The #SCOTUS order is available here: https://t.co/uRxiQ7YADw https://t.co/f2rEvr9Kr4
— Amy Howe (@AHoweBlogger) May 17, 2023
Category: Courts
Maryland governor signs gun-control bills tightening requirements, NRA sues
ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) — Maryland Gov. Wes Moore signed gun-control measures into law on Tuesday, and the National Rifle Association quickly filed a federal lawsuit against them.
The governor signed legislation approved by state lawmakers this year in response to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
The high court’s ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen last year ended a requirement similar to a Maryland law for people to demonstrate a particular need to get a license to carry a concealed gun in public.
One of the measures Moore signed Tuesday removes the “good and substantial reason” language from Maryland law that the court found unconstitutional in the Bruen case. But the Maryland General Assembly, which is controlled by Democrats, also tightened gun laws to prevent someone from carrying a concealed handgun in certain areas.
“Gun violence is tearing apart the fabric of our communities, not just through mass shootings but through shootings that are happening in each of our communities far too often,” Moore, a Democrat, said at a bill-signing ceremony.
Moore said the measures he signed into law demonstrate that the state won’t back down from the challenges of addressing gun violence plaguing the nation.
“In Maryland, we refuse to say these problems are too big or too tough,” Moore said. “We will act, and that’s exactly what today represents.”
One of the bills signed by the governor generally prohibits a person from wearing, carrying or transporting a gun in an “area for children or vulnerable adults,” like a school or health care facility. The new law, which takes effect Oct. 1, also prohibits a person from carrying a firearm in a “government or public infrastructure area,” or a “special purpose area,” which is defined as a place licensed to sell alcohol, cannabis, a stadium, museum, racetrack or casino.
The law also prohibits a person carrying a firearm from entering someone’s home or property, unless the owner has given permission. There are exemptions for law enforcement, security guards and members of the military.
The NRA contends in its lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Maryland that the state passed the legislation “in defiance of” court rulings that its gun-carry permitting law was unconstitutional.
Gun rights advocates win major challenge to N.J.’s tough concealed carry law.
A new law limiting concealed carry of guns in New Jersey suffered another defeat in federal court Tuesday as a judge ordered state officials not to enforce its tight restrictions pending a flurry of legal challenges from gun rights advocates.
The ruling means New Jerseyans with proper permits are free to concealed-carry handguns at beaches, public parks, bars and restaurants — places from where Gov. Phil Murphy and his Democratic allies in the state Legislature sought to ban firearms in an effort to curb gun violence.
Following a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year that found restrictive concealed carry laws on the books in states like New York and New Jersey violated the Second Amendment, Democratic leaders in the state fast-tracked a new measure that made it easier for citizens to obtain carry permits, but tightly limited where guns were allowed.
But in a 235-page ruling made public Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Renee Marie Bumb officially put its enforcement on hold.
Gun rights advocates declared victory, praising the decision as a “smackdown” of “draconian laws.”
To these types, the court become ‘illegitimate’ when it rules opposite to what they want. That’s childish ‘stampy footing’ as most proggies do when they don’t get their way. The court, by definition, isn’t illegitimate, but if you don’t like how they rule, you either follow the methods provided in the Constitution, or get yourself classed as domestic enemy of the same.
Democrat Senator Says People Will ‘Revolt’ If Supreme Court Blocks Gun Control.
Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) claimed over the weekend that the American people would “revolt” if the United States Supreme Court continued to block new gun control laws.
Murphy made the comments to NBC’s Chuck Todd during Sunday morning’s broadcast of “Meet the Press” — after which he dug in even further, going on to attack the credibility and legitimacy of the current court.
Murphy referenced a 2022 Supreme Court decision — authored by Clarence Thomas in the 6-3 majority — that struck down New York’s restrictions on concealed carry, along with the more recent decision from Virginia District Court Judge Robert Payne. Payne ruled that a ban on gun sales for 18-20-year-olds would effectively impose restrictions on certain citizens that “do not exist with other constitutional guarantees.”
