Category: Courts

.

What this means to me is that the bureaucraps at the FBI knew they likely stood no chance of getting a ‘real’ Article 3, Federal District Judge to issue the warrant, so they went to a magistrate they could pressure to do what they wanted.

Can Magistrate Judges Constitutionally Issue Search Warrants Against Trump (Or Anyone Else)?

Philip Hamburger is the Maurice and Hilda Friedman professor of law at Columbia Law School, and the president of the New Civil Liberties Alliance

The Mar-a-Lago search warrant is interesting not only because of the high office of the individual whose papers were seized but also because of the low office of the person who signed it. The warrant illustrates the long-standing constitutional anomaly of letting magistrate judges sign search warrants.

Leave aside how you feel about the former president. Leave aside what you think of January 6, 2021. Leave aside whether there was a good reason to issue the warrant. A more basic question is whether the Hon. Bruce Reinhart could constitutionally issue it.

Under the Constitution, a Search Warrant Must Be Signed by a Judge
The problem is that Reinhart is a so-called magistrate judge. Many commentators have focused on his personal history and political leanings, but much more significant is that he is not really a judge.

To be precise, he is not a judge of a court of the United States. The judicial power of the United States is vested in its courts. In the exercise of this power, judges of those courts can issue search warrants. But a magistrate judge is just an assistant to a court and its judges. Not being a judge of one of the courts of the United States, he cannot constitutionally exercise the judicial power of the United States. That means he cannot issue a search warrant.

The full shift of the judicial power of the United States in criminal cases to magistrate judges has been relatively recent. Only since 1968 has Congress generally authorized persons other than real judges to exercise the judicial power of the United States in trying misdemeanors (although a defendant can still insist on being tried by a real judge when charged with more than a petty offense). In addition, district courts can assign the non-judges “such additional duties as are not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.” Only since 1990 have the non-judges been called “magistrate judges.”

Just how little a magistrate judge can be considered a judge is evident from the way he is appointed. Rather than be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate—as provided by the Constitution for real judges—a magistrate judge, including the one who signed the Mar-a-Lago warrant, is appointed merely by a majority of the active judges of a district court. He serves for only eight years, he can be removed for cause, and even if not removed, he always must worry that his district court will not reappoint him.

Congress, moreover, can reduce his salary. He therefore is not a judge of the court, but merely one of its servants. Like a law clerk or other assistant, he can help a judge understand the issues underlying the decision to issue a search warrant. But he should not issue it.

Anglo-American history is illuminating. An exercise of judicial power, the issuance of a search warrant traditionally had to come from one who enjoyed that power. So, in England, search warrants had to be issued by a judge or a justice of the peace, who enjoyed elements of a judge’s authority. Similarly, in early states, search warrants had to come from a judge or justice of the peace. This already suggests a difficulty for the Mar-a-Lago warrant and any other search warrant issued by a magistrate judge or anyone else who is not really a judge, but merely an assistant or adjunct to a judge.

This problem is evident not merely from history, but from the Constitution’s very text. Whereas the English and state systems let some judicial power be exercised by justices of the peace and other judicial officers who were not judges of the courts, the federal system confined the judicial power of the United States officers to the courts and their judges.

The U.S. Constitution vests the judicial power of the United States in the Supreme Court and such other courts as Congress authorizes. That is, it leaves no room for the judicial power of the United States to be exercised by any other court or any judges except those who sit on such courts. This bodes ill for federal search warrants signed by magistrate judges and other judicial officers who are not judges of the courts.

Continue reading “.”

Federal Judge: All Texas Adults Should Have Constitutional Carry

To the extent that Texas’s statutory scheme, TEX. PENAL CODE § 46.02(a) and TEX. GOV’T CODE §§ 411.172(a)(2), (g), (h), (i), prohibits law-abiding 18-to-20-year-olds from carrying handguns for self-defense outside the home based solely on their age, this statutory scheme violates the Second Amendment, as incorporated against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment.

2. Defendants and all their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and other persons who are in active concert or participation with them are hereby ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from enforcing Texas’s statutory scheme against law-abiding 18-to-20-year-olds based solely on their age.

3. This injunction is hereby STAYED for thirty days, or pending appeal, for the duration of the appellate process.

Two Pivot Points from the Bruen Ruling

1. The Court Rejected “Tiered Scrutiny” for the Second Amendment
In many Second Amendment cases, including post-D.C. v. Heller (2008), lower courts have opted to use a two-step “intermediate scrutiny” method; this has allowed courts to “balance away” Second Amendment rights, as the courts can then determine that the state has an interest in “public safety” that overrides the individual right. These courts naturally neglect to look at what actually makes people safer, but just take, for example, the government of California at its word.

