Category: Courts

Opponents of Measure 114 gun laws say case is about “individual rights” in trial opening

In opening statements Monday, lawyers for two people suing over Oregon’s new gun laws said Ballot Measure 114′s provisions are the “most significant threat to [the right to bear arms] Oregonians have faced in nearly 165 years.”

“This case is not about public health, public safety or public concern,” plaintiffs’ attorney Tony Aiello told Judge Robert Rascio. “This is about individual rights. This is about the individual right to self defense and the right to bear arms to secure that right.”

Aiello said plaintiffs in the state trial plan to show that Measure 114, approved by voters last year, effectively limits Oregonians to owning only antique firearms. He said Measure 114 regulates firearms that were plentiful prior to 1859, the year Article I, Section 27 of the Oregon constitution — the section protecting the right to bear arms — was ratified.

The new laws would ban high capacity magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition, require a completed background check to buy or transfer a firearm and require a person to take training and receive a permit to purchase a firearm. Raschio, an Oregon Circuit Court judge based in Harney County, blocked the new laws from taking effect in December pending this week’s trial.

In their opening statement, lawyers defending the new rules for the Oregon Department of Justice said the court must determine if large capacity magazines are considered “arms” under the state constitution, and thus protected, a question they said had already been resolved by the Oregon State Court of Appeals.

Continue reading “”

Oregon judge to decide in new trial whether voter-approved gun control law is constitutional

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — An Oregon judge is set to decide whether a gun control law approved by voters in November violates the state’s constitution in a trial scheduled to start Monday.

The law, one of the toughest in the nation, was among the first gun restrictions to be passed after a major U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year changed the guidance judges are expected to follow when considering Second Amendment cases.

Measure 114 has been tied up in federal and state court since it was narrowly passed by voters in November 2022, casting confusion over its fate.

Continue reading “”

ATF Backs Down on Retaliatory License Revocation of North Dakota Gun Store

Washington, D.C. — Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) are excited to announce that the ATF has backed down from attempting to revoke the FFL license of Morehouse Enterprises in Valley City, North Dakota.

Previously, GOA and GOF had filed a lawsuit in defense of the gun retailer, which does business as Bridge City Ordnance. The company was facing the loss of its license due to minor paperwork errors, which, under the new Biden “Zero Tolerance” policy, was grounds for revocation.

Previous ATF policy dictated that warnings and required corrective action were appropriate measures for first-time errors, and only after that could license revocation proceedings be initiated if improvement was not demonstrated.

It has become quite obvious to the average individual that the ATF conducted the “random” inspection of Bridge City Ordnance right after the company joined GOA and GOF in a separate lawsuit challenging the ATF’s Ghost Gun Frame and Receiver Rule last summer.

Litigation is ongoing in both cases.

“The ATF kicked a hornet’s nest when they thought they could send a message to gun dealers who dared to challenge their illegal actions in court. In response, GOA and GOF stepped in, and we made clear they were about to engage in a losing battle. We are thrilled for Bridge City Ordnance and hope this encourages ATF to revisit their ‘zero tolerance’ policy.”

Read Related: Retaliation: ATF Shuts Down FFL After Gun Store Sues the Same ATF

SAF SUES CALIFORNIA OVER ‘SENSITIVE PLACES’ LEGISLATION

The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a federal lawsuit in California seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from the freshly inked Senate Bill 2 (SB 2), which makes nearly every public place in the state a “sensitive place” and forbids the carrying of firearms even by citizens who have gone through the lengthy and expensive process of obtaining a concealed handgun license.

SAF is joined by Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of California, the California Rifle & Pistol Association and eleven private citizens. Named as Defendant is California Attorney General Rob Bonta. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys C.D. Michel, Sean A. Brady and Konstadinos T. Moros at Michel & Associates in Long Beach, and Donald Kilmer, Law Offices of Don Kilmer, Caldwell, Idaho.

“SB 2 is designed to frustrate and ultimately discourage individuals from exercising their right to bear arms by creating a patchwork of locations where Second Amendment rights may, or may not, be exercised,” noted SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “That is not how constitutional rights work. SAF is happy to add California to the list of states that we have sued for adopting so-called ‘Bruen Response Bills’ that make it impractical, if not impossible for people to exercise their rights by essentially making carry permits useless.”

