Category: Courts

Judge rules Kim Gardner will go to trial on seven counts of neglect of her duties

In February there was a tragic story out of St. Louis. A teen named Janae Edmondson was downtown as part of a high school volleyball tournament that she was participating in. Afterwards she and her family were crossing the street when a car driven by 21-year-old Daniel Riley came speeding through town. Riley flipped the car and crushed Janae Edmondson’s legs. She survived but both of her legs had to be amputated.

At the time of the crash, driver Daniel Riley was out on bond for a robbery that took place in 2020 but he still hadn’t been tried. The really unbelievable part was that Riley had remained out on bond even though he’d violated the terms more than 50 times. The prosecutor’s office in this case was run by Kim Gardner. Her office immediately offered an excuse for why Riley hadn’t been tried in three years. But the first explanation offered turned out to be false.

Continue reading “”

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.

Continue reading “”

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.

This could affect how the courts rule on any bureaucrap regulatory schemes

Supreme Court will consider major case on power of federal regulatory agencies.

Nearly 40 years ago, in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, the Supreme Court ruled that courts should defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute as long as that interpretation is reasonable. On Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to reconsider its ruling in Chevron.

The question comes to the court in a case brought by a group of commercial fishing companies. They challenged a rule issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service that requires the fishing industry to pay for the costs of observers who monitor compliance with fishery management plans.

Relying on Chevron, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected the companies’ challenge to the rule. Judge Judith Rogers explained that although federal fishery law makes clear that the government can require fishing boats to carry monitors, it does not specifically address who must pay for the monitors. Because the NMFS’s interpretation of federal fishery law as authorizing industry-funded monitors was a reasonable one, Rogers concluded, the court should defer to that interpretation.

The fishing companies came to the Supreme Court in November, asking the justices both to weigh in on their challenge to the rule and to overrule Chevron (or, the petition suggested, clarify that when a law does not address “controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute,” there is no ambiguity in the statute, and therefore no deference is required). After considering the case at five consecutive conferences, the justices agreed to take up only the second question, on the Chevron doctrine.

Continue reading “”

Illinois Gun Shops See Surge in Sales After Federal Judge Placed Injunction on Firearm Ban

A recent federal ruling by the Southern District of Illinois on a gun law had a massive impact on local gun sales, shop owners reported on Saturday.

Judge Stephen Patrick McGlynn issued a temporary injunction on Friday against the enforcement of a gun law that would ban some semiautomatic weapons, penalize individuals who carry or possess certain “assault weapons” and require citizens to register with the Illinois State Police should they possess a weapon.

McGlynn ruled that the law, which was signed in January, “did not just regulate the rights of the people to defend themselves; it restricted that right, and in some cases, completely obliterated that right by criminalizing the purchase and the sale of more than 190 ‘arms.’

Although the injunction was only in place for a day, the Chicago Tribune reported large weekend crowds in suburban gun shops.

“Within 15 minutes, we had people coming in,” said Roger Krahl, owner of RGuns in Carpentersville. “There was a line outside the door before I could open up this morning. There will be no lunch today because we’ll be going nonstop.”

Continue reading “”

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.

Delaware: Federal District Judge Finds Unusual Way to Ban Semi-Auto Guns & Magazines

On March 27, 2023, Judge Richard G. Andrews of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware issued an opinion that denied the request for a preliminary injunction to stop enforcement of the State of Delaware’s unconstitutional ban on some semi-automatic rifles and standard capacity magazines.

Judge Andrews dug deeply into his interpretive consideration to find a way to deny the request for a preliminary injunction.

With the clear guidance given by the Supreme Court in the Bruen decision to clarify the Heller decision on the Second Amendment, Judge Andrews performed some mental gymnastics.

The Bruen decision told lower courts to stop using the convoluted “two-step” framework to decide Second Amendment cases. The “two-step” frame was widely criticized as a way for the lower courts to treat the Second Amendment as a “second-class right” in the Bill of Rights.

Continue reading “”

Kentucky Supreme Court overturns rulings that allowed the removal of a Confederate statue

The Kentucky Supreme Court has overturned lower court rulings that allowed leaders in Kentucky’s largest city to remove a Confederate statue from a prominent location three years ago.

The 6-1 ruling issued Thursday said Louisville violated due process in getting approval to remove the John Breckenridge Castleman monument from Cherokee Triangle, news outlets reported.

The statue was vandalized several times over a few years before it was removed from its pedestal in June 2020 following a decision from Louisville’s landmarks commission.

A group called Friends of Louisville Public Art filed a lawsuit challenging the landmarks commission ruling. They argued the statue was a local landmark and said some commission members should not have been allowed to vote because they have a conflict of interest.

