Category: Courts

This decision by the entire 5th Circuit is precedence setting, and law, for these states: Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi.

ICYMI 5 Circuit: Ban on 2A Rights by Civil Restraining Order is Unconstitutional

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)-— In the Fifth Circuit, the entire Court has ruled, en banc, that mere civil restraining orders may not infringe rights protected by the Second Amendment. The unconstitutional infringement was placed into law by the infamous Lautenberg Amendment in 1996. Hundreds of thousands of lives have been turned upside down and ruined by this infamous and unjust law.

Continue reading “”

Monday a big court day for 2nd amendment, gun laws, gun rights

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in Manhattan, will hear five second amendment cases Monday.

“My hopes are Monday evening the case is decided and New Yorkers get their gun rights back,” says Oneida County’s assistant pistol licensing officer, Dan Sullivan.

It’s not clear if the judges will rule from the bench, or, reserve decision and issue a written one at a later date. But Sullivan is hopeful for the outcome.

“You’ve got the highest court in the land and you’ve got three federal judges who’ve stated in writing that the carry concealed improvement act is not constitutional, so I’m hoping we get our gun rights back,” says Sullivan.

“I think 70 or 80% of gun owners don’t have a clue what the law is right now,” says Sullivan. “I think there’s an awful lot of people that are carrying like they’ve always carried, and I don’t think they’re doing that out of maliciousness, I think they’re doing that out of simply not knowing what the law is right now”

For now, New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act remains intact.

Falls pastor may be headed to U.S. Supreme Court over New York gun law

It’s a case that has already made its way to the United States Supreme Court.

And it’s likely to return there.

But first, Niagara Falls pastor Jimmie Hardaway Jr.’s constitutional challenge to New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) faces a Monday morning hearing before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The New York City-based court is widely considered one of the most influential appeals courts in the nation.

Hardaway, of Trinity Baptist Church, and Rev. Larry Boyd, pastor of Open Praise Full Gospel Baptist Church in Buffalo, challenged the constitutionality of the CCIA, along with two national pro-gun groups, Las Vegas-based Firearms Policy Coalition and Bellevue, Washington-based Second Amendment Foundation in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. The suit sought to block a provision of the CCIA that bars individuals from bringing firearms into places of worship.

Boyd and Hardaway also sought to have the CCIA struck down in its entirety as unconstitutional.

Hardaway and Boyd have argued in the case that they would suffer irreparable harm, and that their Second Amendment rights would be violated, if the places of worship restriction was not blocked. In an affidavit accompanying the original lawsuit, Hardaway acknowledges that he is a member of the two pro-gun groups involved in the case and that he is licensed to carry a handgun in New York.

“Prior to the enactment and enforcement of the Place of Worship Ban, I would consistently carry a firearm on Trinity Baptist Church’s premises,” Hardaway said in the affidavit. “I would intend to keep carrying for self-defense and to keep the peace at Trinity Baptist Church.”

U.S. District Court Judge John L. Sinatra Jr. conducted an expedited hearing on Hardaway and Boyd’s lawsuit and, just hours after oral arguments in the case, issued a 40-page decision and order that granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) blocking the enforcement of the places of worship restriction.

New York Attorney General Letitia James, whose office defended the CCIA, had sought to remove Sinatra, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, charging that Hardaway and Boyd had engaged in “judge shopping” by having the case directed to Sinatra.

Two weeks later, in a decision and order that followed almost word-for-word and page-for-page his decision on the TRO, Sinatra granted the pastors a preliminary injunction that blocked the enforcement of the places of worship restriction. Weeks later, Sinatra ruled the entire CCIA was unconstitutional.

James appealed Sinatra’s decisions to the Second Circuit and asked the appeals court to block his rulings while they considered them. The attorney general asked the appeals court to overturn, “in each and every aspect,” Sinatra’s rulings.

The Second Circuit judges issued a stay on Sinatra’s decisions, which effectively reinstated the CCIA and the places of worship restriction.

Hardaway and Boyd asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene and overturn the stay. They argued that their rights under the Second Amendment had been “indefinitely suspend(ed).”