Complaining that the courts had often halted any progress toward stricter gun control measures by interfering in anything legislators were able to get done, Murphy said, “If the Supreme Court eventually says that states or the Congress can’t pass universal background checks or can’t take these assault weapons off the streets, I think there’s going to be a popular revolt over that policy.”
The Connecticut Senator then turned his attack on the Supreme Court directly, adding, “A court that’s already pretty illegitimate, is going to be in full crisis mode.” He went on to promise that legislators would continue to “regulate who owns weapons and what kind of weapons are owned” — with or without pushback from the courts.
Democrats’ Nightmares–African Americans See Racism in Democrat Attacks on Clarence Thomas.
An idea for a poll: Survey black Americans to see if they think racism is any way behind the three-decade-long, never-ending criticism of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
This shouldn’t be a controversial notion. Progressives and Democrats have long attributed racism to criticism of black government officials they like. Only last month, former White House chief-of-staff Ron Klain said racism is behind the criticism of Vice President Kamala Harris (of course along with sexism).
The left never tires of telling us how deeply racism infects the nation, that American institutions are embedded with systemic racism, that white people can’t recognize the unconscious racist attitudes they harbor about people of color, that white children develop racial bias as early as 4 years old, that racism permeates even math and science, that “white privilege” remains an ongoing injustice, and on and on.
With racism so deeply entrenched in American society, criticism of black politicians and government officials can be — even sometimes must be — based on race, according to progressive thinking.
That is, it applies when the criticism is aimed liberal office holders and public figures, according to the progressive narrative. You never heard that accusation when black conservatives are attacked.
That’s a double standard at the heart of liberal cries of racism.
But, if America is so deeply and intrinsically racist, as the far left never hesitates to remind us, why would any black official, including conservatives, be immune from race-based attacks?
Which brings us to the case of Justice Thomas.
Now it’s true that there is a bigger picture at work at the present. The most recent criticism of Justice Thomas comes amid a broad-based Democrat and left-wing assault on the Supreme Court, a full-scale, no-holds-barred campaign to delegitimize the nation’s highest court.
Like the segregationists of the 1950s and ’60s who sought to undermine the high court because of its rulings ending segregation in schools and public places, today’s progressives attack the independence and integrity of the court because they hate its prominent rulings, most notably the one returning the issue of abortion to the people to deal with through their state legislatures.
But the brunt of the anti-court blitz falls on Justice Thomas. And it’s just the latest example.
“Infringed” – finally – defined by a federal court; From the summary judgement that prohibiting 18 to 20 year old people from purchasing firearms is unconstitutional.
****
The Second Amendment accords protection of “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” by providing that the right “shall not be infringed” U.S. Const. Amend. II (emphasis added). The Second Amendment is unique in its use of “infringed” for the word does not appear anywhere else in the Constitution. Despite its uniqueness, the term “infringed” has received little attention by scholars or courts. However, Heller took the view that “infringed” “implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right.” 554 U.S. at 592 . As articulated in Heller, the Second Amendment does not serve to grant a right but rather preserves a right that the people already possessed. Therefore, to “keep and bear” serves to identify the right protected, not to define the right in the first instance.
The definition of “infringe” further supports the conclusion that the pre-existing right includes a right to purchase. “Infringe” is defined in modern dictionaries as “to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another.” “Infringe,” Merriam-Webster.com. “Encroach,” in turn, has two definitions: “to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another” and “to advance beyond the usual or proper limits.” “Encroach,” Merriam-Webster.com. Those words have possessed the same meaning since the sixteenth century and the Founders would have understood them in the same way.9 Not simply protecting the heartland of the preserved right, the Second Amendment protects the environs surrounding it to prevent any encroachment on the core protections. Thus, by virtue of the word “infringed,” the Second Amendment ‘s protective textual embrace includes the conduct necessary to exercise the right (“to keep and bear”) and that, as explained above, includes the right to purchase arms so that one can keep and bear them.
