Category: Courts

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.

D.C. to pay $5.1 million settlement after judge finds Second Amendment violations

D.C. will pay $5.1 million as part of a class-action settlement with gun owners who were arrested under laws that have since been found to violate the Second Amendment, according to the settlement agreement.

Fast, informative and written just for locals. Get The 7 DMV newsletter in your inbox every weekday morning.
U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth gave preliminary approval to the settlement agreement on Monday following years of litigation. Lamberth had previously ruled in September 2021 that D.C. arrested, jailed, prosecuted and seized guns from six people “based on an unconstitutional set of laws” and violated their Second Amendment rights.

The laws — a ban on carrying handguns outside the home and others that effectively banned nonresidents from carrying guns at all in D.C. — have since been struck down in federal court. They were part of a “gun control regime that completely banned carrying handguns in public,” Lamberth wrote in the 2021 ruling.

Now, D.C. will pay a total of $300,000 to the six plaintiffs and $1.9 million in attorneys fees, with the majority of the rest of the money set aside for more than 3,000 people estimated to qualify for the class-action.

Continue reading “”

Montana leads 18 states in court to strike down Maryland ‘buffer zones’ gun law

EXCLUSIVE — Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen (R-MT) filed an amicus brief in a lawsuit over a Maryland county law he says is defying the Supreme Court’s landmark Second Amendment test by establishing “unconstitutional” gun-free buffer zones.

A group of 18 attorneys general led by Knudsen filed the brief Monday at the Virginia-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, asking the court to side with plaintiffs who say it is “practically impossible” to carry a gun for personal defense in Maryland’s most populous county, Montgomery County, due to a restrictive gun control law passed in late November.

When asked why Montana sought to intervene over a Maryland county law, Knudsen told the Washington Examiner that the Second Amendment is one of his “personal passion issues.”

“I’m a hunter. I’m a reloader. I’m a competitive shooter. I’m a bit of a gun nut — so I keep a pretty close eye on these things,” Knudsen said. “And I firmly believe that as some of these states go, if left unchallenged, we’ll see this kind of nonsense regulation and, frankly, unconstitutional laws being attempted in other places, not just in Maryland.”

Montana’s assistant solicitor general wrote in the brief first provided to the Washington Examiner that Section 57 of Montgomery County Code “prohibits the sale, transfer, or possession of firearms ‘[i]n or within 100 yards of a place of public assembly.'”

Continue reading “”

New Jersey’s Falsely Claims Historical Tradition Of Firearm Regulation Exists

Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners in a federal lawsuit challenging New Jersey’s “sensitive places” statute have filed a response brief to the state’s appeal. The case is now known as Koons v. Platkin.

In May, U.S. District Court Judge Renee Marie Bumb granted a preliminary injunction against the state. New Jersey sought a stay of that order pending appeal, to which Second Amendment Foundation filed a brief in opposition.

SAF is joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners, New Jersey Second Amendment Society, and four private citizens. Attorney David Jensen, Beacon, N.Y represent them.

“The state is trying to justify the challenged provisions of its ‘sensitive places’ law, which makes it virtually impossible for people with carry permits to actually go to most places,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Essentially, Garden State residents can walk out the front door with their legally-carried firearms, but they can’t really go anywhere.”

“We maintain the District Court acted properly by issuing a preliminary injunction against enforcement of this ‘sensitive places’ statute,” added SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The Anti-Carry Default provision of the law, which prohibits carrying on private property without the owner’s express permission, is tantamount to prohibiting lawful carry in most public places. The section prohibiting carrying a gun in a vehicle, unless the gun is unloaded and placed in a securely fastened case literally makes legal carry impossible while traveling.”

Both Second Amendment Foundation officials say it is impossible for the state to show the challenged provisions of the law, known as Chapter 131, are consistent with a historical tradition of firearm regulation.

“It is a requirement of the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling last year,” Kraut noted, “and they can’t meet that requirement because there was no such Founding-era tradition. The state has failed to show such examples, and the injunctions should be upheld.”

The court ruled that since the law hadn’t actually been enforced yet, the plaintiffs didn’t have ‘standing’, as they weren’t yet subject to harm.

New Jersey Can Sue Gun Companies As A ‘Public Nuisance,’ Appeals Court Rules

The state of New Jersey can sue firearms manufacturers under a new state public nuisance law designed to target the industry, a federal appellate court ruled on Thursday.