“Applicants, along with countless others like them, are being irreparably harmed each day this patently unconstitutional law remains in place, eviscerating the right of ordinary, law-abiding New Yorkers to carry firearms in public for self-defense,” Hardaway and Boyd’s lawyers told the high court. “Additionally, this case presents issues of national importance with respect to states that enact laws in explicit defiance of this court’s decisions.”

In January, the court, without any noted dissents, allowed the stay to remain in place while the Second Circuit proceedings continued.

The appeals court panel will hear up to 20 minutes, 10 minutes for each side, of arguments in the case. The case has attracted friend of the court briefs from both pro-gun control and pro-gun rights groups, as well as the attorneys general from a dozen states opposed to the New York law.

In his decision and order, Sinatra wrote that the State of New York had responded to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen by enacting “even more restrictive legislation” than what the high court had declared unconstitutional.

“The court reiterates that ample Supreme Court precedent addressing the individual’s right to keep and bear arms — from Heller and McDonald to its June 2022 decision in Bruen — dictates that New York’s new place of worship restriction is equally unconstitutional,” Sinatra wrote.

During oral arguments in the case, Sinatra appeared dismissive and openly hostile to the arguments being made by lawyers for the state.

“In Bruen, the (Supreme Court) made the Second Amendment test crystal clear: regulation in this area is permissible only if the government demonstrates that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition,” Sinatra wrote in his decisions. “New York fails that test. The State’s exclusion is, instead, inconsistent with the Nation’s historical traditions.”

Hardaway has maintained that his church has an “open-door policy” that carries risk over “who will walk in the door for services.” The pastor also claims that the “horrific murders” of nine parishioners at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, in 2015, has “stiffened (his) resolve to carry for self-defense and to keep the peace at Trinity Baptist strong

Should the Fifth Circuit Reconsider Rahimi En Banc?

The Fifth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Rahimi, which held that the federal statute prohibiting possession of a firearm by a person subject to a domestic violence restraining order violates the Second Amendment, has managed to stay in the news for longer than most circuit court decisions. On March 2, a month after it initially released its decision, the Fifth Circuit panel withdraw its original opinion and substituted a revised version.

The end result is the same, and the updates to the controlling opinion appear to be modest, but Judge Ho significantly expanded his concurring opinion, in which he sets out to “explain how respect for the Second Amendment is entirely compatible with respect for our profound societal interest in protecting citizens from violent criminals.” Judge Ho emphasizes that “[t]hose who commit violence, including domestic violence, shouldn’t just be disarmed—they should be detained, prosecuted, convicted, and incarcerated.”

But because the law at issue in Rahimi “disarms individuals based on civil protective orders—not criminal proceedings,” the panel found no “analogous historical tradition sufficient to support” it. That was especially true, given the way that civil protective orders are used (and abused) in our system, including by a common practice of issuing “mutual restraining orders” in domestic violence cases, a practice that results in the federal prohibition actually disarming domestic violence victims.

Judge Ho’s concurrence also highlights the importance of the Fifth Circuit getting this case right. He notes that before Bruen, circuit courts routinely misapplied Heller despite frequent criticism from the members of the Supreme Court that they were “disfavoring the Second Amendment.” And he correctly recognizes that Bruen was a response to the lower courts’ intransigence: “The Supreme Court has now responded by setting forth a new legal framework in Bruen. It is incumbent on lower courts to implement Bruen in good faith and to the best of our ability.”

Of course, the issue is fraught, so Rahimi has received a lot of attention. Given that it invalidated a federal statute, it seems like a likely candidate for catching the Supreme Court’s attention too. In fact, it appears that the Justice Department views this as a particularly good vehicle to ask the Supreme Court immediately to consider (or reconsider) some of the effects of its decision in Bruen. Attorney General Merrick Garland made a statement over a month ago, vowing to “seek further review of the Fifth Circuit’s … decision,” but there is no indication he intends to seek that review from the Fifth Circuit.

For those of us who believe Bruen got it exactly right, Rahimi may be a bad vehicle for the Supreme Court to flesh out its decision in Bruen. As much as the Justices may try to focus on the bigger-picture legal issues, bad facts make bad law, and Rahimi is full of bad facts. Even if the law that kept him from possessing firearms in this case is unconstitutional—and the panel opinion makes a compelling case that the law lacked support from the founding era—it seems clear that Mr. Rahimi is exactly the sort of person who should be able to be disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment. He was involved in five shootings in two months, including one instance when he “fired multiple shots in the air after his friend’s credit card was declined at a Whataburger restaurant.”