*****
Fraser v. ATF
Judge strikes down the federal law banning FFL handgun sales to young adults, saying that doing otherwise “would impose limitations on the Second Amendment that do not exist with other constitutional guarantees.”
Federal judge upholds constitutionality of law against possessing guns without serial numbers
Judge William Martínez agreed that guns lacking serial numbers are not ‘typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes’
Although a major U.S. Supreme Court decision last year made it easier to strike down gun safety regulations as unconstitutional, a federal judge agreed on Monday that a law banning the possession of guns that lack serial numbers does not run afoul of the Second Amendment.
Within months of his indictment for possessing a firearm with an “obliterated” serial number in Denver, Jonathan Avila moved for dismissal of the criminal charge, arguing the law violated his constitutional right to bear arms.
But in a May 8 order, U.S. District Court Senior Judge William J. Martínez disagreed, noting the Supreme Court has interpreted the Second Amendment as protecting the right to own weapons for the lawful purpose of self-defense.
“Reason and the experience of law enforcement counsel is that obliterating a firearm’s serial number serves another purpose: making the identity of a person who possesses a particular firearm more difficult to determine,” Martínez wrote. “This feature makes firearms with obliterated serial numbers useful for criminal activity.”
Consequently, he determined guns lacking serial numbers are not within the Second Amendment’s protection.
Martínez is one of many federal judges who have had to grapple with the fallout from the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. The court’s conservative majority voided New York’s licensing regime for the public carry of weapons, but also laid down a new legal framework for analyzing the constitutionality of gun regulations broadly.
The government, when defending the constitutionality of a firearm law, “must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” wrote Justice Clarence Thomas for the majority.
He added that if a law addresses a “general societal problem that has persisted since the 18th century,” the lack of a regulation from the 1700s comparable to a modern restriction is “relevant evidence” that current policies are unconstitutional.
Frustratingly, the same judge who issued the foolish opinion which was overturned by the Supreme Court in McDonald v. Chicago has once again stepped in to enforce unconstitutional gun control. This is not the last laugh, and we are fully invested in ensuring this law is defeated. GOA will continue to fight until lower courts, executives, and lawmakers at all levels fall in line with the Bruen precedent.
It’s a wonder they’re so arrogant they openly publish this. They’re the ‘real’ sedition and insurrectionists
Time to Go After Supreme Court
As the stories of “justices” Roberts, Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas appear every day in the paper, it appears there is some hesitancy on attacking the legitimacy of the Court. That needs to end. It is obvious that the Court will not be working for political rights, human rights, fair elections, or anything else for decades in the future. It is also obvious that they are just another branch of an oligarchic government.
Some highlights of the Roberts Court.
Citizens United — Yes, people with more money than they know what to do with should be allowed to use their money to influence elections. It was put forward as a free speech case, and money was equated with speech. As a constitutional originalist, my copy does not include a mention of money, and money was widely used during the adoption of the constitution.
Shelby — Essentially, the Voting Rights Act was eliminated based on the Court saying it was no longer necessary. Amendment XV simply says the Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. No where does it mention the Court, and why with this explicit direction, does the court substitute its judgment for Congress’s.
Gun Cases -Heller — The Court is moving for unrestricted gun access. Now guns are described as appropriate means of self defense. However, my Constitution only describes well regulated militias, and the Court avoids the need or participation in militias as part of gun rights.
Obamacare case — The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the law. However, they greatly constrained Medicaid expansion, and the case they heard was so zany it should not have been heard.
Gerrymandering — The Court has essentially said gerrymandering is fine, no matter what. We are now picking legislators and Congressmen based on an election in 2010 which gave Republicans the opportunity to gerrymander for the next ten years, and based on them still being in office based on that gerrymander, they did it again in 2020.
Harding — The Court has shown a willingness to accept the legislative doctrine, which would essentially allow these gerrymandered legislators the opportunity to pick the President.
Dobbs — Just based on the change in the Court based on some finagling by McConnell, and nominations by an impeached President, the Court essentially stripped a basic right from a majority of the population.