But now judges who side with Second Amendment infringements no longer have this out.

“Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many” wrote Justice Clarence Thomas in Bruen before elaborating: “Step one of the predominant framework 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 applying means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Instead, the government must affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.”

Then, after a review of the history in question, Justice Thomas wrote, “In sum, the Courts of Appeals’ second step is inconsistent with Heller’s historical approach and its rejection of means-end scrutiny. We reiterate that the standard for applying the Second Amendment is as follows: When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s ‘unqualified command.’”

This is a big legal pivot point that should redirect lower courts toward American freedom.

2. We Have a Republic, If We Can Keep It
As the story goes, Benjamin Franklin was walking out of Independence Hall after the Constitutional Convention in 1787, when someone shouted, “Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?” Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Bruen has shifted us a step toward keeping the republic, as this decision did away with “good-cause” requirements that empower government bureaucrats to use any rationale they could think up to deny anyone they want this constitutional right. But, at press time, the states that had “may-issue” regimes before Bruen were flailing as they searched for ways to continue to infringe on citizens’ ability to carry this right outside their homes.

Those legislative and court battles will likely continue for some time as some legislators in states such as California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York attempt to use over-broad “sensitive place” restrictions, fees, training mandates, waiting periods and more to continue to infringe upon this right.

Justice Thomas directly spoke to this in the Bruen decision whan he noted that the whole of Manhattan Island couldn’t be such, and which goobernor Hochul signed a hastily drafted law into effect.

Gun rights group asks judge to block NY gun ban in Times Square, other ‘sensitive’ places

A Second Amendment advocacy group on Tuesday asked a federal judge to block a New York state law that bans the carry of firearms in certain “sensitive locations” such as stadiums, hospitals and Manhattan’s Times Square.

The request was part of a lawsuit brought by the Gun Owners of America against a New York law enacted this summer in the wake of a landmark Supreme Court decision expanding the Second Amendment.

The justices’ 6-3 decision in late June found the Constitution generally protects the right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense. At the same time, the court said guns could be restricted in certain “sensitive locations,” but left that term largely undefined.

In response to the Supreme Court’s ruling, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) on July 1 signed a law that criminalizes the concealed carry of guns in airports, houses of worship, Times Square and other sensitive places, prompting a swift legal challenge.

Gun Owners of America is one of several plaintiffs who are urging a federal judge in Syracuse to block the New York law before it takes effect on Sept. 1.

During a hearing in the case on Tuesday, a lawyer for the gun rights group told U.S. District Judge Glenn Suddaby that the Supreme Court meant for the “sensitive location” exception to apply only to a “narrow group of places.”

“You know, government building, schools. But it’s not all of these places. Like, Times Square — it can’t be a sensitive place,” attorney Stephen Stamboulieh said. “It could be that Times Square is sensitive at certain times. But not all the time.”

Defending the law was James Thompson, a lawyer with the New York State Attorney General’s Office, who argued that New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act is “deeply rooted in American history.”

He said the Supreme Court’s recent June decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen recognized that “protecting people from guns in vulnerable places” is “presumptively lawful.”

A ruling on the plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction against the New York law is expected soon in the case, Antonyuk v. Bruen.

SCOTUS Turns Back Maryland Gun Ban Case, New Brief Filed

BELLEVUE, WA – -(AmmoLand.com)- Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms have filed a supplemental opening brief in their challenge of Maryland’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” based on the Supreme Court’s remand of the case back to the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals following the landmark ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen in June.

SAF and CCRKBA are joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., Field Traders, LLC, and three private citizens: David Snope, Micah Schaefer, and Dominic Bianchi, for whom the case is named. Defendants are Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh, State Police Secretary Col. Woodrow W. Jones, III, Baltimore County Sheriff R. Jay Fisher, and Anne Arundel County Sheriff Jim Fredericks, all in their official capacities.

Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Raymond M. DiGuiseppe, DiGuiseppe Law Firm P.C. in Southport, N.C., and David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, and Tiernan B. Kane, Cooper & Kirk, PLLC, Washington, D.C. The case is known as Bianchi v. Frosh.

The brief details how the high court in Bruen overruled the use of “intermediate scrutiny” in such cases as Bianchi and instead mandated “the only way that a law burdening conduct falling within the Second Amendment’s scope can be upheld is if the government can demonstrate a ‘historical tradition’ of regulations, rooted in the Founding Era, that burdened the right in a similar way and for similar reasons.” Further, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruen “demonstrates that Maryland’s ban on certain semiautomatic rifles is unconstitutional.”