New Jersey, in July of 2022, enacted new statutory law that allows the attorney general to sue gun manufacturers for being a “public nuisance” if they have “endangered the safety and health of New Jersey residents through the sale, manufacture, distribution, and marketing of lethal, but nonetheless legal, gun-related products,” according to the law. The state was then sued by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) in November of 2022 in a “pre-enforcement action,” to stop them from bringing a suit under the law, which was on Thursday dismissed for a lack of ripeness — meaning that it hasn’t matured to the point where a genuine dispute exists — according to the court’s ruling dismissing the suit.

“Pre-enforcement challenges are unusual. To bring one, the plaintiff must show that the stakes are high and close at hand … Yet this suit falls far short of even the ‘normal’ pre-enforcement challenge. A brand-new civil tort statute, without more, does not justify a federal court’s intervention,” wrote U.S. Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas, a Trump appointee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, for a unanimous three-judge bench. “[W]e see little evidence that enforcement is looming … the Foundation has jumped the gun,” Bibas noted.

New Jersey’s law was passed in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, where the court in a 6-3 ruling struck down a New York law that required pistol permit applicants to prove that a “proper cause exists” for having such a permit. The Supreme Court ruled that the law violated the Second Amendment.

“The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need. The Second Amendment right to carry arms in public for self-defense is no different,” wrote Justice Clarence Thomas for the majority in the case. The ruling was widely criticized by Democrats and left-wing groups, who argued that it would increase gun violence and prompted the passage of laws by Democratic-led states to curtail firearm access.

“A gun industry member shall not, by conduct either unlawful in itself or unreasonable under all the circumstances, knowingly or recklessly create, maintain, or contribute to a public nuisance in this State through the sale, manufacturing, distribution, importing, or marketing of a gun-related product,” reads the New Jersey statute, which was challenged by the NSSF. The law also specifies that “[t]he Attorney General shall not be required to demonstrate any special injury” to prevail in a legal challenge on these grounds.

The law had previously been blocked by U.S. District Judge Zahid Quraishi of New Jersey for purportedly violating federal law, which currently immunizes gun manufacturers from lawsuits when their guns are used to commit crimes.

The law adapts a model — creating a civil cause of action for private citizens to sue — that had been adopted by some conservative states, notably Texas, to enforce abortion restrictions prior to the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade. Democratic-led states, such as California, then vowed to use the same model to target gun manufacturers.

“During oral arguments, the panel appeared to have concerns with the law, as did the district court that enjoined enforcement,” said Lawrence Keane, the NSSF’s senior vice president and general counsel. “Should New Jersey’s attorney general attempt to enforce the law, we will immediately refile our complaint.”

“I am thrilled,” said Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy of New Jersey.

Illinois’ latest gun law is an affront to more than just the Second Amendment

Illinois’ new “Firearms Industry Responsibility Act” isn’t just an attack on our right to keep and bear arms. It’s an assault on our freedom of speech as well. On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co Mark Oliva of the National Shooting Sports Foundation sits down with me to discuss the group’s newly-filed lawsuit challenging HB 218, as well as the impending ATF rule on private sales and transfers of firearms.

The NSSF’s lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for Southern Illinois, challenges the validity of Illinois’ new gun control law on multiple counts, starting with the argument that HB 218 is preempted by the Protection of Lawful Commerce Act. But the NSSF is also raising a First Amendment challenge, asserting that the law discriminates against speech based on its content or viewpoint and arguing that such discrimination should be subject to strict scrutiny by the courts.

The topics and views that Illinois has singled out in HB 218 do not fall into any “well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech” unprotected by the First Amendment. To be sure, the First Amendment does not preclude imposing liability for false, deceptive, or otherwise “misleading” commercial speech.

But HB 218 does not even purport to target only speech that is false or misleading. It authorizes the imposition of liability for speech about a product—a product expressly protected by the Constitution, no less— even when that speech is truthful and not misleading. Indeed, the words “false,” “misleading,” and “deceptive” appear nowhere in the relevant provisions.

A manufacturer that places online advertisements containing entirely accurate specifications of its products and subsequently sells that product to a distributor, could be liable under HB 218, even if that product is fully lawful in every state in which it is sold, if a Illinois court later deems the product to have been marketed (1) in a way that “contribute[d] to a condition in Illinois that endangers the safety or health of the public,” or (2) encouraged non-servicemembers to use it for “a military-related purpose”.