The Third Circuit recently heard en banc argument in United States v. Range, a case raising the constitutionality of the federal law against felon possession of a firearm—a separate subsection of the same law at issue in Rahimi—and it decided the issue was worth en banc treatment just three days after receiving the petition for rehearing was filed. More recently, the Eleventh Circuit issued a decision in National Rifle Association v. Bondi, holding that a Florida law restricting the Second Amendment rights of 18-to-20-year-olds to purchase a firearm was constitutional under Bruen. That same day, before any petition for rehearing could be filed, a judge of that court apparently called for an en banc poll, because the court entered an order withholding issuance of the mandate.

Under Fifth Circuit Internal Operating Procedures, any judge may initiate a vote to take a case en banc, even without a petition. And since it appears no petition for rehearing is forthcoming from the Justice Department, the judges of the Fifth Circuit should exercise that prerogative here. Rahimi may well wind up at the Supreme Court anyway, but given the importance of the issues, and Judge Ho’s (correct) assessment that Bruen has tasked the courts of appeals with fleshing out its method first, the Fifth Circuit may do well to consider Rahimi as a whole court first.

The Buckeye Institute Urges Court to Overturn New York’s Unconstitutional Gun Law
Mar 14, 2023
Columbus, OH – On Monday, The Buckeye Institute filed an amicus brief in Christian v. Nigrelli with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on behalf of Project 21, a national network of black political, civic, and business leaders. In its brief, The Buckeye Institute argues that New York’s Conceal Carry Improvement Act violates the right of the citizens of New York, particularly black New Yorkers, to keep and bear arms, which the U.S. Constitution guarantees.

“For decades, African Americans and other racial minorities were the targets of firearms regulations that prevented them from exercising their right to bear arms, regulations that were often enacted with racial animus,” said David C. Tryon, director of litigation at The Buckeye Institute. “But as The Buckeye Institute argues on behalf of its client, ‘Historical regulations designed to oppress racial minorities or show distrust or animus towards “disfavored” groups, cannot be the basis for infringing on the right to bear arms.’”

In New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, the U.S. Supreme Court clearly told New York that it was unconstitutional to deny people their Second Amendment rights by forcing citizens to prove they have a “special need” before they could obtain a license to carry a firearm. In its brief, The Buckeye Institute shows that New York has simply substituted “special need” with “moral character” to deny members of disfavored groups—such as minorities and the urban poor—their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Bruen’s “chaos” is a much-needed correction

Ahead of four decisions on California gun laws that are expected to soon be released by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, the Los Angeles Times is advancing the narrative that the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision is sowing “chaos” in the courts. But as we discuss on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, upending the untenable status quo is a good thing, particular given how the judiciary has abused “interest balancing” tests to regularly uphold infringements on a fundamental right.

Reporter Kevin Rector’s coverage of how the courts have dealt with the Supreme Court’s edict that those interest balancing tests are inappropriate is clearly slanted; not only in the front-page story itself, but he promoted his piece on social media.

Yes, SCOTUS has rejected the interest-balancing tests that many lower courts adopted after the Heller decision in 2008, but as Justice Clarence Thomas made clear in Bruen, that was never the appropriate test when it comes to gun control laws”

Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny.

What Rector (and the vast majority of the sources he spoke to) object to is the fact that the Court’s explicit instructions to discard those interest-balancing tests in favor of a text, history, and tradition test puts laws like California’s ban on so-called assault weapons on shaky legal ground. No longer can the courts decide that even though a particular gun control law intrudes on the Second Amendment rights of citizens, it’s okay because the government has an interest in promoting public safety. Now those laws must be justified through the historical record; something that is going to be difficult given that the gun control movement is a fairly modern creation.

“This new ‘history and tradition’ test that the Supreme Court established last June is wreaking havoc on America’s gun laws,” said Adam Winkler, a UCLA law professor who focuses on 2nd Amendment law. “Instead of having a reasonable debate over whether a ban on assault weapons is good policy or not, we have to debate whether a ban on assault weapons has historical antecedents.”