“Under SB 2,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “legally armed California citizens might be able to carry on some streets and sidewalks, and in a few private businesses that post signs allowing legal carry on their premises. Overall, however, SB 2 is a massive prohibition on legal carry throughout the Golden State, which runs counter to what the U.S. Supreme Court said in its Bruen ruling last year, and which Gov. Gavin Newsom and anti-gun-rights state lawmakers are desperately trying to get around.”

“The right to keep and especially bear arms is under direct attack via SB 2,” Kraut observed. “California continues its trend of ignoring rights safeguarded by the Constitution. Such disregard cannot be allowed to go unchallenged.”

 

 

Fort v. Grisham: 2A Challenge to New Mexico Governor’s Carry Ban

Summary: Federal lawsuit challenging the New Mexico Governor’s total carry ban.

Plaintiffs: Zachary Fort, Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, and New Mexico Shooting Sports Association.

Defendants: New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, New Mexico Department of Health Cabinet Secretary Patrick Allen, New Mexico Department of Safety Cabinet Secretary Jason Bowie, New Mexico State Police Chief W. Troy Weisler.

Litigation Counsel: Jordon George

Docket: D. NM case no. 1:23-cv-00778 | CourtListener Docket

Key Events & Filings:

Firearms Policy Coalition @gunpolicy

The First Circuit heard oral arguments today in a lawsuit challenging Rhode Island’s magazine ban. You can listen to it here: ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/file…
“‘I struggle with the notion’ that magazines aren’t arms, said U.S. Circuit Judge Bruce Selya, a Reagan appointee. ‘The firearm isn’t operable otherwise. So I don’t understand why a magazine isn’t an essential component of a firearm and thus a firearm.'” courthousenews.com/can-states-ban…
The first federal appeals court to tackle this issue after the Supreme Court’s landmark gun-control ruling last year seemed uncertain how to proceed.
“[Judge] Kayatta was skeptical. ‘How did there get to be millions and millions of these in people’s hands if there’s a long tradition of outlawing them?’ he asked.”
wut?
Image

We all know New Mexico goobernor Grisham issued an Emergency “Health Order” suspending concealed and open carry of guns in New Mexico even for concealed carry permit holders.

Challenge to N.M. Governor’s Ban on Public Gun Carry in Albuquerque and Surrounding County

From the motion for a temporary restraining order in Nat’l Ass’n for Gun Rights v. Grisham, filed yesterday in New Mexico federal court (paragraph numbering removed).

Governor Grisham issued Executive Order 2023-130 (the “Executive Order”) on September 7, 2023…. In the Executive Order Governor Grisham declared that a state of emergency exists in in New Mexico due to gun violence.

Based on the Executive Order, [N.M. Secretary of the Department of Health Patrick Allen issued “Public Health Emergency Order Imposing Temporary Firearm Restrictions, Drug Monitoring and Other Public Safety Measures” dated September 8, 2023 (the “PHE Order”)[:] …

[1] No person, other than a law enforcement officer or licensed security officer, shall possess a firearm … either openly or concealed, within cities or counties averaging 1,000 or more violent crimes per 100,000 residents per year since 2021 according to Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program AND more than 90 firearm-related emergency department visits per 100,000 residents from July 2022 to June 2023 according to the New Mexico Department of Public Health [which, according to news accounts, includes only Bernalillo County, where Albuquerque is located -EV], except:

 

[A] On private property owned or immediately controlled by the person;

[B.] On private property that is not open to the public with the express permission of the person who owns or immediately controls such property;

[C.] While on the premises of a licensed firearms dealer or gunsmith for the purpose of lawful transfer or repair of a firearm;

[D.] While engaged in the legal use of a firearm at a properly licensed firing range or sport shooting competition venue; or

[E.] While traveling to or from a location listed in Paragraphs (1) [sic] through (4) [sic] of this section; provided that the firearm is in a locked container or locked with a firearm safety device that renders the firearm inoperable, such as a trigger lock….