“The Bruen ruling effectively ended lower court ‘means-end scrutiny’ of Second Amendment challenges that have allowed perpetuation of extremist gun laws banning firearms that are in common use,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “In that regard, the Bruen decision makes it difficult to uphold certain laws, especially when they arbitrarily ban whole classes of firearms and criminalize their possession, clearly violating a citizen’s individual right to keep and bear arms.”

Gottlieb observed that an affirmative ruling overturning Maryland’s ban could significantly impact other states where bans have been enacted or may be proposed via legislation or citizen initiative.

That’s why the Bianchi case is so important in SAF’s effort to win firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time.

Progressive writer admits real reason for anti-gun lawsuits

The right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in our Bill of Rights. While it’s been a bumpy road, the last several Supreme Court cases on the topic have firmly come down and made it clear that only minimal restrictions on that right can be tolerated.
What that means is that anti-gun progressives who want to infringe on our rights have to look at another way to do that.
Unfortunately, they’ve long had one. They tried lawsuits, then the PLCAA was passed to block that.
Yet a progressive writer at a progressive publication argues that the recent verdict against Alex Jones may provide a roadmap against gun companies, and he makes it clear what he wants to do. After all, it’s titled, “Does the Alex Jones Civil Verdict Show Us How to Bankrupt the Gun Industry?”
And the body doesn’t get much better.
lthough Alex Jones is attempting to protect himself from a recent civil court verdict (for compensatory and punitive damages) of nearly $50 million by declaring bankruptcy for his main propaganda business, more civil suits are in the pipeline. Furthermore, if the civil suit he lost last week for defamation is successful after appeals, along with others filed against him, he may indeed become bankrupt, even if he is raising money through other vehicles than his parent company right now.
Jones was sued for propagating the cruel lie that the Sandy Hook school massacre of 2012 was actually a false flag operation perpetrated to try to pass more gun control. The result has been a merciless and ceaseless series of verbal attacks, doxxing and harassment against the parents of children who died in the school. Jones’s statements were heinously harmful to those who were already living with the grief of a child being shot and killed in a classroom.
Civil suits are about attacking the pocket books of defendants, and they can be filed when a criminal suit doesn’t apply.
The gun industry learned of the danger of such suits based on the charge that gun manufacturers were and are knowingly excessively manufacturing guns for potential killers, and that they are specifically designing and marketing guns to appeal to the young, deranged, non-sports shooter based on firepower and style, as if they were selling the latest season’s cars.
Except, there’s no reason to even suspect that the gun industry believes any such thing. Yes, guns can be misused, but we also know that those manufacturers aren’t selling directly to criminals. All of their sales go through FFL holders, which means everyone gets a background check before the sale can go through.
Considering what advocates of such measures claimed when these were passed, why wouldn’t they believe they were doing enough?
Yet it’s clear the goal of such lawsuits is to essentially destroy the firearm industry in this country, all because they don’t personally approve of the private ownership of firearms.
Which, of course, we knew, but it’s always nice when they confirm it for us.
If it were merely about punishing irresponsible actions by the industry, this isn’t the language they’d use. They wouldn’t talk about bankrupting an entire industry.
But they are.
What’s more, their claims are nonsense. Yes, the marketing is meant to appeal to people. That’s what marketing is for.
However, these efforts to attack the marketing continue to fail to illustrate any link between the marketing and the bad actors themselves in any of these lawsuits. After all, gun marketing isn’t exactly on mainstream television or your average YouTube ad. For the marketing to have any impact, someone would have to actually see that marketing, and yet that link never gets shown.
That’s because that link typically just doesn’t exist.
The only “marketing” that most of these killers see is the “marketing” done by the mainstream media, which shills for people like the author and pushes the idea that such weapons cannot be stopped and are the preferred choice of mass shooters, even though they’re not.
But somehow, we don’t see CNN getting lawsuits. Weird, ain’t it?

Young v. Hawaii

George Young, a Vietnam veteran, wants to openly carry a firearm for self‐​defense in his home state of Hawaii. Hawaii allows firearms to be openly carried only by those who are “engaged in the protection of life and property.” Young was denied his permit twice and filed suit in federal district court. Young’s suit was summarily dismissed three times before he obtained pro‐​bono counsel to appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

The Ninth Circuit, in an in‐​depth and historically rooted decision, held that the Second Amendment does in fact protect the right of law‐​abiding citizens to openly carry a firearm. The Ninth Circuit then decided to hear the case en banc—meaning every judge on the circuit will hear the case rather than the typical three‐​judge panel—but that hearing was delayed pending the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. New York. Unfortunately, that case was dismissed by the Court as moot after the city changed its law in order to prevent a pro‐​Second Amendment decision.