Impreachment 1 — The Constitution directs the Chief Justice to preside over impeachments of the President. Roberts did not do this. Since the Senate could not pass a resolution allowing the calling of witnessed, there were no witnesses. Essentially, defense counsel with the support of Republican senators prevented witnesses from appearing. Doesn’t presiding mean presiding, not showing up and sitting like a potted plant while members did crossword puzzles and left the room.
For those of us with fond memories of the Warren Court, those days are long gone. We are not looking at a Court who is working for us!
It is time for members of the Congress and Administration to challenge their legitimacy. They are not going to do anything for us, and we need to work to undermine that branch and that Court.
1) Cut their money!
2) Challenge their decisions, and if appropriate and useful, ignore them.
3) Investigate the Court and publicize it to the nines. Why do we learn of their corruption from Pro Publica. Senate Judiciary should be all over them.
There is no reason to respect the Court or its members.
This is a corollary of: ‘Familiarity breeds contempt’
You becomes so complacent, you no longer pay attention to the details that will keep you out of trouble.
It’s bad habits one has to continually work at to eliminate.
Ex-Rep. Cawthorn fined after guilty plea over gun at airport
CHARLOTTE, N.C. (AP) — Former North Carolina U.S. Rep. Madison Cawthorn pleaded guilty Friday to a misdemeanor after his loaded gun was found last year in his carry-on luggage at Charlotte Douglas International Airport.
Mecklenburg County District Court Judge Cecilia Oseguera ordered a $250 fine but allowed Cawthorn to keep the 9 mm handgun that Transportation Security Administration agents seized at a checkpoint in April 2022, news outlets reported.
Prosecutors had wanted Cawthorn to have to relinquish the gun, but Oseguera said she saw nothing in the charge of possession of a dangerous weapon on city property that required him to give it up.
“I’m very happy and thankful that the judge gave a really clear ruling that sides with the law,” Cawthorn told reporters after the hearing.
Cawthorn, a Republican who served one term representing the 11th Congressional District in the mountains, previously admitted to having the gun at the airport and wrote on social media there was “no excuse” for his mistake.
Cawthorn also was found with an unloaded gun in 2021 while trying to get on a plane at Asheville Regional Airport. Airport police confiscated the gun but allowed him to board.
Cawthorn, from Henderson County, won election to Congress in 2020 at age 25 and became one of former President Donald Trump’s strongest supporters on Capitol Hill. He lost his 2022 GOP primary to Chuck Edwards, who went on to win the general elections.
Cawthorn told reporters Friday that he thinks he’ll return to politics one day but has no definite plans.
“I enjoy the position I’m in now,” said Cawthorn, who now has a home in Florida. “The world really is the oyster for the young.”
Unfortunate, the SCOTUS will eventually have to step in on this, but Ds are counting on it possibly taking 6 years or so to get to SCOTUS. They hope to replace Thomas and/or Alito, who will be 80 & 78 in 6 yrs
Illinois assault weapons ban back in effecthttps://t.co/1zGsmm1FsL
— John R Lott Jr. (@JohnRLottJr) May 5, 2023
Lawsuit challenges California’s 10-day waiting period law for gun purchases
SAN DIEGO (CNS) – Firearms advocates filed a lawsuit in San Diego federal court this week challenging California’s 10-day waiting period for gun purchases.
The lawsuit filed Monday joins a number of others filed in San Diego in recent years challenging the state’s laws governing firearm and ammunition purchases and possession.
It alleges the state’s waiting period law “prevents law-abiding people from taking possession of lawfully acquired firearms for immediate self- defense and other lawful purposes.” The complaint alleges the law is unconstitutional as it prevents law-abiding people from receiving firearms they purchased after they pass background checks confirming they are not prohibited from doing so.
The suit was filed on behalf of several San Diego County residents who are gun owners, as well as firearms advocacy groups such as San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, California Gun Rights Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, and the Second Amendment Foundation.