Bruen states that the appropriate test for applying the Second Amendment is: “[1] When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. [2] 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.” … The Carry Prohibition flatly prohibits Plaintiffs from carrying handguns (or any other firearm) in public for self-defense. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ burden under step one of the Bruen analysis is easily met for the same reason it was met in Bruen….

In Bruen, the State of New York conceded a general right to public carry. Instead, New York argued that that the Second Amendment permits a state to condition handgun carrying in certain areas on a showing of a “need” for self-defense in those areas. The Court held that to “support that claim, the burden falls on respondents to show that New York’s proper-cause requirement is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” After an exhaustive analysis of the relevant historical tradition, the Court held that New York failed to demonstrate that its law was consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation….

If New York’s “proper-cause” requirement for public carry failed Bruen’s second step, New Mexico’s flat prohibition of public carry under any circumstances necessarily fails Bruen’s second step as well. The Court can reach this conclusion without reviewing any of the relevant history, because as a matter of simple logic it is not possible for New Mexico to demonstrate that a flat prohibition on public carry is consistent with history and tradition when even a proper cause requirement for public carry was not….

Plaintiffs [also] desire to go to private businesses open to the public while lawfully carrying a firearm for lawful purposes, including self-defense, without first obtaining the express affirmative permission of the person who owns the property. The Carry Prohibition prohibits that conduct. Last month, in Wolford v. Lopez (D. Haw. 2023), the court issued a TRO and preliminary injunction enjoining a practically identical Hawaii law. Hawaii argued that there was historical support for its prohibition on carriage on private property without consent. After examining the historical record submitted by the state, the court rejected its argument. It wrote:

… The State has not established that the portion of [the statute] that prohibits carrying firearms on private property held open to the public is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of gun regulation. Because the State has not met its burden, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their challenge to [the statute] to the extent that [the statute] prohibits carrying firearms on private property held open to the public.

The historical record has not changed since last month. Like Hawaii, New Mexico will not be able to show that the Carry Prohibition’s prohibition on lawfully carrying firearms into private businesses in Affected Areas open to the public without first obtaining the express affirmative permission of the person who owns the property is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of gun regulation. There is no such historical tradition. Therefore, the State is unable to carry its burden….

I intend to blog the other side’s argument when it becomes available. (You can read the full order, which is written to last until Oct. 6, here.) In the meantime, here’s the relevant part of the New Mexico Constitution’s right to bear arms provision (enacted in 1971):

No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.

City of Las Vegas v. Moberg (1971) interpreted the 1912 constitutional right to bear arms  provision (“The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons”) as indeed invalidating laws that ban both open and concealed carry of guns. The argument in this federal case doesn’t rely on the state constitutional provision (likely because federal courts generally can’t issue injunctions against state governments violating state law), but I thought it worth noting, since the New Mexico Governor is of course obligated to comply with the state constitution.

The next question is whether California will appeal for an en banc appeal to the full court, the court will itself ‘sua sponte’ make itself go en banc, or not.

Gun owners win new bid to challenge California’s open-carry restrictions

A federal appeals court on Thursday gave two gun owners another shot at blocking California’s restrictions on openly carrying firearms in public, citing a major U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year that expanded gun rights.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a lower-court judge applied the incorrect legal standard when she declined last year to issue a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of California’s law.

The gun owners, Mark Baird and Richard Gallardo, have been challenging the laws since 2019, saying California’s restrictions on openly carrying handguns in public violates their right to keep and bear arms under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment.

U.S. District Judge Kimberly Mueller in Sacramento, an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama, declined in December to block enforcement of the restrictions, saying doing so could endanger public safety.

But U.S. Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke, who was appointed by former Republican President Donald Trump, said Mueller failed to analyze a key factor–whether Baird and Gallardo would likely succeed on the merits of their constitutional claim.

VanDyke, whose opinion was joined by two fellow appointees of Republican presidents, stressed that the right to bear arms was not a “second-class right,” and he said the importance of evaluating the plaintiffs’ claims “does not change where the constitutional violation at issue is a Second Amendment violation.”

Amy Bellantoni, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, welcomed the ruling. “California’s open carry regulations are repugnant to the plain text of the Second Amendment and a preliminary injunction should follow,” she said in a statement.