Now the full Ninth Circuit is ready to hear Mr. Young’s case and Cato has joined with many Second Amendment groups and law professors on a brief discussing the original meaning of the Second Amendment and historical practice of carrying a firearm. We argue that contemporary understandings of the word “bear” are synonymous with “carry,” and that it was not limited to a military context. We also survey early colonial laws and show that carrying was common and legal. Finally, we discuss how individual Founders, such as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, carried weapons for self protection.

The history is clear: arms were borne by common people for self‐​defense, and the Second Amendment protects that right. The Ninth Circuit should follow the panel decision, overrule the district court, and protect Young’s right to defend himself.

New York Uses Historic Gun Bans Against Native Americans, Catholics to Justify Current Restrictions in Court Filing.

The Empire State believes its gun-carry restrictions are similar to racist gun bans from the past, and that’s why they should be upheld.

New York cited historical bans on gun ownership by Native Americans and Catholics to support its current concealed-carry permitting law. The state argued in a Monday filing its “good moral character” clause, which allows officials to deny permits to those they don’t feel are good people, is rooted in the historical tradition of “Anglo-American” gun regulations. It first pointed to several colonial gun bans as analogous to its own law.

“From the early days of English settlement in America, the colonies sought to prevent Native American tribes from acquiring firearms, passing laws forbidding the sale and trading of arms to Indigenous people,” the filing from the office of Attorney General Letitia James (D.) reads.

New York then cited historical laws in England and America denying people their gun rights based on religion as another example of the tradition its requirement is based in.

“[E]ven after the English Bill of Rights established a right of the people to arm themselves, the right was only given to Protestants, based on a continued belief that Catholics were likely to engage in conduct that would harm themselves or others and upset the peace,” the filing said.

The arguments come in an effort to save the subjective standard for issuing permits after the Supreme Court struck down the state’s similarly subjective “good reason” clause earlier this year in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. That case also established a new standard for reviewing Second Amendment cases that involves proving regulations are rooted in tradition from the time of the founding.

Continue reading “”

California church that was fined over $200K for defying COVID-19 restrictions gets fines dropped
The church continued to defy pandemic restrictions for nearly two years on First Amendment grounds

A California church that continued to hold services in defiance of county health orders that it close down during the COVID-19 pandemic has had its fines dropped after a nearly two-year battle.

“This is a significant victory for churches and pastors across this country,” Robert Tyler, president of Advocates for Faith & Freedom, said in a press release after the California Court of Appeal reversed an injunction against Calvary Chapel San Jose. “We are honored to represent pastors and churches who are willing to take the heat in defense of liberty because it benefits everyone.”

At issue was the church’s refusal to comply with health officials in Santa Clara County, who obtained a temporary restraining order and injunction in November 2020 against Calvary Chapel and two pastors, Mike McClure and Carson Atherly, after the church failed to follow pandemic health orders that included restrictions on in-person services, mask mandates, and a submission to the county of the church’s social distancing protocols.

County officials were able to successfully argue that the Santa Clara County Superior Court should hold the church and its pastors in contempt of court and to impose fines.

But the ruling didn’t change anything for Calvary Chapel, which continued to defy the orders and injunction on the grounds that it violated the First Amendment, leading the superior court to once again hold the church and McClure in contempt of court and issue monetary sanctions, adding Atherly to the order as well.

The defiance eventually resulted in over $200,000 in fines for the church, which continued to hold worship services as the monetary penalties mounted.

Calvary Chapel’s persistence eventually paid off. The California Court of Appeal reversed the injunction, contempt orders, and fines on Monday.

“For the reasons stated below, we conclude that the temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions are facially unconstitutional pursuant to the recent guidance of the United States Supreme Court regarding the First Amendment’s protection of the free exercise of religion in the context of public health orders that impact religious practice,” the court said in the ruling. “As the underlying orders which Calvary Chapel violated are void and unenforceable, we will annul the orders of contempt in their entirety and reverse the orders to pay monetary sanctions.”

McClure celebrated the ruling, saying that the county orders represented an “intrusion” on the church’s religious liberty.