In a statement, Firearms Policy Coalition director of legal operations Bill Sack said, “Arbitrarily delaying access of life-saving and constitutionally protected tools to peaceable people is immoral and unsupported by the text, history and tradition of the second amendment in this country. This law must be struck down.”
A representative from California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office said Monday that the lawsuit was being reviewed.
Democrats’ scheme to bludgeon the Supreme Court exposed at Senate Judiciary Committee hearing
The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing Tuesday on “Supreme Court Ethics Reform.” The title implies that Supreme Court ethics need reform and that Congress can do the reforming.
The hearing failed to make that case.
Everyone agrees on the critical importance of public confidence in the judiciary’s impartiality and integrity, and that that confidence is on the decline. That observation, however, raises the question of what’s causing the decline.
Democrats and their allies among left-wing groups and the media, after all, have relentlessly accused the current Supreme Court of partisanship and bias, even warning certain justices not to make the “wrong” decisions in certain cases.
There was Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., on the Supreme Court steps in March 2020, calling out Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh and shouting that they had “released the whirlwind” and would “pay the price” if they continue making “awful decisions.”
And there was Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., and four Democratic colleagues filing a brief in a Second Amendment case that closed this way: “The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself” before being forced to do so.
Or there was Whitehouse claiming, through the liberal American Constitution Society, that the GOP appointees to the court consistently deliver decisions that “advantage the big corporate and special interests that are, in turn, the political lifeblood of the Republican Party.” Not surprisingly, his methodology is itself deeply ideological, but even if he were right about the pattern, his own analysis would show that the Democratic appointees just as consistently oppose those interests. It’s funny that Whitehouse’s diatribes on this subject are always focused in one direction.
He and other Democrats were just as glaringly one-sided in Tuesday’s hearing.
‘Assault Weapon’ Bans Look More Legally Vulnerable Than Ever
A preliminary injunction in Illinois may signal the demise of a long-running public policy fraud.
These two guns fire the same ammunition at the same rate with the same muzzle velocity. But the one on top is an “assault weapon,” and the one on the bottom isn’t. (Illustration: Lex Villena)
Three days after Washington became the 10th state to enact an “assault weapon” ban, a federal judge temporarily blocked enforcement of a similar law in Illinois. That decision, which was published last Friday, may signal the demise of a long-running public policy fraud that falsely depicts an arbitrarily defined category of semi-automatic rifles as good for nothing but mass murder.
“Assault weapon” bans, which typically cover specific models along with features such as adjustable stocks, pistol grips, flash suppressors, and barrel shrouds, have always been logically dubious. And under the constitutional test that the Supreme Court recently established, they look more legally vulnerable than ever.
These laws never made much sense. With or without the features that states such as Washington and Illinois have deemed intolerable, a rifle fires the same ammunition at the same rate with the same muzzle velocity.
Even President Joe Biden, who wants Congress to revive the federal “assault weapon” ban that expired in 2004, has conceded that the law left would-be killers with plenty of alternatives that were “just as deadly.” And contrary to the claim that the rifles targeted by this sort of legislation are the “weapon of choice” in mass shootings, handguns account for more than three-quarters of the firearms used in such crimes and an even larger share of the firearms used in gun homicides generally.
The Supreme Court’s precedents suggest that “assault weapon” bans are unconstitutional as well as illogical. The Court has said the Second Amendment applies to firearms that are commonly used for lawful purposes, and last June it explicitly rejected the sort of “interest-balancing” test that lower courts had previously used to uphold “assault weapon” bans.
Instead of weighing a law’s purported public safety benefits against the burdens it imposes, the justices said, courts should ask whether it is “consistent with this Nation’s tradition of firearm regulation.” In a federal lawsuit they filed immediately after Washington enacted its “assault weapon” ban last week, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) argue that the state cannot meet that test.
“The only historical tradition that can remove a firearm from the Second Amendment’s protective scope,” the complaint says, is “the tradition of banning dangerous and unusual weapons.” But that category does not include “arms that are in common use” for legal purposes, “as the firearms Washington has banned unquestionably are.”
