon Supreme Court in late January in support of the Harney County gun owners’ challenge to the Oregon gun control measure.

The judge read a passage from the association’s 50-page brief, to explain his ruling:

“It reads, ‘Because police officers are defending themselves against the same criminals as citizens, their experience is highly relevant to the appropriate scope of self- defense. Over the years, police departments across the nation have abandoned service revolvers in favor of modern semi-automatic weapons with larger magazines. This is true even though police are often working together as a group, with even less need for higher capacity magazines than individual citizens attempting to defend themselves.’”

Raschio said that he agrees that what police use for self defense is “highly relevant,” and will allow the testimony from Oregon State Police Supt. Casey Codding and two sheriffs from Union and Harney counties, who took the witness stand a day earlier, to be considered.

The issue before Raschio is whether the measure’s regulations are lawful under Article 1, Sec. 27 of the Oregon Constitution, which establishes a right to bear arms.

Continue reading “”

Federal Judge Rejects Hunter Biden Request To Appear In Court Via Video Conference

A federal judge rejected a request from Hunter Biden’s legal team this week to allow the president’s son to make his arraignment on federal gun charges through a video conference instead of having to show up in person.

U.S. Magistrate Judge from the District of Delaware Christopher Burke rejected the request in an order on Wednesday afternoon.

Burke gave multiple reasons for denying, including that the Court believes the appearance in important because its one of the few times that the defendant will physically be in the courtroom and the setting “helps to emphasize the ‘integrity and solemnity of a federal criminal proceeding.’”

Special Counsel David Weiss indicted Hunter Biden earlier this month on three charges related to the purchase of a firearm, including allegedly making multiple false statements, and being unlawfully in possession of a firearm.

“Moreover, in this matter, most of the criminal charges that Defendant now faces are new and were not addressed at his prior hearing in July 2023-such that this will be the first time they are discussed in court,” Burke wrote. “The Court will also address Defendant’s pre-trial release conditions; while the Court expects it is likely that the currently-imposed conditions will remain in place, were either side to suggest alterations, the Court would want to be able to address that issue in person with the parties.”

“Other than during the exigent circumstances of the COVID crisis (when the Court was proceeding under the auspices of the now-expired CARES Act standing order), in 12 years as a judge on this Court, the undersigned cannot recall ever having conducted an initial appearance other than in person,” he continued. “That has been the case as to defendants of all types, regardless of their location or personal circumstance.”

Burke used the words from Hunter Biden’s legal team against him, saying that he agrees that Hunter Biden “should not receive special treatment in this matter-absent some unusual circumstance, he should be treated just as would any other defendant in our Court.”

“Any other defendant would be required to attend his or her initial appearance in person,” he said. “So too here.”

Plaintiffs rest in state trial challenging Oregon’s new gun laws

Lawyers for two Harney County residents who are suing the state to block Oregon’s new gun laws wrapped up their arguments Wednesday. They presented two and a half days of expert testimony from firearms experts, law enforcement officers and other people who regularly use firearms in the course of their day-to-day lives.

Measure 114 requires a permit to purchase a firearm and a completed background check and bans magazines holding over 10 rounds of ammunition. It also bans magazines “that can be readily restored, changed, or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition.” The provisions were blocked in December by Harney County Circuit Court Judge Robert Raschio pending this week’s trial.

On the opening day of the trial, the plaintiffs called Derek LeBlanc, a firearms instructor, and Ashley Hlebinsky, a former curator at the Cody Firearms Museum in Wyoming.

LeBlanc testified that, for self-defense, he recommends people get a firearm capable of holding as many rounds as possible. Questioned by Oregon Department of Justice attorneys defending Measure 114, LeBlanc conceded that he doesn’t carry the largest magazines possible, such as 60 or 100 round magazines.

Hlebinsky testified that there have been points in history when people carried more advanced firearms than the military. The Oregon Court of Appeals has in the past said firearms that evolved from military ordnance are not protected under the state constitution.

Hlebinsky also testified that there were many early firearms capable of firing multiple rounds without needing to be reloaded, and several makes and models that held over 10 rounds or used magazine-style feeding devices. During cross-examination, Hlebinsky said many of the earlier rifles she mentioned in her testimony were only available in Europe or, if they were in the United States, they were only in very limited numbers.