“I thank God that our actions have been justified by the Court of Appeal,” McClure said in the release. “We are here to help the hurting, save the lost, and worship God without governmental intrusion.”

However, the church’s legal battle does not end with the case. Santa Clara County is still attempting to enforce $2.8 million in fines that it unilaterally levied against Calvary Chapel for violating county health orders. That case is currently making its way through the federal court system.

“The state Court of Appeal ruling should foreshadow the expected outcome in federal court,” attorney Mariah Gondeiro said in the press release. “We expect complete victory in the end.”

A Federal Judge Ignores The Bruen Decision In Minnesota

MINNEAPOLIS, MN -(Ammoland.com)- A Minnesota Federal District judge defies the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision by applying “means-end scrutiny” and “narrow tailoring” to a case involving banning firearms at the Minnesota State Fair.

The case involved Rev. Tim Christopher, Sara Cade Hauptman, and the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus suing the State Agriculture Society after the group chose to ban firearms at the state fair. All the plaintiffs were “pro se.” Pro se means the plaintiffs represent themselves in court instead of hiring attorneys to litigate the lawsuit. Most pro-se lawsuits fail because the plaintiffs are unfamiliar with the intricacies of civil law. It is always advisable to seek outside counsel to increase your chance of a favorable outcome.

In this case, the plaintiffs believed that the state could not ban guns on state grounds because it violates their Second Amendment rights. Ms. Hauptman and Rev. Christopher purchased tickets to the State Fair but could not attend because the pair refused to do so without their firearms. Neither is banned from carrying firearms under state or federal law. The two teamed up with Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus to challenge the State Agriculture Society and recover damages for breach of contract.

Under Bruen, the Supreme Court’s landmark decision, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that although some places could ban guns because they are “sensitive areas,” the mere fact that people gather in a location is not enough for the area to be considered “sensitive.” A “sensitive area” would be more like a school or government building, not a fairground. This ruling would seem to give the plaintiffs the advantage since the State Agriculture Society banned firearms because of the crowds, but the judge rule as if the Bruen Decision never happened.

U.S. District Judge John Tunheim either never heard of the Bruen decision, which seems unlikely because he is a federal judge, or chose to ignore the Supreme Court’s ruling.

The judge ruled that the State Agriculture Society did not violate the plaintiff’s Constitutional rights. He says the defendants have the right to ban guns because the fairgrounds are crowded.

A federal judge ignoring a Supreme Court decision is shocking. More shockingly, Judge Tunheim used the “means-end scrutiny” and “narrow tailoring” in his decision. Both are strictly prohibited from being used in Second Amendment cases. Multiple lawsuits have been remanded to lower courts to be reconsidered because “means-end scrutiny” and “narrow tailoring” are no longer allowed to be applied to Second Amendment cases.

Judge Tunheim was appointed by Bill Clinton and had a history of ruling against Second Amendment advocates leaving many to wonder if he was an “activist judge.” The Bruen decision is written in black and white language regarding “means-end scrutiny” and “narrow tailoring.” There is no gray area in the opinion of the high court.

AmmoLand News reached out to Judge Tunheim to ask if he had read of the Bruen decision, but our calls were not returned.

AmmoLand News reached out to the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus to inquire if there were any plans to file for a motion of reconsideration in the case because the judge’s ruling contradicts Bruen, but our emails and calls were not returned.

Another Unconstitutional Gun Grab
The gun grab proposed in H.R. 1808 would defy recent Supreme Court decisions.

On July 29, the House of Representatives passed a bill attempting to federally ban “assault weapons.” H.R. 1808 is a 126-page bill, mostly filled with lists of firearms it intends to ban by name. In summary, the proposed law forbids “a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce” any “semi-automatic assault weapon” and any magazine capable of holding more than 15 rounds of ammunition. The proposed law does not apply to weapons or magazines that were lawfully possessed before the passage of this bill, but does severely restrict the ability to transfer these grandfathered weapons, even if the transfer is a gift.

As a gun owner and the son of a former SWAT captain, I question the practical efficacy of these types of laws. Most conservatives probably are familiar with the basics of how guns work, but a quick review is worthwhile. The focus on banning “semi-automatic assault weapons” is interesting, because a semi-automatic gun is distinct from a fully automatic weapon where one can hold down the trigger and fire several shots. The latter is what comes to mind when I think of an “assault weapon” or “weapon of war.” Semi-automatic weapons fire one shot per trigger-pull. This does not seem to be a reasonable definition of the ever-elusive “assault weapon.” Common handguns such as 9mm handguns and even revolvers also fire one shot per trigger-pull, and can be fired fairly quickly, but they are not included as “assault weapons.”