“They’re trying to squelch the First Amendment rights of firearm manufacturers and retailers,” Oliva explained to me. “If they can eliminate the discussion of safe and responsible firearm ownership to the next generation, they can diminish the desire for ownership and people exercising their Second Amendment rights. So they’re trying to play the long game of eliminating the Second Amendment by eliminating and curtailing the First Amendment. And it’s important to remember that commercial speech is protected by the First Amendment. It is a right for these companies to be able to advertise a constitutionally-protected product.”

In its suit, the NSSF says that the speech code established by HB 218 is so vague that it’s “virtually impossible for regulated parties to tell what speech is and is not permitted, leaving them with no realistic choice but to err on the side of refraining from exercising their First Amendment rights.”

By its terms, HB 218 renders unlawful any marketing of a firearm-related product that “create[s], maintain[s], or contribute[s] to a condition in Illinois that endangers the safety or health of the public” if it is deemed “unreasonable under all circumstances.” This restriction “will provoke uncertainty among speakers,” as such indeterminable and subjective abstractions do not articulate at all—let alone articulate with “narrow specificity”—what kind(s) of speech may later be deemed to have unreasonably contributed to a “condition … that endangers the safety or health of the public.”

Those restrictions are problematic enough, but HB 218 further prohibits marketing “in a manner that reasonably appears to support, recommend, or encourage individuals” who are not in the military “to use a firearm-related product for a military-related purpose.” The problem with this broad prohibition is that Illinois provides no guidance on what qualifies as a “military-related” purpose, leaving industry members to guess whether their marketing materials will later be deemed unlawful.

HB 218 goes on, moreover, to prohibit an industry member from “advertis[ing], market[ing], promot[ing], design[ing], or sell[ing] any firearm related product in a manner that reasonably appears to support, recommend, or encourage persons under 18 years of age to unlawfully purchase or possess or use a firearm-related product.”

A state of course may prohibit speech directly concerning unlawful conduct. But, unless this provision covers nothing more than advertisements that tell minors to buy guns (despite being minors), it is not at all clear what it means. Does any advertisement that shows minors lawfully using firearms (e.g., with a parent while hunting, or at a Boy Scouts shooting event) fall on the wrong side of the line?

What about marketing in a way targeted toward young men, who share many characteristics with those just a few years younger—but are lawfully able to purchase firearms (and serve in the armed forces)? The questions vastly outnumber the answers. And while no statute must preempt all potential complications, when it comes to a prohibition on speech, the lack of clarity is destined to create a massive chilling problem.

If HB 218 is so narrow that it only prohibits advertisements that entice juveniles into breaking the law, then this particular provision is never going to come into play in practice. If, on the other hand, the bill is written broadly enough to target manufacturers like Wee1 Tactical and its JR-15 rimfire rifle, then it’s going to make it virtually impossible to not only market but produce firearms designed for youth shooting. As Oliva says, that’s nothing more than abridging the First Amendment rights of gun makers to curb the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, and a sign of the contempt that Illinois lawmakers have for all of our individual rights.

Check out the entire conversation with Mark Oliva in the video window below, including his initial thoughts on the yet-to-be-introduced ATF rule that seeks to impose a near-universal background check system on gun sales and the dangers it poses to lawful gun owners across the country. Be sure to tune in tomorrow as well, when we’ll be talking with Jim Wallace of the Gun Owners Action League about how gun owners are pushing back on the “Lawful Citizens Imprisonment Act” and what’s happening behind the scenes at the statehouse in Boston.

ILLINOIS 5TH CIRCUIT COURT REVERSES, REMANDS FOID CARD CHALLENGE CASE

BELLEVUE, WA – The Illinois 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has finally reversed and remanded a lower court ruling in a case which could determine whether the Firearm Owner’s Identification (FOID) card requirement is constitutional.

The Second Amendment Foundation notes this will be the third go-round for the case in White County Circuit Court, but it could ultimately end up before the Illinois State Supreme Court, noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. The case was brought and funded by SAF and the Illinois State Rifle Association.

The five-page order was unanimous, with Justices John B. Barberis and Barry L. Vaughan concurring with Justice Thomas M. Welch, who delivered the opinion.

Noting that, “The State has filed a motion for summary relief arguing that the basis of the court’s dismissal—that it was impossible for Brown to comply with the statute—is not one of the bases upon which a charge may be dismissed before trial,” Justice Welch confirmed the defendant, Vivian Claudine Brown “agrees that the cause should be remanded.”

“We’re delighted the courts will finally have an opportunity to hear arguments in the actual case which challenge the constitutionality of the FOID card,” Gottlieb said. “Hopefully, this time around, we won’t see the case bogged down by more procedural issues which have allowed the court to avoid addressing the main issue at hand, which is whether the FOID card requirement actually passes constitutional muster.”