With all due respect to Winkler, the courts aren’t the right venue for a “reasonable debate” on the policy of a gun ban. Legislators can and will continue to debate banning “assault weapons”, but it’s up to the judiciary to determine if those laws are constitutionally sound. And as much as the law professor complains that Bruen is wreaking havoc on gun laws, I’d argue that when appellate courts like the Ninth Circuit refuse to ever find a gun control law unconstitutional the judiciary is wreaking havoc on a fundamental civil right.

The Bruen decision will not lead to every gun control law being overturned, as disappointing as that might be for Second Amendment advocates. Heck, the Court said that “shall issue” concealed carry regimes are presumptively constitutional, and the justices pointed to places like schools, legislative assemblies, and polling places as locations that could likely be labeled “sensitive places” without much legal trouble. But the Court’s opinion should also take an “assault weapons” ban and many other modern inventions of the gun control lobby off the table, at least if judges are willing to abide by what SCOTUS had to say.

As we’ve seen in places like Oregon, though, some judges are still finding new and creative ways to uphold gun control laws by stretching the boundaries of an historical analogue beyond credulity. Bruen may have put the lower courts on notice, but as valuable a course correction on Second Amendment jurisprudence as it might be, it can’t and won’t be the last word for the Court on our right to keep and bear arms.

Retconning Heller: Five Takes on New York Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen

New York Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen was the first significant Second Amendment case that the Supreme Court had heard in over a decade since its decision in District Columbia v. Heller. It was one of the most highly anticipated case of the 2021-22 Term and serves as the first indication of how the addition of Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett might alter the trajectory of the Court’s Second Amendment case law.

If Heller could have been characterized as a “minimalist” opinion at the time of its decision and McDonald v. Chicago as an almost overdetermined extension of Heller by its application to the states through incorporation, Bruen tends towards maximalism, dramatically expanding the scope of the Second Amendment and threatening a variety of gun control laws that lower courts had upheld while the Court stayed its hand. Given that there is now a solid majority (if not a super-majority) willing to support a robust Second Amendment, whatever Bruen’s ultimate scope, it is unlikely that the Court will be as quiescent as it was in the decade following Heller.

This essay offers some preliminary observations about both the opinion itself, as well as its likely effects, some of which are starting to manifest. Our first take concerns the question of opinion assignment. Why did Chief Justice Roberts—whose support for the Second Amendment had been suspect—assign the opinion to Justice Thomas?

Takes two and three concern Justice Thomas’s substitution of text, history, and tradition for tiered-scrutiny; and his call for courts to adopt analogical reasoning should the former fail to provide answers to resolve particular cases. In rejecting tiered-scrutiny, Thomas argued that the lower courts had misread the Heller decision itself; that Heller rejected tiered-scrutiny in favor of a textual, historical, and traditional inquiry. In order to make Bruen seem less like an abrupt departure, we argue, Justice Thomas had to “retcon” Heller—reading back into the latter decision the analytical framework adopted in Bruen. We also question how helpful his explanation of the method for analogizing to other extant gun regulations when history and tradition have run out is likely to be to lower courts who have to rehear cases involving dozens of issues delineating the scope of the Second Amendment settled over the last fifteen years since Heller.

Take Four wonders about the status of what we earlier termed “the Heller safe harbor”—the list of “presumptively lawful” regulations that the Court said were not called into question by the decision. Critics at the time questioned whether these could be squared with the self-conscious originalism of the rest of the opinion. This tension is only heighted by Bruen’s text-history-tradition only approach.

Finally, in keep with our longstanding interest in lower court reception of destabilizing, possibly transformative Supreme Court opinions, we look at the reaction of the lower courts, post-Bruen. While approaches differ, a surprising number of these opinions seem to recognize Bruen for the sea-change it portends and are attempting to implement it in good faith. Although as was true with cases like United States v. Lopez and Heller itself, some courts are also trying to avoid the wider implications of Bruen using any available argument, however specious; and we detect in some an “uncivil obedience” intended to raise the Supreme Court’s costs of holding the line laid down in Bruen. A brief conclusion follows.

