COURT’S IN SESSION
WE’RE LEARNING THERE IS JUSTICE FOR THE 2A

Attorneys specializing in Second Amendment cases are a busy bunch these days, sometimes filing lawsuits challenging new gun laws even before the ink is dry.

For those who have been waiting for the right to keep and bear arms to get a fair shake, it appears that time is finally arriving. As this column was being written, various gun rights organizations were in court all over the place, including Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, New York, Texas and California. The bulk of these cases are in federal court since they all have Second Amendment components.

For example, the Second Amendment Foundation, which has become something of a spear point over the past few years, now has more than 50 active cases, with more on the way.

While anti-gun lawmakers have been scrambling to push through as many restrictive gun laws as possible this year, SAF, the National Rifle Association, National Shooting Sports Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition and Gun Owners of America have been moving just as fast to block implementation of those laws in the courts.

Oregon is a prime example, where four federal lawsuits were filed following last November’s passage of a very restrictive gun control initiative — Measure 114 — by a razor thin margin.

In neighboring California, there are several legal actions in progress, including one filed recently by SAF, the Firearms Policy Coalition, North County Shooting Center, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, California Gun Rights Foundation, PWGG LLP, and private citizens John Phillips, Alisha Curtin, Dakota Adelphia, Michael Schwartz, Darin Prince and Claire Richards.

This legal action is known as Richards v. Bonta, and it strikes right at the heart of the textbook example of arbitrary gun control, California’s 10-day waiting period on firearm purchases.

What’s With The Number 10?
I’ll guess with you on this one: Why is 10 the right number for anything? It’s typically the maximum number of cartridges the gun control crowd thinks belong in a pistol or rifle magazine. It’s also the number of days they think people should wait in order to exercise a constitutionally-protected, fundamental right.

SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut had an interesting observation about this. In a prepared statement, he offered, “Where this really gets silly is when the waiting period restriction even applies to a gun buyer who already owns other firearms. Not to mention, those who are looking to acquire a firearm for protection immediately do not have the luxury of waiting ten days. Long story short, the state’s ten-day waiting period must be declared unconstitutional and enjoined, which is the purpose of our lawsuit. We’re asking the court for injunctive and declaratory relief.”

Nobody can explain why the number 10 is popular with gun control
zealots who want to limit magazine capacity to 10 cartridges. Dave’s
Ruger MKIV magazines hold that number, but he didn’t have to wait
10 days to take it home from the retailer!

A practicing attorney, Kraut’s got a point. Someone who already owns firearms doesn’t need a new one to cause trouble if that’s his or her intent. And looking back at history, one sees plenty of examples where waiting 10 days didn’t prevent anything. Elliot Rodger, for example, spent months preparing for his rampage in Isla Vista. He bought three different handguns, enduring three separate California waiting periods, and when he finally did erupt in May 2014, he used only California compliant 10-round magazines.

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee signed legislation some weeks ago also establishing a 10-day waiting period. Nobody knows why “10” is the magic number.

Meanwhile, in Texas, Gun Owners of America sued the Biden administration over the “enhanced background check” mandate included in last year’s “Bipartisan Safer Communities Act,” which was Joe Biden’s gun control effort. According to Fox News, GOA contends the waiting period for young adults under age 21 is unconstitutional.

‘Sensitive Areas’
Another tactic which seems to have become popular in anti-gun states is the establishment of what are generically labeled “sensitive areas,” and it has nothing to do with biology or human anatomy.

New York pulled this in response to last year’s Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, and was promptly sued. These so-called “sensitive areas” are places where carry by licensed private citizens is forbidden, and the people responsible have tried to make such areas as expansive as possible.

 

Maryland Gov. Wes Moore signed a restrictive gun control
law in April and was immediately sued in federal court. (Official photo)

Last month, Maryland Gov. Wesley Moore signed SB1, which added new restrictions on where licensed citizens could carry for personal protection. You guessed it; he was sued almost instantaneously in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. In addition to Moore, defendants are Harford County State’s Attorney Alison M. Healey, Baltimore County State’s Attorney Scott D. Schellenberger, Baltimore City State’s Attorney Ivan J. Bates, Frederick County State’s Attorney J. Charles Smith III, Maryland State Police Supt. Col. Roland L. Butler, Jr., Transportation Secretary Paul J. Wiedefeld and Natural Resources Secretary Joshua Kurtz, in their official capacities.

New Jersey’s highly restrictive carry law is also being challenged, in a case known as Koons v. Platkin. In April, U.S. District Judge Renee Marie Bumb granted a preliminary injunction, and the state filed a motion to stay the order pending appeal. The state filed a motion for a stay, and SAF countered.

And here is where the term “historical analogue” becomes important. In layman’s terms, this means the new law will be challenged on the grounds that when the Constitution was adopted more than 240 years ago, there was no such thing as a “sensitive area” where being armed was forbidden. It appears to be a last-ditch invention to thwart the high court’s ruling, or at least slow down the implementation of sensible, constitutional gun laws.

Alan Gottlieb, SAF founder and executive vice president, explained in a prepared statement, “Instead of trying to comply with the new guidelines set down in that decision, Maryland lawmakers scrambled to make gun laws more restrictive than they were before. Indeed, the additional restrictions make it nearly impossible to legally carry firearms for personal protection, even on public land. This is government regulation at its worst.”

Maryland’s new law bans permitted carrying in facilities where alcohol is served, in health care facilities, and even in museums. Critics believe such bans are unconstitutional, but it will be up to the courts to decide.

Arm Brace Litigation
When the ATF did a flip flop on arm braces for semi-auto pistols on the AR platform, millions of gun owners were essentially shafted so the issue naturally landed in court.

Things got interesting when a federal judge in Texas issued a preliminary injunction on the Biden administration’s new “arm brace rule,” which made for some unhappy faces in the gun control camp. For a long time, the arm brace was allowed as an accessory, designed primarily as an aid to disabled shooters.

Judge Jane J. Boyle issued the injunction, SAF’s Gottlieb noted, “When Joe Biden took office, he immediately began weaponizing the ATF, and this new pistol brace rule is a result of that strategy. It amounts to a dramatic shift in policy, and leads us to conclude the administration is moving to change the definition of pistols fitted with these braces to be ‘rifles,’ and thus subject to the National Firearms Act. In the process, they’re turning millions of law-abiding citizens into criminals. We can’t allow that without a fight.”

Newsom Knew Nothing
California Gov. Gavin Newsom is a notorious anti-gunner, and when he thought he had a chance to poke rival Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis about the permitless carry bill DeSantis signed two months ago, he took it.

Too bad for Newsom he didn’t pay attention to details. Newsom blamed a Memorial Day mass shooting in Florida on the new gun law, but a fact-check revealed the law hadn’t yet taken effect. It had absolutely no impact on the shooting.

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms lit into Newsom for trying to exploit the shooting, in Hollywood, Fla., calling his effort “moronic.” The organization pointed to mass shootings in California, and it was only a partial list. There was an April shooting in Mojave, a May 2021 incident in San Jose, San Bernardino in 2015, the Isla Vista killings in 2014, and so on.