Category: Courts

BLUF
The “collective right” myth was killed in 2008. It was never really alive. Like a zombie in the movies, it keeps rearing its ugly head in ill-informed arguments about the Second Amendment.

Second Amendment “Collective Rights” Myth: Born Nov 1905 – Killed June 2008

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)-— The myth of the Second Amendment as a “collective right” and not an individual right, was born in an obscure Kansas Supreme Court case. It was in 1905, as progressive ideology was becoming ascendant in the United States.

Dave Hardy notes, the myth of the Second Amendment as a “collective right” was born with the case of City of Salina v. Blaksley, on November 11, 1905.

What happened there was that the court held that the Kansas guarantee of a right to arms did not cover his actions, because it related only to bearing arms in a militia-type function. This 1905 case was the entire starting point of “collective rights” theory.

The “collective rights” theory did not gain traction for decades. In 1931, the Michigan Supreme Court rejected it in People v Brown:

 When the bulwark of state defense was the militia, privately armed, there may have been good reason for the historical and military test of the right to bear arms. But in this state the militia, although legally existent and composed of all able-bodied male citizens…is practically extinct and has been superseded by the National Guard and reserve organizations… The historical test would render the constitutional provision lifeless.

The protection of the Constitution is not limited to militiamen nor military purposes, in terms, but extends to “every person” to bear arms for the “defense of himself” as well as of the state.

Then in 1939, the Miller case was set up by  Heartsill Ragon. Ragon was an anti-Second Amendment ideologue and a President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) ally appointed from Congress to the federal judgeship. The case went to the Supreme Court without opposing counsel or briefs. The Supreme Court refused to rule on whether a sawed-off shotgun (having not been presented with any evidence to the contrary) was an arm protected by the Second Amendment.  The Supreme Court decision stated all men capable of carrying arms were protected by the Second Amendment. No opposing views were presented to the court. From Miller:

 The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.

The Miller decision was muddy, but the context was clear. Individuals were protected by the Second Amendment.

But progressive judges started to ignore and misrepresent the Miller decision as showing the Second Amendment only applied to state militias. In 1942, during the height of World War II, two circuit court decisions added to the flimsy foundation of the “collective right” myth.

In United States v Tot, the Third Circuit held the Second Amendment did not apply to criminals, a finding which can be consistent with an individual rights interpretation. The judge, in one-paragraph dicta, pushed the myth the Second Amendment was a “collective right,” incorrectly citing Miller, and a short historical discussion of the English revolution from 1688-1689, found in Aymette (an anomalous Tennessee case from 1840), and a collection of modern writers. The historical analysis was very weak.

In the First Circuit, in Cases v United States, the three progressive judges went so far as to claim Miller did not apply to military weapons because it was what they wanted to find. From Cases:

Another objection to the rule of the Miller case as a full and general statement is that according to it Congress would be prevented by the Second Amendment from regulating the possession or use by private persons not present or prospective members of any military unit, of distinctly military arms, such as machine guns, trench mortars, anti-tank or anti-aircraft guns, even though under the circumstances surrounding such possession or use it would be inconceivable that a private person could have any legitimate reason for having such a weapon. It seems to us unlikely that the framers of the Amendment intended any such result.

In 1965, Progressive AG, Nicholas Katzenbach, in the Progressive Johnson administration, claimed the “collective right” myth was correct, without evidence. In 1968, President Johnson pushed through the infamous Gun Control Act of the same year.  After 1968, a flurry of circuit court decisions adopted the “collective right” myth, citing Tot, or Cases, or a cursory reference to Miller. The “collective right” myth was now fully formed.

The full-fledged “collective right” myth was in active use and fully formed in the courts after 1968.

It was not adopted at the Supreme Court but was pushed hard in the anti-gun MSM Media.

In the 1970s, the “collective right” myth started being exposed by academics. The myth was so thoroughly debunked in the literature the fact the Second Amendment protected individual rights was referred to as the Standard Model.