Hlebinsky’s husband works in the firearms industry and owns over $1 million in stock in an ammunition company. Her ties to the firearms industry and lack of formal training as a historian led a federal judge to question her credibility in a federal trial testing Measure 114′s legality under the U.S. Constitution.

“Ms. Hlebinsky lacks background and training as a historian,” U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut wrote in her July ruling, which found Measure 114 federally constitutional. “More troubling to this Court, Ms. Hlebinsky has both professional and personal ties to pro-gun groups and the firearms industry, which this Court finds limit her ability to serve as a neutral expert in this case.”

Scott Springer, who manufactures firearms parts and accessories, went over several different handgun, rifle, and shotgun magazines, and showed how the most common 10-round magazines can be altered to accept more than 10 rounds. The modifications require a drill, belt sander or additional parts.

Oregon State Police Superintendent Casey Codding, Union County Sheriff Cody Bowen and Harney County Sheriff Dan Jenkins all testified that their troopers and deputies carry firearms with 17-round magazines plus one round in the chamber. They also carry an additional two extra magazines for a total of 52 rounds. Codding said many of his troopers in rural areas take their firearms home with them because they start and end their days at home.

Bowen and Jenkins said their jurisdictions cover large geographic areas where response times can be lengthy. Bowen said citizens have asked him what they are supposed to do while waiting for a potentially 30-minute response “while somebody is beating on the door saying they’re going to kill me.”

“My answer to them, you know, defend yourself,” Bowen testified. “As far as human life, you have every right to defend yourself. You do whatever it takes to stay alive and wait for us to get there.”

Both sheriffs said their deputies have often relied on armed civilians to provide cover for them during incidents. They also testified that residents and deputies use their firearms to protect themselves, their families and their livestock from predators including bears, wolves and coyotes.

Bowen said he recently had a run-in with a bear, although he said the bear “didn’t get his filthy paws on me, but it was way too close for my comfort.”

Lawyers defending Measure 114 objected to much of Codding’s, Bowen’s and Jenkins’ testimony because the law has carve-outs for law enforcement to own and carry high-capacity magazines. Special Assistant Attorney General Harry Wilson said that, unlike citizens, law enforcement has the authority and duty to protect the public.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that police do not have a constitutional duty to protect the public from harm.

Lawyers challenging the new law said law enforcement’s assessment of what is necessary for self-defense is relevant. Raschio agreed and allowed the testimony.

Cattle rancher Shane Otley testified that he carries a Glock 380 and an AR-15. In the Glock, he said he carries a five-round magazine, and in the AR-15, he said he uses between 10 and 30-round magazines. He said he carries the Glock for personal defense and the AR-15 for protecting his livestock.

Harney County gun store owner Ben Callaway testified about the various kinds of magazines and firearms he frequently orders and sells. He testified that several attempts to order 10-round magazines had been rejected by out-of-state companies citing Measure 114′s prohibition against magazines that can be modified to hold more than 10 rounds.

Opponents of Measure 114 gun laws say case is about “individual rights” in trial opening

In opening statements Monday, lawyers for two people suing over Oregon’s new gun laws said Ballot Measure 114′s provisions are the “most significant threat to [the right to bear arms] Oregonians have faced in nearly 165 years.”

“This case is not about public health, public safety or public concern,” plaintiffs’ attorney Tony Aiello told Judge Robert Rascio. “This is about individual rights. This is about the individual right to self defense and the right to bear arms to secure that right.”

Aiello said plaintiffs in the state trial plan to show that Measure 114, approved by voters last year, effectively limits Oregonians to owning only antique firearms. He said Measure 114 regulates firearms that were plentiful prior to 1859, the year Article I, Section 27 of the Oregon constitution — the section protecting the right to bear arms — was ratified.

The new laws would ban high capacity magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition, require a completed background check to buy or transfer a firearm and require a person to take training and receive a permit to purchase a firearm. Raschio, an Oregon Circuit Court judge based in Harney County, blocked the new laws from taking effect in December pending this week’s trial.