The effectiveness of banning “high-capacity magazines” is likewise questionable. I believe the rationale is that a mass shooter with 30-round magazines can fire 30 shots without having to reload, so limiting magazine capacity to 15 rounds would limit the shooter’s ability to continue firing uninterrupted. But this reasoning does not lead to a drastically different result in a mass-shooter situation: even a mediocre shooter such as myself can drop an empty magazine and load a new one in a second or two.

This is worth explaining to those in favor of bills such as H.R. 1808. If this bill became law and buyers can no longer access an AR-15 or a 30-round magazine, a potential mass shooter could do the same or similar damage with a 9mm handgun and a bunch of 10-15 round magazines. Perhaps these laws are being promoted due to ignorance of the realities of firearms. Or perhaps politicians are primarily interested in scoring political points by passing bills that look like they prevent mass shootings, even if they aren’t effective.

Continue reading “”

Now That SCOTUS Made It Easier To Throw Out Anti-Gun Laws, Which One Will Be Next To Go?

The Supreme Court changed how gun laws across the country are viewed by applying a traditional understanding of the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen did a lot more than just strike down New York state’s concealed carry law. It changed the legal landscape for gun laws across the country. With that change, many gun control laws are now on life support. But the real question is — which ones are doomed?

At the end of June, the Supreme Court ruled in Bruen that it was unconstitutional for the state of New York to require individuals to demonstrate a “proper cause” for needing to carry a firearm in public. Beyond just striking down the law, however, the Supreme Court also fundamentally altered the way lower courts across the nation review Second Amendment challenges.

For over a decade, most federal courts have used a two-step test to evaluate Second Amendment cases. In step one, courts would determine whether the regulated practice was protected by the Second Amendment. If so, courts would proceed to step two and “balance” the right against the government’s purported interest in regulating the practice. This resulted in many courts upholding nearly every gun control regulation.

And for that same span, gun rights groups have argued the two-step test doesn’t follow the Supreme Court’s landmark 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller. The Heller opinion not only explicitly prohibited interest balancing but laid out a clear methodology, based on text and history, to analyze Second Amendment cases. The Supreme Court’s Bruen opinion agrees.

Instead of using the flawed two-step test, lower courts are required to examine the text of the Second Amendment, as informed by history, by applying an interpretive methodology known as “originalism.”

Continue reading “”

SAF FILES SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN MINN. CARRY BAN LAWSUIT

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation filed a motion for summary judgment in a federal lawsuit in Minnesota, challenging that state’s ban on concealed carry by young adults between the ages of 18 and 21, alleging the ban violates the Second and 14th Amendment rights of those citizens.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S District Court for the District of Minnesota. The case is known as Worth v. Harrington.

Joining SAF are the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, Firearms Policy Coalition and three private citizens in the affected age group. Defendants are John Harrington, commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, plus three county sheriffs, Mille Lac County Sheriff Don Lorge, Douglas County Sheriff Troy Wolbersen and Washington County Sheriff Dan Starry, in their individual and official capacities.

The Second Amendment Foundation in this case is represented by COOPER & KIRK, PLLC. a national recognized constitutional and civil rights law firm based in Washington, D.C.

“We recognize the rights of law-abiding young adults to vote, join the military, sign contracts, start businesses, get married and do other things,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “but when it comes to exercising one of the most basic fundamental rights protected by the Constitution, suddenly we treat them like children. You shouldn’t be able to have it both ways.

“Minnesota law prohibits private citizens from carrying guns outside the home or vehicle without a permit,” he added, “but the state does not issue permits to anyone under age 21. This is patently unfair to an entire class of citizens who have otherwise achieved ‘majority status’ to exercise these other rights and privileges, but their right to keep and bear arms is kept off-limits. Young adults between eighteen and twenty-one were fully protected by the Second Amendment at the time of its ratification. Hundreds of statutes from the colonial and founding eras required 18-to-20-year-olds to keep and bear arms.”

The time has come, Gottlieb said, for courts to remedy this situation and eliminate what amounts to a double standard.

“You either have the rights of an adult, or you don’t,” he observed. “Rights are an all-or-nothing package, whether you are 18 or 81. This inconsistency in law needs to be fixed.”

Is banning assault weapons constitutional?

A week before the House of Representatives approved a ban on “assault weapons,” a federal judge in Denver explained why such laws are unlikely to pass constitutional muster. House Democrats either were not paying attention or did not care because they view the Second Amendment as an outmoded provision that imposes no meaningful limits on gun control.