In 2004, the Department of Justice rejected the “collective rights” myth and confirmed the Second Amendment protected individual rights.

In the Heller decision published on June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court clearly and precisely points out the “collective rights” myth is false, and shows the reality. The Progressive judges on the Supreme Court generally admitted the rights protected were individual rights, but argued they should be limited by the prefactory clause. From billofrights.com:

Finally, the Court reasoned that the right to own weapons for self-defense was an “inherent” (in-born) right of all people. “It has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.’”

Four of the nine Supreme Court Justices dissented. (They disagreed with the Court’s ruling.) Some of the dissenters agreed that the Second Amendment protected an individual right. However, they argued that the scope of that individual right was limited by the amendment’s prefatory clause. One dissenter agreed that the Second Amendment protected an individual right, but argued that the District law was a reasonable restriction.

This was the death of the myth of the “collective right”. It never was reasonable to believe a pre-existing  “right of the people” would refer only to a right of the states to form militias.

The Heller decision killed any logical claim about the “collective rights” myth. It had been created out of very thin, stone soup.

Continue reading “”

An in depth look at the 5th Circuit’s ruling today. Also this was not an en banc ruling, so expect it to go there next.

Fifth Circuit Holds People Can’t Be Disarmed Just Based on Civil Restraining Order

Judge James Ho concurs, adding “I write separately to point out that our Founders firmly believed in the fundamental role of government in protecting citizens against violence, as well as the individual right to keep and bear arms—and that these two principles are not inconsistent but entirely compatible with one another.”From U.S. v. Rahimi, decided today by the Fifth Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Cory Wilson, joined by Judges Edith Jones and James Ho:
 

The question presented in this case is not whether prohibiting the possession of firearms by someone subject to a domestic violence restraining order is a laudable policy goal. The question is whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), a specific statute that does so, is constitutional under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. In the light of N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen (2022), it is not.

The court rejected the view that, under Heller and Bruen, legislatures can disarm anyone who isn’t a “law-abiding, responsible citizen[]”:

There is some debate on this issue. Compare Kanter v. Barr (7th Cir. 2019) (Barrett, J. dissenting), abrogated by Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111, with Binderup v. Att’y Gen. (3d Cir. 2016) (en banc) (Hardiman, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgments). As summarized by now-Justice Barrett, “one [approach] uses history and tradition to identify the scope of the right, and the other uses that same body of evidence to identify the scope of the legislature’s power to take it away.” The Government’s argument that Rahimi falls outside the community covered by the Second Amendment rests on the first approach. But it runs headlong into Heller and Bruen, which we read to espouse the second one.

Unpacking the issue, the Government’s argument fails because (1) it is inconsistent with Heller, Bruen, and the text of the Second Amendment, (2) it inexplicably treats Second Amendment rights differently than other individually held rights, and (3) it has no limiting principles….

Continue reading “”

5th Circuit represent.

Fifth Circuit strikes down firearms prohibition under domestic violence restraining order.

The question presented in this case is not whether prohibiting the possession of firearms by someone subject to a domestic violence restraining order is a laudable policy goal.

The question is whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), a specific statute that does so, is constitutional under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.

In the light of N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), it is not.

 

Lawyers who helped win US Supreme Court case train sights on Illinois assault weapon ban

CHICAGO — Two Second Amendment lawyers who helped win a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down a New York concealed carry gun law are now challenging the constitutionality of Illinois’ assault weapons ban – with help from the National Rifle Association.

Paul Clement, who successfully argued the New York case, is one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs in the latest federal lawsuit seeking to overturn Illinois’ two-week old ban.

Clement is a former partner in Kirkland & Ellis’ Washington, D.C., office who served as solicitor general of the United States, representing the government in cases before the nation’s top court from 2004 to 2008, during the George W. Bush Administration.

Clement and attorney Erin Murphy began their own firm after Chicago-based Kirkland & Ellis decided it would no longer handle Second Amendment-related litigation. Murphy, who was part of the New York case, is also working on the challenge to Illinois’ assault weapons ban, filed Tuesday in the Southern District of Illinois.