The SAF and the FPC note that AR-15 style rifles covered by Washington’s law “are among the most popular firearms in the nation, and they are owned by millions of Americans.” They cite survey data indicating that “about 24.6 million Americans have owned AR-15 or similar modern semiautomatic rifles.”
The SAF and the FPC made the same argument in Illinois, and U.S. District Judge Stephen P. McGlynn found it persuasive. In granting a preliminary injunction against that state’s “assault weapon” ban, McGlynn concluded that the law was probably inconsistent with the right to keep and bear arms, adding that Illinois legislators seem to have ignored that likelihood and the Supreme Court decisions underlying it.
In the survey cited by the SAF and the FPC, two-thirds of the respondents who reported owning AR-15-style rifles said they used them for recreational target shooting, while half mentioned hunting and a third mentioned competitive shooting. Sixty-two percent said they used the rifles for home defense, and 35 percent cited defense outside the home.
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, a Democrat, nevertheless insists these rifles “have no reason other than mass murder,” because “their only purpose is to kill humans as rapidly as possible in large numbers.” Illinois Senate President Don Harmon (D–Oak Park) likewise maintains that killing innocent people is the “only intent” of the rifles his state banned.
Ascribing intent to inanimate objects reflects the magical thinking of politicians who argue that certain guns are inherently evil. That position is plainly at odds with a reality that courts may no longer be able to ignore.
This is so through the looking glass it's hard to even process. The Left has used the courts to push things they couldn't achieve democratically for decades. Now that's over and most of their anger at the Court now is for its refusal to continue to legislate for them. https://t.co/rO6qp0CIwZ
— Gregg Nunziata (@greggnunziata) May 3, 2023
Is SCOTUS ready to step in on an “assault weapons” ban?
Since the Bruen decision was delivered last June, the Supreme Court has been largely content to let lower courts wrestle with the opinion and what it means for the future of gun control laws like a ban on so-called assault weapons or even the new concealed carry restrictions put in place by the state of New York after its “may issue” regime was struck down by SCOTUS in Bruen. Now the Court is being asked to weigh in on an “assault weapons” ban imposed by the city of Naperville, Illinois, and Second Amendment advocates are hoping that at least four justices are ready and willing to take up the request for an injunction.
The National Association for Gun Rights is hoping the Supreme Court will do what the Seventh Circuit did not; put a halt to Naperville’s gun ban while the case plays out in court. On Monday afternoon, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett directed Naperville officials to respond to NAGR’s request no later than noon on May 8th. Coincidentally (or not), that’s the same day that U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn has told the plaintiffs in the challenge to the statewide ban on “assault weapons” to reply to Illinois’ request to stay his injunction against the “assault weapons” and “large capacity” magazine ban, which was handed down last week.
The National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR), in conjunction with the National Foundation for Gun Rights (NFGR),says the law conflicts with the high court’s NYSRPA v. Bruen decision last year, which ruled gun laws must align with constitutional text and history.
Well, that’s not gonna happen. The bigger question is whether the Supreme Court will step in now or wait for another case involving a ban on so-called assault weapons to reach its doorstep.
Not a Second-Class Right – The Second Amendment
On July 25, 2022 the Second Amendment rightfully rejoiced about an historic decision from the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). In this now famous case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, (now commonly referred to as Bruen) the court dropped the hammer on the bigotry the 2A Community has faced for far too long.
In that ruling, the court reiterated an earlier statement form SCOTUS regarding the Second Amendment in a case referred to as McDonald: “The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780”
In Bruen, the court went even further declaring: “We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.”
These were very groundbreaking and profound statements from the highest court in the U.S. It should have meant the immediate end of modern gun control as we know it. Sadly, those of us who have been in the trenches for a long time knew it wouldn’t be. Like many other communities that have faced social bigotry in the past, we knew the anti-civil rights crowd would fight to create scorched earth policies for lawful citizens.