In their opening statement, lawyers defending the new rules for the Oregon Department of Justice said the court must determine if large capacity magazines are considered “arms” under the state constitution, and thus protected, a question they said had already been resolved by the Oregon State Court of Appeals.

Continue reading “”

Oregon judge to decide in new trial whether voter-approved gun control law is constitutional

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — An Oregon judge is set to decide whether a gun control law approved by voters in November violates the state’s constitution in a trial scheduled to start Monday.

The law, one of the toughest in the nation, was among the first gun restrictions to be passed after a major U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year changed the guidance judges are expected to follow when considering Second Amendment cases.

Measure 114 has been tied up in federal and state court since it was narrowly passed by voters in November 2022, casting confusion over its fate.

Continue reading “”

SAF SUES CALIFORNIA OVER ‘SENSITIVE PLACES’ LEGISLATION

The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a federal lawsuit in California seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from the freshly inked Senate Bill 2 (SB 2), which makes nearly every public place in the state a “sensitive place” and forbids the carrying of firearms even by citizens who have gone through the lengthy and expensive process of obtaining a concealed handgun license.

SAF is joined by Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of California, the California Rifle & Pistol Association and eleven private citizens. Named as Defendant is California Attorney General Rob Bonta. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys C.D. Michel, Sean A. Brady and Konstadinos T. Moros at Michel & Associates in Long Beach, and Donald Kilmer, Law Offices of Don Kilmer, Caldwell, Idaho.

“SB 2 is designed to frustrate and ultimately discourage individuals from exercising their right to bear arms by creating a patchwork of locations where Second Amendment rights may, or may not, be exercised,” noted SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “That is not how constitutional rights work. SAF is happy to add California to the list of states that we have sued for adopting so-called ‘Bruen Response Bills’ that make it impractical, if not impossible for people to exercise their rights by essentially making carry permits useless.”

“Under SB 2,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “legally armed California citizens might be able to carry on some streets and sidewalks, and in a few private businesses that post signs allowing legal carry on their premises. Overall, however, SB 2 is a massive prohibition on legal carry throughout the Golden State, which runs counter to what the U.S. Supreme Court said in its Bruen ruling last year, and which Gov. Gavin Newsom and anti-gun-rights state lawmakers are desperately trying to get around.”

“The right to keep and especially bear arms is under direct attack via SB 2,” Kraut observed. “California continues its trend of ignoring rights safeguarded by the Constitution. Such disregard cannot be allowed to go unchallenged.”

Fort v. Grisham: 2A Challenge to New Mexico Governor’s Carry Ban

Summary: Federal lawsuit challenging the New Mexico Governor’s total carry ban.

Plaintiffs: Zachary Fort, Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, and New Mexico Shooting Sports Association.

Defendants: New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, New Mexico Department of Health Cabinet Secretary Patrick Allen, New Mexico Department of Safety Cabinet Secretary Jason Bowie, New Mexico State Police Chief W. Troy Weisler.

Litigation Counsel: Jordon George

Docket: D. NM case no. 1:23-cv-00778 | CourtListener Docket

Key Events & Filings:

Firearms Policy Coalition @gunpolicy

The First Circuit heard oral arguments today in a lawsuit challenging Rhode Island’s magazine ban. You can listen to it here: ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/file…
“‘I struggle with the notion’ that magazines aren’t arms, said U.S. Circuit Judge Bruce Selya, a Reagan appointee. ‘The firearm isn’t operable otherwise. So I don’t understand why a magazine isn’t an essential component of a firearm and thus a firearm.'” courthousenews.com/can-states-ban…
The first federal appeals court to tackle this issue after the Supreme Court’s landmark gun-control ruling last year seemed uncertain how to proceed.
“[Judge] Kayatta was skeptical. ‘How did there get to be millions and millions of these in people’s hands if there’s a long tradition of outlawing them?’ he asked.”
wut?
Image

We all know New Mexico goobernor Grisham issued an Emergency “Health Order” suspending concealed and open carry of guns in New Mexico even for concealed carry permit holders.

Challenge to N.M. Governor’s Ban on Public Gun Carry in Albuquerque and Surrounding County

From the motion for a temporary restraining order in Nat’l Ass’n for Gun Rights v. Grisham, filed yesterday in New Mexico federal court (paragraph numbering removed).