The case dates back to when Brown was originally charged with unlawful possession of a firearm without also possessing a FOID card, in May 2017.

“This case has been bouncing around for six years,” Gottlieb noted, “and it is high time to move forward.”

Federal District Court issues Temporary Restraining Order on Hawaii’s ‘new’ Concealed Carry law.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.hid.165717/gov.uscourts.hid.165717.66.0.pdf

The TRO Motion is GRANTED to the extent that the following
provisions are enjoined:
-the portions of § 134-A(a)(1) that prohibit carrying firearms
in parking areas owned, leased, or used by the State or a
county which share the parking area with non-governmental
entities, are not reserved for State or county employees,
or do not exclusively serve the State or county building;
-the entirety of §§ 134-A(a)(4) and (a)(12);
-the portions of § 134-A(a)(9) prohibiting the carrying of
firearms in beaches, parks, and their adjacent parking
areas; and
-the portion of § 134-E that prohibits carrying firearms on
private properties held open to the public.

 

FPC Files For Injunction Against Washington “Large Capacity” Magazine Ban

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that it has filed a motion for summary judgment in its Sullivan v. Ferguson lawsuit, which challenges Washington’s unconstitutional ban on common firearm magazines. The motion can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“There can be no serious dispute that the magazines Washington bans are ‘in common use’—there are hundreds of millions of them [] owned by tens of millions of Americans as private surveys and industry and government data all corroborate,” argues the motion. “Indeed, courts across the country have repeatedly found that these magazines are commonly owned and widely chosen by Americans for self-defense and other lawful purposes. That fact decides this case, and Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment in their favor.”

“There are few things more offensive than politicians arbitrarily preventing people from possessing the tools they deem necessary to protect their lives, loved ones, and communities,” said Cody J. Wisniewski, FPCAF’s General Counsel and Vice President of Legal, and FPC’s counsel in this case. “The magazines that Washington bans are constitutionally protected and it does not have the power to infringe on the rights of Washingtonians by banning them. We’re hopeful that the Court will see the error of Washington’s ways.”

FPC is joined in this lawsuit by the Second Amendment Foundation.

Federal judge in Colorado blocks law raising age requirement for gun purchases

A federal judge in Colorado on Monday temporarily blocked a state law that raised the legal age requirement for purchasing a firearm to 21.

Chief U.S. District Judge Phillip A. Brimmer ruled in favor of the gun rights group, Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, who had filed a lawsuit against Gov. Jared Polis.

The state law, SB23-169, was one of several sweeping gun reform measures approved by the state legislature and signed by Gov. Polis in the spring. It sought to prohibit people under the age of 21 from purchasing a gun, with exceptions for active members of the U.S. armed forces, peace officers, and people certified by the Peace Officer Standards and Training board.

RMGO argued in their lawsuit that law was unconstitutional. The group said if people are allowed to vote when they turn 18, they should be allowed to purchase a gun.

“Since the day this legislation was introduced, we knew it was unconstitutional,” said RMGO executive director Taylor Rhodes in a written statement. “Under the Golden Dome, at the unveiling of this proposal, RMGO warned the bill sponsors this would quickly be struck down by a federal judge. Today, our crystal ball became a reality.”

 

How a “poison pill” in NYSRPA v. Bruen is being exploited by a lower court

The last year has seen some significant successes in the restoration of our Second Amendment rights. From coast to coast, unreasonable gun laws written for the express purpose of harassing law-abiding citizens and infringing on the rights of the body politic are being struck down. Before the Bruen text/history/tradition test, just about every infringement was rubber-stamped by biased anti-Rights judges who always put a thumb on the scale in favor of restrictions.

Unfortunately, there is a sort of “poison pill” in the Court’s Bruen decision that provides a small loophole that anti-Rights judges can drive a truck through. This is the “unprecedented Societal Concern or dramatic technological changes” caveat in the Supreme Court’s opinion:

While the historical analogies here and in Heller are relatively simple to draw, other cases implicating unprecedented societal concerns or dramatic technological changes may require a more nuanced approach.

The regulatory challenges posed by firearms today are not always the same as those that preoccupied the Founders in 1791 or the Reconstruction generation in 1868. Fortunately, the Founders created a Constitution—and a Second Amendment—“intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.” McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 415 (1819) (emphasis deleted).