Plaintiffs in the new federal lawsuit are Sparta resident Caleb Barnett, Marion resident Brian Norman, Benton-based Hood’s Guns & More, Benton-based Pro Gun and Indoor Range and the National Sports Shooting Foundation, Inc.

Although the NRA is not listed as a plaintiff, a spokesperson for the organization told the Sun-Times it joined the National Sports Shooting Foundation to bring forth the suit, similar to what it did in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which was ultimately taken up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Continue reading “”

Federal Lawsuit Filed Against Unconstitutional Illinois Gun Ban

BELLEVUE, WA – -(AmmoLand.com)- The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the recently-signed Illinois gun ban legislation, alleging it to be unconstitutional and asserting the state has criminalized “a common and important means of self-defense.” The case is known as Harrel v. Raoul.

Joining SAF in this legal action are the Illinois State Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, C4 Gun Store LLC, Marengo Guns, Inc. and a private citizen, Dane Harrel. Named as defendants are Attorney General Kwame Raoul, Illinois State Police Director Brendan F. Kelly, and other officials in their official capacities. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

“Illinois has banned the future sale, importation, purchase, delivery and manufacture of the most popular rifle in the United States, along with their standard capacity magazines,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “People who already own such firearms must now register their guns with the State Police. This ban violates the constitutional rights of Illinois gun owners, and we intend to prove it in court.

“Once again,” he continued, “Illinois lawmakers are scapegoating firearms and people who own them in a transparent attempt to convince people they are doing something about the horrible violence the state has suffered in recent years, especially in Chicago. In reality, it’s an effort to distract the public from the fact that these same lawmakers have been unable or unwilling to crack down on criminals responsible for violent crime.”

Modern semiautomatic firearms banned under the new Illinois law have been deliberately mischaracterized as “assault weapons” and even “weapons of war,” Gottlieb explained. He called this patently dishonest and deceitful.

“Anti-gun politicians tout this sort of legislation,” Gottlieb observed, “while they know it really won’t accomplish anything beyond creating the false public impression they are making the community safer. No neighborhood, no city, and no state ever became safer by restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens.”

lL Gov Pritzker Signs Assault Weapons Ban Then Threatens Cops to do His Dirty Workhttps://t.co/FNZFEOLsS5 pic.twitter.com/XSHfF9kIr0

— AmmoLand News (@AmmoLand) January 13, 2023

 

Gun-rights group to appeal federal judge’s ruling upholding RI’s 10-round magazine limit

PROVIDENCE — A group of gun-rights advocates has filed notice they will appeal a federal judge’s decision here upholding Rhode Island’s new ban on gun magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

Michael A. Kelly, a lawyer representing the group, told The Journal on Friday that they hope to argue before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit that a so-called high-capacity gun magazine is part of a firearm and therefore can’t be regulated as the law does.

Last month, U.S. District Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. refused to grant a request by a Chepachet gun store and several Rhode Island gun owners for a preliminary injunction blocking the law, which makes possession of gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds a felony.

McConnell found that the plaintiffs, Big Bear Hunting and Fishing Supply, along with three Rhode Island residents — Mary Brimer, James Grundy and Jonathan Hirons — and a Newport homeowner who lives in Florida, Jeffrey Goyette, had not shown that they would suffer irreparable harm if the law were allowed to take effect, and furthermore, that allowing its enforcement was in the public’s interest.

The Second Amendment protects the right of people to “keep and bear arms,” McConnell acknowledged. But the plaintiffs, he said, had not demonstrated that the magazines represented “arms” as described in the Second Amendment. They hadn’t presented credible evidence establishing such a magazine as a weapon of self-defense.

He called the ban “a small but measured attempt to mitigate the potential loss of life by regulating an instrument associated with mass slaughter.”

The group of gun owners filed their notice of appeal Friday in U.S. District Court.