There is one piece of this that really hasn’t been talked about. The phrase: “The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right…”
As simple as it sounds, is it really? What does that one statement mean to the rest of Bill of Rights? The 2A Community needs to be shouting loud and clear that the ruling clearly means that whatever government does to the Second, it must also apply to every civil right, period! Imagine the true breadth of this.
If government, as a nation or state, places restrictions on or precents you entirely from exercising your Second Amendment civil rights, then why should we trust you to vote intelligently and responsibly? How about sitting on a jury? If we are not supposed to trust you with a gun, why would we ever trust you to dispense justice fairly? If, for example, a single drunk driving conviction with no jail time permanently revokes your Second Amendment rights, why should it no revoke all the rest.
Imagine all those people who believe healthcare and higher education are civil rights. Now imagine the public outcry if they were to lose those rights because they were declared “unsuitable”? There would be riots in the streets and possibly a real insurrection.
What if anyone running for any public office had to meet the local standards and restrictions faced by the 2A community? After all, if someone is not eligible under local laws to exercise their 2A civil rights, then why should they have the ability to pass laws about it? How interesting would it be for the local police chief to have suitability authority over political candidates.
If all of this seems a little far-fetched it is only because the Second Amendment being treated as a true civil right is sadly a brand-new concept. If indeed the Second is not a “second class” civil right, which it is not, then there is going to have to be a profound awaking across the board with all civil rights. Moving forward, the message from the 2A community to government officials everywhere and the anti-civil rights crowd: “Whatever you do to us, you must do to everyone and every civil right, period. If what you propose is not acceptable for any other civil rights, then it is not acceptable for the Second!”
Supreme Court Requests Brief in Case Against Illinois Town’s ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban
Naperville, Illinois, will have to defend its ban on the sale of AR-15s and similar firearms before the Supreme Court.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who oversees the circuit the case against the ban is happening in, asked the city to respond to an emergency request for an injunction against the ordinance on Monday. That means at least one justice wants to hear more about the case before the High Court decides whether or not to weigh in. The city has until May 8th to answer claims that the ban violates the Constitution.
“We’re thankful the Supreme Court is taking the Second Amendment rights of Illinoisans seriously,” Dudley Brown of the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR), a plaintiff in the case, said in a statement.
The move may indicate the Court is getting closer to taking up a case against so-called assault weapons bans. After it handed down a new test for gun cases in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Court ordered the Fourth Circuit to rehear a case upholding Maryland’s ban. Federal judges have been split on whether the bans violate the Second Amendment under the new test, opening the door for potential Supreme Court intervention and clarification.
Illinois enacted a statewide ban earlier this year, but it has since been blocked in state and federal court. It has also faced substantial backlash from Illinois sheriffs, a majority of which say they won’t enforce the ban because they consider it unconstitutional.
NAGR was denied a preliminary injunction against the Naperville ordinance in February, and the Seventh Circuit rejected the gun-rights group’s request to block enforcement of the law while its appeal is being processed. Now, the group is making the same request to the Supreme Court.
If the Court does issue an injunction against the ordinance, it will signal similar bans adopted by ten states are unconstitutional. That could upend the debate over gun control in America, which has largely centered around prohibitions on the AR-15 and similar guns. But, while Barrett’s request for a brief increases the odds the case will see action, most cases where briefs are requested do not get a full hearing.
NAGR said it is confident it will prevail in the case, though.
“Any ban on so-called ‘Assault Weapons’ is plainly unconstitutional, and now it is on the city of Naperville to explain the legal justification for their ban,” Brown said. “Of course, there isn’t any. The bans were ludicrous from the start, and if Illinois had any sense, they would wave the white flag now and save us all some time.”
Naperville did not respond to a request for comment.
Senator Schumer’s Letter to Chief Judge Godbey (NDTX)
If you don’t do what I want, “Congress will consider more prescriptive requirements.
On Thursday, Senator Charles Schumer, the Majority Leader, sent a letter to the presiding officer of a federal court. No, it was not Chief Justice Roberts. Senator Durbin has that task locked down. Rather, Schumer sent the letter to Chief Judge Godbey of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
The theme, if you couldn’t guess, concerns case assignment in single-judge divisions in Amarillo, Wichita Falls, and Lubbock. (I’ve written about this topic at some length here and here.)