Although its meaning is fixed according to the understandings of those who ratified it, the Constitution can, and must, apply to circumstances beyond those the Founders specifically anticipated. See, e.g., United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400, 404–405 (2012) (holding that installation of a tracking device was “a physical intrusion [that] would have been considered a ‘search’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted”).

To be fair, the Court’s opinion talks about the importance of the right to keep and bear arms and how it has a fixed meaning and leaves it up to judges to apply those basic principles to circumstances beyond what the Founders specifically anticipated. The context, however, is not the infringement of rights but consistent support for rights over time. To drive home the point, the Court provides an example from United States v. Jones, and talks about how the installation of a GPS tracker was a physical intrusion that would have been considered a search. The Founders lived during an era when there was no electricity, but the Fourth Amendment is still applicable to small GPS devices that use signals from orbiting satellites to determine someone’s location.

But judges with inherent bias will take advantage of even the smallest opening, and we saw that yesterday at the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut in National Association for Gun Rights v. Lamont, which deals with Connecticut’s “assault weapons” ban. The plaintiffs in this case sought to get a preliminary injunction to stop the enforcement of Connecticut’s “assault weapons” ban. The Court denied the injunction, saying that the plaintiffs have failed to show their likelihood of success on the merits.

Continue reading “”

Federal judge bizarrely contends that most firearms can be banned without violating the Second Amendment

Last month, U.S. District Judge Janet Bond Arterton tossed out a lawsuit challenging Connecticut’s ban on concealed carry in state parks, ruling that the plaintiff in the litigation didn’t have standing to sue because there was no credible threat of him being arrested or prosecuted for violating the ban. That was an exceedingly odd decision, but it kept the ban in place (at least for now), which counts as a win as far as anti-gunners are concerned.

Now Arterton has followed up with another legal doozy, rejecting a preliminary injunction against the state’s newly-expanded ban on so-called assault weapons and large capacity magazines by declaring that the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence allows for bans on commonly-owned weapons, and that “only a ban on firearms that are so pervasively used for self-defense that to ban them would ‘infringe,’ or destroy, the right to self-defense” would violate our right to keep and bear arms.

Under Arterton’s interpretation of Heller, McDonald, Caetano, and Bruen everything from bolt-action hunting rifles to single-barreled shotguns could be banned without calling into question the right to keep and bear arms; presumably leaving only some (but likely not all) handguns protected by the Second Amendment’s language.

Unlike the broader category of handguns at issue in Heller and Bruen, the record developed here demonstrates that assault weapons and LCMs are suboptimal for self-defense.

A set of statutes that bans only a subset of each category of firearms that possess new and dangerous characteristics that make them susceptible to abuse by nonlaw abiding citizens wielding them for unlawful purposes imposes a comparable burden to the regulations on Bowie knives, percussion cap pistols, and other dangerous or concealed weapons, particularly when “there remain more than one thousand firearms that Connecticut residents can purchase for responsible and lawful uses like self-defense, home defense, and other lawful purposes such as hunting and sport shooting.”

Well hang on there. If, according to Arterton, only those arms that are “pervasively” used in self-defense cannot be banned, then firearms most commonly used for lawful purposes such as hunting and sport shooting have no protection whatsoever under the Second Amendment, regardless of whether or not the state of Connecticut still allows them to be sold.

You can read Arterton’s lengthy dissertation for yourself here, but I’ll caution you before you start that her opinion reminds me of the apocryphal quote attributed to W.C. Fields; if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with bullsh**. Arterton definitely left me scratching my head on multiple occasions, such as her rejection of the use of FBI crime statistics that point to rifles of any kind being rarely used in homicide because the data supposedly “provides limited relevant insight” since they “these statistics do not track what types of firearms are used with enough precision to determine whether they are assault weapons.” Arterton, meanwhile, blithely took the state’s “expert” John Donohue of Stanford University at face value, though Donohue has maintained that the individual right to keep and bear arms was created by the Supreme Court in Heller and was not a pre-existing right protected by the Second Amendment in 1791.