Unfortunately for them, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held otherwise, ruling that the government may not prohibit law-abiding Americans from keeping handguns at home or carrying them in public for self-defense. The Court also has said the Second Amendment covers bearable arms “in common use” for “lawful purposes,” which presents a problem for Democrats who want to ban many of the most popular rifles sold in the United States.

On July 22, U.S. District Judge Raymond P. Moore, an Obama appointee, issued a temporary restraining order that bars Superior, Colorado, from enforcing its ban on “assault weapons.” The city defines that category to include semi-automatic center-fire rifles that accept detachable magazines and have any of four features: a pistol grip, a folding or telescoping stock, a flash suppressor, or a barrel shroud.

Two gun-rights groups argued that Superior’s ordinance, which also bans magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, violated the Second Amendment. Moore concluded that they had “a strong likelihood of success on the merits.”

Moore noted that the plaintiffs had cited statistics to support their claim that the guns and magazines targeted by Superior’s ordinance “are commonly used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” He also mentioned an earlier case in his court where both sides had stipulated that “semiautomatic firearms are commonly used for multiple lawful purposes, including self-defense,” and that “lawfully owned semiautomatic firearms using a magazine with the capacity of greater than 15 rounds number in the tens of millions.”

Under the Supreme Court’s test, Moore said, those facts mean that “the right to possess, sell, or transfer” the arms covered by Superior’s ordinance is “presumptively protected.” The burden is therefore on the city to show that its ban is “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

Continue reading “”

This was for an injunction to stop the law, before more hearings in court

US Judge Declines to Block San Jose Gun Liability Ordinance

A federal judge has refused to block a San Jose, Calif., “harm reduction ordinance” that requires firearms owners to pay an annual fee and to carry liability insurance to cover unintentional deaths, injuries, or property damage.

The ruling, by Judge Beth Labson Freeman at the US District Court for the Northern District of California, came ahead of a hearing Thursday on the city’s motion to dismiss the first of three lawsuits challenging the first-in-the-nation law. The judge said she was likely to consolidate the three lawsuits and later issue a single ruling.

The lawsuits claim the ordinance violates the Second Amendment, is a special tax requiring a citizen’s vote, and implicates the First Amendment because fees are directed to an as-yet named nonprofit that will spend the money on programs to mitigate gun risk.

“I’m not exactly sure what I’m going to do here. I actually think I might grant the motion to dismiss in regard to insurance and deny the motion to dismiss in regard to the fee,” Freeman said. The judge said she was concerned that the nonprofit designated to receive the collected fees did not yet exist and that it might ultimately be “the city in nonprofit clothing.”

Continue reading “”

The Supreme Court’s Bruen Gun Decision Is Even Bigger Than You Think

Since Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas made crystal clear in his ruling in New York Pistol and Rifle v. Bruen that the Second Amendment is not a second-class civil right, the question becomes: how far does this decision go? After consulting several gun and constitutional lawyers, here’s the short answer: very far. Read on.

Thomas stated unequivocally that Americans’ right to carry a gun outside the home has been treated as a second-class right in modern times. Indeed, the whims of politicians have been treated with more respect than bedrock constitutional principles surrounding Americans’ right to defend themselves with guns.

Thomas wrote, “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.”

The decision didn’t touch on the issues of licensing, background checks, training requirements, or limiting who may have a gun permit in the case of felons and the mentally incapable.

Since the decision came out on June 23, I’ve sought the answer to the question I posed above. I’ve spoken to gun law experts around the country and sought to put things in perspective.

Continue reading “”

Why the Bruen 2nd Amendment Ruling Has Progressives Tied in an Angry Knots

History shows us that the government’s goal is to disarm its citizens.

“Common sense” gun laws touted by our progressive Democrats continue to aim us towards that disarmament. But the recent United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decision on NYSPRA v. Bruen reaffirms that our Constitution codifies the natural Right of self-defense, making the government’s goal of civilian disarmament virtually impossible to reach. They are pulling out their hair and straining to find loopholes and go-arounds.

Historically, we have gained new firearm-owning friends, so, to those 13+M new friends, we say HELLO and WELCOME ABOARD! You have made a thoughtful and courageous decision to opt-in for self-defense. In so doing, you joined your strengths with ours in the cause of SAFETY. And you understand that self-defense and the Second Amendment are intimately intertwined with FREEDOM.