RESPONSE BRIEF FILED IN MILLER v. BONTA CALIF. ‘ASSAULT WEAPON’ BAN CASE

Judge Kozinski’s Full Dissent

KOZINSKI, Circuit Judge, dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc:

Judges know very well how to read the Constitution broadly when they are sympathetic to the right being asserted. We have held, without much ado, that “speech, or . . . the press” also means the Internet, see Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997), and that “persons, houses, papers, and effects” also means public telephone booths, see Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). When a particular right comports especially well with our notions of good social policy, we build magnificent legal edifices on elliptical constitutional phrases—or even the white spaces between lines of constitutional text. See, e.g., Compassion in Dying v. Washington, 79 F.3d 790 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc), rev’d sub nom. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997). But, as the panel amply demonstrates, when we’re none too keen on a particular constitutional guarantee, we can be equally ingenious in burying language that is incontrovertibly there.

It is wrong to use some constitutional provisions as springboards for major social change while treating others like senile relatives to be cooped up in a nursing home until they quit annoying us. As guardians of the Constitution, we must be consistent in interpreting its provisions. If we adopt a jurisprudence sympathetic to individual rights, we must give broad compass to all constitutional provisions that protect individuals from tyranny. If we take a more statist approach, we must give all such provisions narrow scope. Expanding some to gargantuan proportions while discarding others like a crumpled gum wrapper is not faithfully applying the Constitution; it’s using our power as federal judges to constitutionalize our personal preferences.

The able judges of the panel majority are usually very sympathetic to individual rights, but they have succumbed to the temptation to pick and choose. Had they brought the same generous approach to the Second Amendment that they routinely bring to the First, Fourth and selected portions of the Fifth, they would have had no trouble finding an individual right to bear arms. Indeed, to conclude otherwise, they had to ignore binding precedent. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), did not hold that the defendants lacked standing to raise a Second Amendment defense, even though the government argued the collective rights theory in its brief. See Kleinfeld Dissent at 6011-12; see also Brannon P. Denning & Glenn H. Reynolds, Telling Miller’s Tale: A Reply to David Yassky, 65 Law & Contemp. Probs. 113, 117-18 (2002). The Supreme Court reached the Second Amendment claim and rejected it on the merits after finding no evidence that Miller’s weapon—a sawed-off shotgun—was reasonably susceptible to militia use. See Miller, 307 U.S. at 178. We are bound not only by the outcome of Miller but also by its rationale. If Miller’s claim was dead on arrival because it was raised by a person rather than a state, why would the Court have bothered discussing whether a sawed-off shotgun was suitable for militia use? The panel majority not only ignores Miller’s test; it renders most of the opinion wholly superfluous. As an inferior court, we may not tell the Supreme Court it was out to lunch when it last visited a constitutional provision.

The majority falls prey to the delusion—popular in some circles—that ordinary people are too careless and stupid to own guns, and we would be far better off leaving all weapons in the hands of professionals on the government payroll. But the simple truth—born of experience—is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people. Our own sorry history bears this out: Disarmament was the tool of choice for subjugating both slaves and free blacks in the South. In Florida, patrols searched blacks’ homes for weapons, confiscated those found and punished their owners without judicial process. See Robert J. Cottrol & Raymond T. Diamond, The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration, 80 Geo. L.J. 309, 338 (1991). In the North, by contrast, blacks exercised their right to bear arms to defend against racial mob violence. Id. at 341-42. As Chief Justice Taney well appreciated, the institution of slavery required a class of people who lacked the means to resist. See Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 417 (1857) (finding black citizenship unthinkable because it would give blacks the right to “keep and carry arms wherever they went”). A revolt by Nat Turner and a few dozen other armed blacks could be put down without much difficulty; one by four million armed blacks would have meant big trouble.

All too many of the other great tragedies of history—Stalin’s atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few—were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. See Kleinfeld Dissent at 5997-99. If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.

My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed—where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten. Despite the panel’s mighty struggle to erase these words, they remain, and the people themselves can read what they say plainly enough:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The sheer ponderousness of the panel’s opinion—the mountain of verbiage it must deploy to explain away these fourteen short words of constitutional text—refutes its thesis far more convincingly than anything I might say. The panel’s labored effort to smother the Second Amendment by sheer body weight has all the grace of a sumo wrestler trying to kill a rattlesnake by sitting on it—and is just as likely to succeed.