Governor Grisham issued Executive Order 2023-130 (the “Executive Order”) on September 7, 2023…. In the Executive Order Governor Grisham declared that a state of emergency exists in in New Mexico due to gun violence.

Based on the Executive Order, [N.M. Secretary of the Department of Health Patrick Allen issued “Public Health Emergency Order Imposing Temporary Firearm Restrictions, Drug Monitoring and Other Public Safety Measures” dated September 8, 2023 (the “PHE Order”)[:] …

[1] No person, other than a law enforcement officer or licensed security officer, shall possess a firearm … either openly or concealed, within cities or counties averaging 1,000 or more violent crimes per 100,000 residents per year since 2021 according to Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program AND more than 90 firearm-related emergency department visits per 100,000 residents from July 2022 to June 2023 according to the New Mexico Department of Public Health [which, according to news accounts, includes only Bernalillo County, where Albuquerque is located -EV], except:

 

[A] On private property owned or immediately controlled by the person;

[B.] On private property that is not open to the public with the express permission of the person who owns or immediately controls such property;

[C.] While on the premises of a licensed firearms dealer or gunsmith for the purpose of lawful transfer or repair of a firearm;

[D.] While engaged in the legal use of a firearm at a properly licensed firing range or sport shooting competition venue; or

[E.] While traveling to or from a location listed in Paragraphs (1) [sic] through (4) [sic] of this section; provided that the firearm is in a locked container or locked with a firearm safety device that renders the firearm inoperable, such as a trigger lock….

Bruen states that the appropriate test for applying the Second Amendment is: “[1] When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. [2] 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.” … The Carry Prohibition flatly prohibits Plaintiffs from carrying handguns (or any other firearm) in public for self-defense. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ burden under step one of the Bruen analysis is easily met for the same reason it was met in Bruen….

In Bruen, the State of New York conceded a general right to public carry. Instead, New York argued that that the Second Amendment permits a state to condition handgun carrying in certain areas on a showing of a “need” for self-defense in those areas. The Court held that to “support that claim, the burden falls on respondents to show that New York’s proper-cause requirement is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” After an exhaustive analysis of the relevant historical tradition, the Court held that New York failed to demonstrate that its law was consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation….

If New York’s “proper-cause” requirement for public carry failed Bruen’s second step, New Mexico’s flat prohibition of public carry under any circumstances necessarily fails Bruen’s second step as well. The Court can reach this conclusion without reviewing any of the relevant history, because as a matter of simple logic it is not possible for New Mexico to demonstrate that a flat prohibition on public carry is consistent with history and tradition when even a proper cause requirement for public carry was not….

Plaintiffs [also] desire to go to private businesses open to the public while lawfully carrying a firearm for lawful purposes, including self-defense, without first obtaining the express affirmative permission of the person who owns the property. The Carry Prohibition prohibits that conduct. Last month, in Wolford v. Lopez (D. Haw. 2023), the court issued a TRO and preliminary injunction enjoining a practically identical Hawaii law. Hawaii argued that there was historical support for its prohibition on carriage on private property without consent. After examining the historical record submitted by the state, the court rejected its argument. It wrote:

… The State has not established that the portion of [the statute] that prohibits carrying firearms on private property held open to the public is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of gun regulation. Because the State has not met its burden, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their challenge to [the statute] to the extent that [the statute] prohibits carrying firearms on private property held open to the public.

The historical record has not changed since last month. Like Hawaii, New Mexico will not be able to show that the Carry Prohibition’s prohibition on lawfully carrying firearms into private businesses in Affected Areas open to the public without first obtaining the express affirmative permission of the person who owns the property is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of gun regulation. There is no such historical tradition. Therefore, the State is unable to carry its burden….

I intend to blog the other side’s argument when it becomes available. (You can read the full order, which is written to last until Oct. 6, here.) In the meantime, here’s the relevant part of the New Mexico Constitution’s right to bear arms provision (enacted in 1971):

No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.