A spokesperson for the office of California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, said in a statement that the office was reviewing the decision. “It is important to note that criminal penalties for the unlicensed open carry of firearms remain in effect,” the statement said.

Openly carrying a firearm is generally illegal in California, with narrow exceptions. Only counties with populations of less than 200,000 — which combined account for about 5% of state residents — may issue open-carry permits.

But Baird and Gallardo, who reside in these smaller counties, said they have been unable to obtain such a license.

Their lawsuit gained new support in June 2022, when the conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court declared for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense.

That decision, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, set forth a new test for assessing firearms laws, saying restrictions must be “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

The ruling has led to many other gun safety laws being struck down across the country. The Supreme Court in November will consider whether to uphold a federal ban on people under domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms.

In Thursday’s ruling, VanDyke said that on remand, Mueller must assess whether under Bruen, California’s laws are “analogous to regulations widely in effect in 1791 or 1868,” when the 14th Amendment to the Constitution was adopted.

He said Mueller must reevaluate the issue “expeditiously.”

The case is Baird v. Bonta, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 23-15016.

Federal Judge Issues 42-Page Ruling on Floating Border Barriers

A federal judge on Wednesday ordered the state of Texas to remove barriers from the Rio Grande, which Gov. Greg Abbott had put in place to deter migrants from entering his state illegally.

The Biden administration filed a lawsuit against Abbott in July, arguing that he had failed to obtain the federal government’s permission to place the buoys on the border between the U.S. and Mexico, CBS News reported.

In his 42-page preliminary injunction order, Judge David Ezra, a Ronald Reagan appointee, directed the state to remove the barriers from the river by Sept. 15.

Ezra wrote that Abbott needed permission to place the floating barriers in the Rio Grande because they obstructed a U.S. navigable waterway in violation of federal law.

The judge also pointed out that the water barrier raised international relations issues with Mexico, which are in the purview of the federal government.

“Mexico vigorously denounces the presence of the barrier, expressing its hope for expeditious removal of the barrier as the first topic at the August 10, 2023, meeting between Foreign Secretary Alicia Barcena and Secretary of State Anthony Blinken,” Ezra said.

Court issues injunction on forced reset triggers case

Forced reset triggers do one thing. As soon as you fire the gun, it forces the trigger to reset so you can follow up with another shot very quickly.

Some people seem to think that being able to shoot quickly is a bad thing.

Unfortunately, some of those people apparently work at the ATF and now Rare Breed, a company that makes forced reset triggers, is dealing with the agency in court.

Also, unfortunately, their case had a setback on Tuesday.

The U.S. government on Tuesday won a court injunction blocking a firearms company from selling after-market triggers that let gun enthusiasts convert AR-15 style rifles into weapons that can shoot as fast as machine guns.

U.S. District Judge Nina Morrison in Brooklyn said the Department of Justice was likely to prove that the “forced-reset triggers” sold by Rare Breed Triggers LLC and its owners were illegal machine guns under federal law.

The government said rifles equipped with Rare Breed’s FRT-15 triggers were capable of firing faster than military-grade M-16 machine guns, which can fire at least 700 rounds a minute.

In a 129-page decision, Morrison said the defendants defrauded customers by saying its FRT-15s were “absolutely” legal, despite having failed to win Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives approval for their sale.

She also highlighted alleged efforts by Fargo, North Dakota-based Rare Breed to obstruct the government from tracking and confiscating the devices, including by destroying sales records and using fake names on packages sent through the mail.

“Defendants declined to seek ATF classification of the FRT-15 and instead simply assure RBT’s customers that the device was ‘legal’ precisely because they knew that allowing ATF to examine their device before bringing it to market might kill their proverbial golden goose,” the judge wrote.

Morrison, a Biden appointee, seems to simply assume that the ATF is right here, that making a gun shoot faster somehow makes it a machine gun.

One would think, however, that a federal judge would at least look up the definition of a machine gun in federal law.

From the National Firearms Act:

(b) Machinegun. The term ‘machinegun’ means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. 