Kelly said he plans to hire as an appellate lawyer Paul Clement, the former U.S. solicitor general. Clement successfully argued for gun-rights advocates in a case prompting the U.S. Supreme Court last year to strike down a New York handgun-licensing law that required those who want to carry a handgun in public to show a special need to defend themselves.

Delaware faces lawsuit over large capacity magazine ban

(The Center Square) — Delaware is facing a legal challenge over its ban on large capacity magazines from a group which claims it violates the constitutional right to bear arms.

A lawsuit filed Thursday in U.S. District Court by the Second Amendment Foundation on behalf of two gun owners, alleges the state’s new gun restrictions violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments by preventing them from “exercising their fundamental right to keep and bear arms.

The lawsuit asks a federal judge to grant preliminary and permanent injunctions preventing the state from enforcing the restrictions on large capacity magazines.

“Delaware arbitrarily labels standard capacity magazines capable of holding more than 17 rounds as “large capacity magazines” and bans them despite the fact that they, along with the firearms with which they are compatible, are in common use for lawful purposes,” lawyers for the plaintiffs wrote in a 25 page complaint. “There is no historical tradition of this sort of firearm regulation in the United States.”

Last June, Gov. John Carney signed a package of gun control measures that included a ban on the sale of assault-style weapons, an increase in the age to purchase most firearms from 18 to 21, strengthened background checks and limits on large capacity magazines. It also banned the use of devices that convert handguns into fully automatic weapons.

The proposals were pushed through the Democratic-controlled General Assembly in the wake of several mass shootings, including the massacre of 21 at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.

“We have an obligation to do everything we can to prevent tragedies like we’ve seen around the country from happening here in Delaware,” Carney said in a statement at the time.

But Alan M. Gottlieb, the foundation’s executive vice president, said the large capacity magazine ban “literally criminalizes one of the most common and important means by which Delaware citizens can exercise their right of self-defense.” He said the restrictions “make self-defense a potential criminal act, and that must not be allowed to stand.”

The group cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the N.Y. State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen case, which struck down a New York law requiring applicants to show “proper cause” to obtain a permit to carry a firearm. The high court’s conservative majority affirmed the constitutional right to carry firearms in public places for self-defense.

Adam Kraut, the foundation’s executive director, said reduced police manpower in many communities means “there is no guarantee that emergency calls to law enforcement will bring anything resembling a swift response.”

“In the meantime, citizens must be able to rely on their fundamental rights, including the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, and those rights must be protected,” he said.

The 3rd Circuit Considers Whether Nonviolent Crimes Justify the Loss of Second Amendment Rights
Because of a misdemeanor welfare fraud conviction, Bryan Range is no longer allowed to own guns.

Back in 1995, Bryan Range pleaded guilty to fraudulently obtaining $2,458 in food stamps by misrepresenting his income. He returned the money, paid a $100 fine and $288 in court costs, and served three years of probation.

Although Range did not realize it, that Pennsylvania misdemeanor conviction also came with a lifelong penalty: He lost his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. His case, which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit will hear next month, poses the question of whether that policy, which prohibits gun ownership by millions of Americans with no history of violence, violates the Second Amendment.

Federal law generally makes it a felony to purchase or possess a gun if you have been convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year of incarceration. When a state classifies a crime as a misdemeanor, that disqualification applies if the maximum penalty exceeds two years.

Range’s crime was punishable by up to five years in prison, which meant he was no longer allowed to buy or own a firearm. When he tried to buy a deer-hunting rifle in 1998, he failed the background check.

Range figured that must have been a mistake. His wife bought him a rifle, then bought him another after the first one was destroyed in a house fire. Range later tried again to buy a gun but was again turned away, which prompted him to take a closer look at the federal prohibition, which is commonly described as applying to “felons.”

After discovering that he was a “prohibited person” even though he had not been convicted of a felony, Range sold his hunting rifle to a gun dealer. But for that law, he says, he would have kept the rifle and might also have bought a shotgun for home defense.

Continue reading “”