Our new firearm friends, about 13,800,000, purchased their first guns during 2020 (8.4M) and 2021 (5.4M), per the NSSF. The main reason was home defense, and the second reason was self-defense. They instinctively understood that firearms would improve their odds of survival in this increasingly violent society, so they thoughtfully chose to arm themselves. Our new friends grabbed personal control back from our rogue government.

On June 23, 2022, SCOTUS struck down the remnants of New York State’s “May Issue” portion of the 1911 Sullivan Law, so now the ‘May Issue’ jurisdictions in the entire country must switch to ‘Shall Issue.’ Now, the ‘May Issue’ states must stop demanding a ‘proof of need’ for self-defense greater than an average person’s need.

Continue reading “”

How Iowa Firearms Coalition Beat County Gun-Banners & Was Paid $100,000.00

The History:

I’d like to share with you a modern-day story of David and Goliath.  If I were to mention 1 Samuel 17, the biblically literate among you would know the tale.  I highly recommend reading it, as it will make this story richer with context and provenance.  Of course, the story of David and Goliath is known far beyond the Judeo-Christian among us.  Do you recall it?  Goliath represents the mighty and powerful aggressors, while David represents the pure in spirit – someone who believed.

In 1990, the Iowa legislature preempted the regulation of firearms in the state with the enactment of Iowa Code 724.28.

Preemption doctrine refers to the principle that in a given area of law, regulations set by a higher authority will supersede those of a lower authority if the two come into conflict.  In this case, political subdivisions of the state (cities, counties, or townships) were prohibited from enacting any regulation of firearms that is more restrictive than state law. For those of you fortunate to have such a preemption law in your state, guard it with your very lives. Otherwise, your state will end up with an unnavigable patchwork of regulatory zones in which local tyrants strip you of your ability to exercise your fundamental rights.

As you might imagine, much like the ranting of our President and the immediate reactions of some state governments in response to the recent decision of the Supreme Court in NYSRPA v. Bruen, many counties and cities in Iowa disobeyed this law.  The problem of illegal local gun laws worsened significantly after Iowa switched from a “may issue” to the “shall issue” system of issuing permits to carry weapons, and the number of permit holders skyrocketed. To enforce the statute, the Iowa Legislature clarified and strengthened 724.28 in 2017.  Yet – you guessed it – the habitual violators of freedom and liberty continued to break the law.  Again in 2020, Iowa’s preemption statute was reinforced by broadening it to include all weapons and by providing standing to sue for those damaged by an illegal local policy.  Iowa specifically spelled out the word “carrying” (weapons) in 2021 for the judges and local authorities who were having trouble reading the code. An exception to the law was added in 2020 to allow local restrictions on the carrying and possession of weapons, but only in buildings where actual and adequate screening for weapons was in place and within which armed security personnel was present.

Continue reading “”

New lawsuit challenges Colorado’s high-capacity magazine ban in wake of Supreme Court’s expansion of gun rights
Rocky Mountain Gun Owners files new Second Amendment challenge in federal court

An organization of gun owners mounted a new legal challenge to Colorado’s nearly decade-old ban on large-capacity magazines Thursday, citing a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court last month that was seen as a major expansion of gun rights.

The National Foundation for Gun Rights, the legal arm of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, sued Gov. Jared Polis in U.S. District Court in Denver, asking a federal judge to strike down as unconstitutional the state’s 2013 ban on magazines that hold more than 15 rounds of ammunition, enacted in the wake of the Aurora theater shooting.

The Colorado Supreme Court in 2020 unanimously upheld the ban, ruling in a lawsuit brought by Rocky Mountain Gun Owners in state court that the prohibition does not violate residents’ right to bear arms as guaranteed by the state Constitution.

But with the new challenge — this time in federal court — Rocky Mountain Gun Owners cite last month’s New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen ruling, which found a gun-permitting law in New York violated the Second Amendment. The majority interpreted the Second Amendment as protecting people’s rights to carry a gun for self-defense outside the home.

The language in Justice Clarence Thomas’s majority opinion heightened concerns that state gun-control laws across the country, from setting age limits on firearm purchases to banning high-capacity magazines, may now be in jeopardy.

“In last month’s landmark Bruen decision, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected ‘intermediate scrutiny’ — the cost/benefit analysis framework that allowed lower courts to rule against the Second Amendment — and established that the standard for applying the Second Amendment is the text, history and tradition of the right to keep and bear arms; thereby, invalidating the lower court rulings’ justification for gun control,” Rocky Mountain Gun Owners said in its announcement of the lawsuit.

Continue reading “”