The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

Here’s the thing, though. Forced reset triggers don’t fire multiple rounds with a single pull of the trigger. It simply allows one to pull the trigger much faster.

Morrison seemingly claims that because the forced reset triggers allow one to shoot as fast as a machine gun, it should be regulated as such, but the law makes no such case.

In other words, she’s taking the ATF’s made-up crap as actual law and saying the government would likely win the case based on that made-up crap.

I fail to see how she can say such a thing, though. I’m not an attorney, mind you, but it seems rather bizarre to argue that the government will win on a case where they claim a device turns a rifle into a machine gun when the device does nothing to change the weapon in any way that meets the legal definition of a machine gun.

Then again, as a Biden appointee, it’s unlikely that Morrison is really that concerned with the actual law when it comes to restricting what ordinary Americans can own with regard to firearms and accessories.

This judge has it backwards and I’d say purposefully. The goobermint has to submit evidence that the weapons are not in common use for self defense, (impossible by the way, so that’s why the judge pretzeled it)  not the plaintiffs

Federal judge upholds Conn.’s assault weapons ban for 2nd time in a month

For the second time in less than a month, a federal judge has upheld Connecticut’s assault weapons ban by denying an injunction seeking a temporary halt to the enforcement of the ban as part of a lawsuit challenging the state’s gun laws.

In a 14-page ruling issued earlier this week, U.S. District Judge Janet Bond Arterton said the assault weapons banned by the state are not “commonly” used for self-defense, which would classify the firearms as protected under the Second Amendment.

“Plaintiffs are correct that the Second Amendment provides them with the freedom to choose a firearm . . . ‘that is not dangerous and unusual’ and that is normally used for self-defense,” Arterton said. “However, until they submit evidence that supports a finding that the assault weapons in the challenged statutes meet those requirements, they cannot show a likelihood of success on the merits of their Second Amendment claim.”

She had denied a similar injunction requested by the National Association for Gun Rights, which is also suing state officials to revoke the ban, on Aug. 3. Her ruling this week marks the third time since June that Arterton has upheld the state’s assault weapons ban.

Attorney Cameron Atkinson, one of three lawyers representing the plaintiffs, three people including two former state correction officers and two gun rights advocacy groups, said they will appeal the most recent ruling.

“The District Court did exactly what the Supreme Court told it not to do (in other rulings),” Atkinson said Wednesday. “We’re very confident that the ruling will be reversed on appeal.”

Continue reading “”

Federal Court Temporarily Halts ATF’s Labeling of Forced Reset Triggers as Machine Guns

The Northern District of Texas Federal Court has issued a temporary restraining order in favor of the National Association for Gun Rights in their legal battle against the ATF. This order will maintain the current situation in the case until either September 27, 2023, or until a decision is made on the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction.

The Association cited a precedent set by the 5th Circuit Court in the Cargill case, arguing that bump stocks should not be considered machine guns. Judge O’Connor concurred, suggesting that the Association has a strong likelihood of winning the case based on existing laws.

In a 2022 communication to federal firearms dealers, the ATF had classified ‘forced reset triggers’ (FRTs) as ‘firearms’ and ‘machine guns’ according to the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act.

Rare Breed Triggers initiated the sale of their Forced Reset Trigger in December 2020 after extensive legal review. However, by January 2021, the ATF had started campaigns to ban these triggers. Despite the ATF’s claim that public concerns initiated this action, Freedom of Information Act requests revealed no such concerns from the public had been recorded.

Dudley Brown, the President of the National Association for Gun Rights, commented that the restraining order represents progress in refuting the ATF’s questionable redefinition of ‘machine gun’ and aims to cease the agency’s overreach towards Rare Breed Triggers.

The lawsuit’s objective is to revoke the ATF’s prohibition on FRT triggers and safeguard the owners of these triggers from undue ATF intervention.

According to existing federal legislation, a ‘machine gun’ is a weapon capable of firing multiple rounds with a single trigger action. This longstanding definition, which the ATF is purportedly disregarding, makes it clear that Rare Breed Triggers’ FRT only enables the firing of one round per trigger action.

Hannah Hill, the Executive Director of the National Foundation for Gun Rights— the National Association for Gun Rights’ legal division—expressed optimism that the temporary restraining order is a positive indicator for a future preliminary injunction that would protect all their members.