Continue reading “”

In reality, there are 4 branches of government:
– Executive
– Legislative
– Judicial
– Jury,  as in Jury Nullification
This is an example

In first trial for feeding homeless outside Houston library, jury finds Food Not Bombs not guilty

The first of a controversial series of tickets Houston has issued the volunteer group Food Not Bombs went to trial Friday. And before the end of the day, a jury found the volunteer, Phillip Picone, not guilty of violating city law for feeding those in need in front of the Central Library.
The ordinance was put in place by City Council in 2012 but largely had gone unenforced for over a decade, municipal records show. The city began issuing tickets after funding its own dinners at a police parking lot just outside the courthouse doors where the trial was being heard. Houston has declared that the lot is the approved public site for any group that wants to give away meals.
In an emailed statement, a city spokesperson explained that the meal program Houston is funding at the police parking lot is designed to use food to attract people to a place where they can engage with an array of services “on a reoccurring basis.”
“This is why we fight back,” Picone said after the verdict.
As of the hearing, Food Not Bombs had received 45 tickets, each seeking $254, for continuing to pass out meals at the library instead. Volunteers have argued that the law is immoral and violates their freedoms of expression and religion.Nine more tickets are scheduled for court Thursday and Friday.
“The City of Houston intends to vigorously pursue violations of its ordinance relating to feeding of the homeless,” said Houston city attorney Arturo Michel said in a statement emailed Sunday evening. “It is a health and safety issue for the protection of Houston’s residents. There have been complaints and incidents regarding the congregation of the homeless around the library, even during off hours.” The city has also decided to stop using the Central Library as an official cooling center during heat emergencies like the one unfolding this week.
During jury selection Friday, Picone’s lawyer, Paul Kubosh, explained the Houston law to potential jurors with slices of cake wrapped in cellophane.
One by one, he placed them atop a wooden partition separating him from the jurors, recalled two Food Not Bombs volunteers present. If he gave five slices to people in need, without permission of the property owner, he was fine, he said, according to the volunteers. If he gave six, he’d be violating the ordinance. And if he gave them to people who were not in need, that was also fine. (Kubosh is representing a number of people in Picone’s situation free of charge.)

Continue reading “”

Florida judge tosses gun possession cases now that permitless carry is in effect

On July 1st, it became legal in Florida for lawful gun owners to carry a concealed firearm without the need for a government permission slip. While the start of permitless carry hasn’t led to the state devolving into the Wild West or an anarchic dystopia, it has left courts around the state wrestling with what to do about those individuals who were arrested and charged with carrying without a license before the new law took effect.

On Tuesday, an Orange County courtroom was the setting for both a judge and prosecutors to throw out more than a half-dozen cases, though not every defendant is in the clear.

In a rapid-fire hearing Tuesday, an Orange County judge dismissed five cases of people charged with illegally carrying a concealed firearm that began before Florida’s new permit-less carry law took effect, while prosecutors opted to drop charges against two others.

The seven total decisions were made in a nine-minute span, with prosecutors and defense attorneys mostly referring to written arguments and saying little out loud.

Judge Mark Blechman did not give a reasoning when announcing his decision, but the few questions he asked suggested he was following the guidelines set out by the new law.…

So far, attorneys said Orange County’s court system has acted similarly to a roulette wheel, with attorneys getting different outcomes in each court room they argue in.

“I have about five pending right now with motions in various divisions,” Kathleen Gillard, whose client was among Blechman’s dismissals, said. “One judge still has it under advisement. I had watched a hearing last week where another judge granted somebody’s motion.”

Many attorneys have not yet asked their judges to dismiss their cases. Attorney Roger Weeden speculated it was because they were waiting to see how the early rulings would go. It’s estimated that there are hundreds of charges pending in various stages of the court system in Orange and Osceola counties alone.

Weeden said he himself had a half dozen cases he was working to offload, and hoped Tuesday would begin a domino chain.

“The judges are all going to be mindful of what the other judges are doing,” he explained.

Though prosecutors dropped the charge of carrying without a permit in two cases, both defendants are still facing charges for more serious crimes, according to State Attorney Monique Worrell.

The action by Judge Blechman seems like the most appropriate course to take. If the actions of those defendants were against the law when they were arrested, but the law now allows them to legally carry, what benefit is served by bringing them to trial or even offering them a plea deal in exchange for admitting guilt? The criminal justice system in this country is plagued with inefficiency and an over-reliance on plea bargains as it is, and clogging up courtrooms with non-violent, possessory carry cases that are no longer a crime is a terrible use of taxpayer dollars and the finite resources of prosecutors, public defenders, and the judiciary, not to mention a nightmare when it comes to protecting civil rights.

It’s unclear how many of the “hundreds” of outstanding cases around the state are purely possessory in nature, but there’s no reason why judges and/or prosecutors can’t dismiss the charges of carrying without a license while keeping any underlying charges in place. Florida’s criminal justice system, like its legislature, should be focused on delivering consequences for crimes of violence, not fueling infringements on our fundamental right to bear arms that have since been wiped off the books.