Schumer charged:
Even though the Northern District has twelve active judges and another four senior judges who still hear cases, your orders provide that civil cases filed in many divisions are always assigned to a single judge, or to one of just a few.
Cases filed in the Amarillo Division are always assigned to Judge Kacsmaryk; cases filed in the Wichita Falls Division are always assigned to Judge O’Connor; and cases filed in the Abeline, Lubbock, and San Angelo Divisions are split between just two judges. As a result of your recent assignment orders, plaintiffs in your district can now effectively choose the judge who will hear their cases.
Schumer issued an ultimatum: the court should “randomly” assign cases filed in “rural divisions,” or else.
The Northern District of Texas could, and should, adopt a similar rule for all civil cases. Currently, a federal statute allows each district court to decide for itself how to assign cases.
This gives courts the flexibility to address individual circumstances in their districts and among their judges. But if that flexibility continues to allow litigants to hand-pick their preferred judges and effectively guarantee their preferred outcomes, Congress will consider more prescriptive requirements.
It has come to this. The Senate Majority leader, who has no chance of actually passing court reform legislation, is issuing empty ultimatums to a federal judge. Anyone who can count to sixty knows such “prescriptive requirements” are dead on arrival. And certainly Schumer knows that as well. But Schumer’s intent, like that of Durbin, is not to actually engage in good-faith discussions with the judiciary. Rather the goal, as always, is to undermine the authority of judges he disagrees with.
To quote Justice Alito:
It “undermines confidence in the government,” Justice Alito says. “It’s one thing to say the court is wrong; it’s another thing to say it’s an illegitimate institution. You could say the same thing about Congress and the president. . . . When you say that they’re illegitimate, any of the three branches of government, you’re really striking at something that’s essential to self-government.”
There have been no actual allegations that judges assigned to the Amarillo or Wichita Falls divisions have engaged in any judicial misconduct. (And no, authorship of a law review article that a judge did not actually write does not actually matter.) These judges have not been mandamused or reassigned by the court of appeals.
None of the progressive judges on the Fifth Circuit have, in dissent, charged these judges with malfeasance. And no bar complaints have been filed against the Texas Attorney General or other plaintiffs who have filed in these forums. DOJ has filed motions to transfer cases in these divisions. And, those motions have been denied. In doing so, these courts have rejected the premise of Schumer’s letter: that single-judge divisions undermine public confidence in the judiciary.
Senator Schumer is, in effect, seeking reconsideration of what Judges Tipton, Kacsmaryk, and others have already ruled. The chief judge of a federal district cannot sit in judgment of another district judge in his district. That job belongs to the court of appeals alone.
I am well aware that in 2016, Judge Godbey’s predecessor reassigned 15% of cases from the Wichita Falls division to herself. That was a controversial decision at the time, and one that was never fully justified. And Judge Godbey reversed that decision in 2022. I think it quite problematic for a single judge to take it upon herself to address what are, in effect, substantive grievances with a district court’s rulings.
From a pragmatic perspective, I am truly skeptical that all of the judges in Dallas would be willing to pick up a random share of cases in Amarillo or Lubbock. And no, as Senator Schumer suggests, remote hearings would not be an adequate substitute for actual parties in those communities.
The bigger problem, of course, is that Schumer has now boxed in Judge Godbey. If the Judge takes the sort of action that Schumer demanded, then he will be seen as caving to legislative pressure. If he ignores Schumer, he will be seen as enabling “judge shopping.” And law professors on Twitter will beat their drums.
My recommendation? Do nothing now. DOJ filed motions to transfer, which were denied. Those motions will be appealed to the Fifth Circuit. If the Fifth Circuit affirms those motions, then Judge Godbey will have definitive ground to maintain the status quo. Acting now would be premature, and frankly, would weaken the separation of powers and judicial independence.