City of Las Vegas v. Moberg (1971) interpreted the 1912 constitutional right to bear arms  provision (“The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons”) as indeed invalidating laws that ban both open and concealed carry of guns. The argument in this federal case doesn’t rely on the state constitutional provision (likely because federal courts generally can’t issue injunctions against state governments violating state law), but I thought it worth noting, since the New Mexico Governor is of course obligated to comply with the state constitution.

The next question is whether California will appeal for an en banc appeal to the full court, the court will itself ‘sua sponte’ make itself go en banc, or not.

Gun owners win new bid to challenge California’s open-carry restrictions

A federal appeals court on Thursday gave two gun owners another shot at blocking California’s restrictions on openly carrying firearms in public, citing a major U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year that expanded gun rights.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a lower-court judge applied the incorrect legal standard when she declined last year to issue a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of California’s law.

The gun owners, Mark Baird and Richard Gallardo, have been challenging the laws since 2019, saying California’s restrictions on openly carrying handguns in public violates their right to keep and bear arms under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment.

U.S. District Judge Kimberly Mueller in Sacramento, an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama, declined in December to block enforcement of the restrictions, saying doing so could endanger public safety.

But U.S. Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke, who was appointed by former Republican President Donald Trump, said Mueller failed to analyze a key factor–whether Baird and Gallardo would likely succeed on the merits of their constitutional claim.

VanDyke, whose opinion was joined by two fellow appointees of Republican presidents, stressed that the right to bear arms was not a “second-class right,” and he said the importance of evaluating the plaintiffs’ claims “does not change where the constitutional violation at issue is a Second Amendment violation.”

Amy Bellantoni, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, welcomed the ruling. “California’s open carry regulations are repugnant to the plain text of the Second Amendment and a preliminary injunction should follow,” she said in a statement.

A spokesperson for the office of California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, said in a statement that the office was reviewing the decision. “It is important to note that criminal penalties for the unlicensed open carry of firearms remain in effect,” the statement said.

Openly carrying a firearm is generally illegal in California, with narrow exceptions. Only counties with populations of less than 200,000 — which combined account for about 5% of state residents — may issue open-carry permits.

But Baird and Gallardo, who reside in these smaller counties, said they have been unable to obtain such a license.

Their lawsuit gained new support in June 2022, when the conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court declared for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense.

That decision, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, set forth a new test for assessing firearms laws, saying restrictions must be “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

The ruling has led to many other gun safety laws being struck down across the country. The Supreme Court in November will consider whether to uphold a federal ban on people under domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms.

In Thursday’s ruling, VanDyke said that on remand, Mueller must assess whether under Bruen, California’s laws are “analogous to regulations widely in effect in 1791 or 1868,” when the 14th Amendment to the Constitution was adopted.

He said Mueller must reevaluate the issue “expeditiously.”

The case is Baird v. Bonta, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 23-15016.

Federal Judge Issues 42-Page Ruling on Floating Border Barriers

A federal judge on Wednesday ordered the state of Texas to remove barriers from the Rio Grande, which Gov. Greg Abbott had put in place to deter migrants from entering his state illegally.

The Biden administration filed a lawsuit against Abbott in July, arguing that he had failed to obtain the federal government’s permission to place the buoys on the border between the U.S. and Mexico, CBS News reported.

In his 42-page preliminary injunction order, Judge David Ezra, a Ronald Reagan appointee, directed the state to remove the barriers from the river by Sept. 15.

Ezra wrote that Abbott needed permission to place the floating barriers in the Rio Grande because they obstructed a U.S. navigable waterway in violation of federal law.

The judge also pointed out that the water barrier raised international relations issues with Mexico, which are in the purview of the federal government.

“Mexico vigorously denounces the presence of the barrier, expressing its hope for expeditious removal of the barrier as the first topic at the August 10, 2023, meeting between Foreign Secretary Alicia Barcena and Secretary of State Anthony Blinken,” Ezra said.

This judge has it backwards and I’d say purposefully. The goobermint has to submit evidence that the weapons are not in common use for self defense, (impossible by the way, so that’s why the judge pretzeled it)  not the plaintiffs

Federal judge upholds Conn.’s assault weapons ban for 2nd time in a month

For the second time in less than a month, a federal judge has upheld Connecticut’s assault weapons ban by denying an injunction seeking a temporary halt to the enforcement of the ban as part of a lawsuit challenging the state’s gun laws.