Per the usual way the courts have dealt in the past with this burr under their saddle, by the time they can delay no longer, the plaintiff’s will have reached 21 years old, and dust off their hands as they dismiss the case as moot.

Fraser v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (3:22-cv-00410) District Court, E.D. Virginia

gov.uscourts.vaed.524643.77.0_1

 

ORDER that the DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR A STAY OF INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL (ECF No. 63 ) is granted. The FINAL ORDER OF INJUNCTION (ECF No. 81 ) and the FINAL ORDER OF DECLARATORY RELIEF (ECF No. 82 ) are STAYED pending appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and oral argument would not aid the decisional process. It is so ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 8/30/2023 at 4:56 p.m. (jenjones, ) (Entered: 08/30/2023)

The Virginia federal judge found that the federal ban on handgun sales to those under the age of 21 is unconstitutional under the 2nd amendment, per Bruen’s  “History and Tradition” test.
The judge issued a nationwide injunction against the law, but stayed the order while the government appeals to the Circuit court.

21-and-up gun law to remain blocked as federal lawsuit plays out

DENVER (KDVR) — Colorado’s new law blocking all gun sales to anyone under age 21 remains on hold while a legal challenge continues to play out in court.

Rocky Mountain Gun Owners argues the law is a Second Amendment violation and is challenging its constitutionality in federal court.

A judge already blocked the gun-buying restrictions from going into effect in August while the court case plays out. Gov. Jared Polis asked the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals to block that ruling, but the court declined.

“Today, two Obama-appointed judges agreed with us that our plaintiffs do have standing and that our likelihood of success on the merits is strong,” Taylor Rhodes, executive director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, said in part in a statement.

For now, the law will remain blocked until the case is heard in court.

Coloradans under 21 could still buy rifles

While federal law requires buyers to be at least 21 years old to buy a handgun, Coloradans under age 21 can still buy rifles. If upheld, Senate Bill 23-169 would block all gun sales to anyone in Colorado under age 21.

A spokesperson for Polis’ office released a statement after the Tuesday ruling.

“People will remain very confused because of this injunction because since 1968, federal law has required Coloradans to be 21 years old to purchase a pistol, but a loophole allows kids under age 21 to legally buy a rifle instead. This new law approved by the legislature closes that loophole and Governor Polis hopes that the courts agree with him that the law is fully consistent with the Second Amendment and reduces confusion. The Governor is working towards his goal of making Colorado one of the ten safest states in the country and the same age requirements for pistols and rifles would help support responsible gun ownership.”

CONOR CAHILL, PRESS SECRETARY FOR COLORADO GOV. JARED POLIS

The Rocky Mountain Gun Owners lawsuit names two Coloradans plaintiffs in the case, each older than 18 but younger than 21 and who said they want to buy a gun for self-defense.

The gun group’s arguments have hinged on the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

In that case, the court ruled Americans have a right to carry guns in public for self-defense. The case also set a standard that courts must look at history to decide the constitutionality of gun laws.

D.C. to pay $5.1 million settlement after judge finds Second Amendment violations

D.C. will pay $5.1 million as part of a class-action settlement with gun owners who were arrested under laws that have since been found to violate the Second Amendment, according to the settlement agreement.

Fast, informative and written just for locals. Get The 7 DMV newsletter in your inbox every weekday morning.
U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth gave preliminary approval to the settlement agreement on Monday following years of litigation. Lamberth had previously ruled in September 2021 that D.C. arrested, jailed, prosecuted and seized guns from six people “based on an unconstitutional set of laws” and violated their Second Amendment rights.

The laws — a ban on carrying handguns outside the home and others that effectively banned nonresidents from carrying guns at all in D.C. — have since been struck down in federal court. They were part of a “gun control regime that completely banned carrying handguns in public,” Lamberth wrote in the 2021 ruling.

Now, D.C. will pay a total of $300,000 to the six plaintiffs and $1.9 million in attorneys fees, with the majority of the rest of the money set aside for more than 3,000 people estimated to qualify for the class-action.

Continue reading “”