In a 14-page ruling issued earlier this week, U.S. District Judge Janet Bond Arterton said the assault weapons banned by the state are not “commonly” used for self-defense, which would classify the firearms as protected under the Second Amendment.

“Plaintiffs are correct that the Second Amendment provides them with the freedom to choose a firearm . . . ‘that is not dangerous and unusual’ and that is normally used for self-defense,” Arterton said. “However, until they submit evidence that supports a finding that the assault weapons in the challenged statutes meet those requirements, they cannot show a likelihood of success on the merits of their Second Amendment claim.”

She had denied a similar injunction requested by the National Association for Gun Rights, which is also suing state officials to revoke the ban, on Aug. 3. Her ruling this week marks the third time since June that Arterton has upheld the state’s assault weapons ban.

Attorney Cameron Atkinson, one of three lawyers representing the plaintiffs, three people including two former state correction officers and two gun rights advocacy groups, said they will appeal the most recent ruling.

“The District Court did exactly what the Supreme Court told it not to do (in other rulings),” Atkinson said Wednesday. “We’re very confident that the ruling will be reversed on appeal.”

Continue reading “”

Per the usual way the courts have dealt in the past with this burr under their saddle, by the time they can delay no longer, the plaintiff’s will have reached 21 years old, and dust off their hands as they dismiss the case as moot.

Fraser v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (3:22-cv-00410) District Court, E.D. Virginia

gov.uscourts.vaed.524643.77.0_1

 

ORDER that the DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR A STAY OF INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL (ECF No. 63 ) is granted. The FINAL ORDER OF INJUNCTION (ECF No. 81 ) and the FINAL ORDER OF DECLARATORY RELIEF (ECF No. 82 ) are STAYED pending appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and oral argument would not aid the decisional process. It is so ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 8/30/2023 at 4:56 p.m. (jenjones, ) (Entered: 08/30/2023)

The Virginia federal judge found that the federal ban on handgun sales to those under the age of 21 is unconstitutional under the 2nd amendment, per Bruen’s  “History and Tradition” test.
The judge issued a nationwide injunction against the law, but stayed the order while the government appeals to the Circuit court.

21-and-up gun law to remain blocked as federal lawsuit plays out

DENVER (KDVR) — Colorado’s new law blocking all gun sales to anyone under age 21 remains on hold while a legal challenge continues to play out in court.

Rocky Mountain Gun Owners argues the law is a Second Amendment violation and is challenging its constitutionality in federal court.

A judge already blocked the gun-buying restrictions from going into effect in August while the court case plays out. Gov. Jared Polis asked the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals to block that ruling, but the court declined.

“Today, two Obama-appointed judges agreed with us that our plaintiffs do have standing and that our likelihood of success on the merits is strong,” Taylor Rhodes, executive director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, said in part in a statement.

For now, the law will remain blocked until the case is heard in court.

Coloradans under 21 could still buy rifles

While federal law requires buyers to be at least 21 years old to buy a handgun, Coloradans under age 21 can still buy rifles. If upheld, Senate Bill 23-169 would block all gun sales to anyone in Colorado under age 21.

A spokesperson for Polis’ office released a statement after the Tuesday ruling.

“People will remain very confused because of this injunction because since 1968, federal law has required Coloradans to be 21 years old to purchase a pistol, but a loophole allows kids under age 21 to legally buy a rifle instead. This new law approved by the legislature closes that loophole and Governor Polis hopes that the courts agree with him that the law is fully consistent with the Second Amendment and reduces confusion. The Governor is working towards his goal of making Colorado one of the ten safest states in the country and the same age requirements for pistols and rifles would help support responsible gun ownership.”

CONOR CAHILL, PRESS SECRETARY FOR COLORADO GOV. JARED POLIS

The Rocky Mountain Gun Owners lawsuit names two Coloradans plaintiffs in the case, each older than 18 but younger than 21 and who said they want to buy a gun for self-defense.

The gun group’s arguments have hinged on the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

In that case, the court ruled Americans have a right to carry guns in public for self-defense. The case also set a standard that courts must look at history to decide the constitutionality of gun laws.