While the group acknowledged Castleman’s Confederate ties, they argued that he later renounced his allegiance to the Confederacy. Castleman later served as a brigadier general in the U.S. Army. He was partially responsible for establishing Louisville’s park system and fought to keep the city’s parks and playgrounds open to Black residents.

Kentucky’s Court of Appeals upheld a Jefferson Circuit Court judge’s ruling dismissing the lawsuit. The appeals court ruled that there were “no facts to support the conflict of interests claim.”

The Supreme Court disagreed. Chief Justice Laurance B. VanMeter said it was a “patent” conflict for city employees to vote on the application to remove the monument.

“… Their employment and their being asked to sit in review of an application filed by their employer were sufficient to raise a reasonable question of impartiality such that recusal was required as a matter of law,” he wrote for the majority.

Plaintiff Steve Wiser said he was pleased with the court’s ruling.

Kevin Trager, a spokesman for the city, said officials were reviewing the opinion before deciding how to proceed.

Federal Judge Rules Felons Aren’t Protected by Second Amendment

Convicted felons do not have gun rights, according to a new federal ruling.

Judge Holly A. Brady, who President Donald Trump appointed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana in 2019, denied a request last week to have a felon’s gun possession charge tossed on constitutional grounds. She found the Second Amendment does not protect Detric L. Cummings’, a convicted felon, ability to own a firearm. She further ruled that barring felons from owning guns is consistent with historical gun restrictions.

“The long list of colonial laws excluding felons from possessing firearms either shows that he is excluded from the protections of the Second Amendment or that § 922(g)(1) is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” Judge Brady wrote in United States v. Cummings. “Either is enough to defeat Defendant’s motion.”

The ruling is another example of how little success convicted felons have had in asserting protections under the Second Amendment, even in the wake of last year’s landmark New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. Despite the doubt cast on many modern gun restrictions by Bruen’s new standard for deciding gun cases, felons have had little success convincing courts that the Second Amendment forstalls prohibitions on their ability to own guns. In fact, Pepperdine University Professor Jake Charles recently released a report that found there hasn’t been a single successful Second Amendment claim brought against the federal law barring possession of firearms by convicted felons.

The recent setbacks come despite a handful of rulings and prominent dissents that questioned the federal lifetime prohibition on at least some, namely non-violent, felons owning guns. Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissented in favor of restoring the gun rights of a non-violent felon in 2019’s Kanter v. Barr. A similar case brought by a Pennsylvania man barred from owning guns over a welfare fraud conviction, Range v. Garland, recently lost before a panel of the 3rd Circuit but is currently awaiting a decision from the full court after oral arguments were held in February 2023.

United States v. Cummings does not deal with the question of non-violent felon gun rights, though. Cummings was arrested by Fort Wayne, Indiana police last summer for selling methamphetamine, fentanyl, and a revolver to an informant, according to WANE. The 40-year-old was convicted of shooting a woman over an unpaid debt in 2005. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison before being released in 2020.

Judge Brady was indignant at his attempt to have the gun possession charges tossed, arguing his plea flies in the face of “a virtual mountain of case law.” She said, “ninety-plus defendants that have hoed the same row in the past” and been denied. She dismissed his legal argument as little more than “academic.”

“Defendant has chosen the first step as the hill he will die on, arguing that he is one of ‘the people’ whose right to bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment, regardless of his extensive criminal history,” Judge Brady wrote. “And, to be sure, there is a healthy debate in the case law about who ‘the people’ are. But that debate is interesting only if you view the law as a zesty academic affair rather than a way to run an ordered society.”

She argued that, even if Cummings is part of “the people” mentioned in the Second Amendment, historical tradition would allow the government to restrict his access to guns. She briefly pointed to colonial bans on carrying firearms in a way that terrifies people and an 1866 South Carolina ban on “disorderly” people bearing arms. And she cited the Supreme Court’s notice in 2008’s Heller that its ruling did not cast doubt on felon gun bans.

Ultimately, in her two-page opinion, Judge Brady found the debate is settled and unworthy of a lengthy discussion.

“To spend judicial resources agonizing over which the Court should hang its hat on is little more than spilled ink,” she wrote. “More than ninety judicial opinions bear this out.”

Gun rights group files emergency petition to SCOTUS on gun ban case

Illinois has been going above and beyond as of late to make Second Amendment related news. The National Association for Gun Rights filed a lawsuit last year challenging the city of Naperville’s so-called “assault weapons” ban. That case, Bevis et al v. City of Naperville was amended earlier this year to include the State of Illinois as a plaintiff, which enacted a ban in January. The request for an injunction against the law made its way all the way to the Seventh Circuit, and Bevis et.al. were not granted any temporary relief. It was announced in a release that an emergency appeal has been filed to the Supreme Court of the United States on the matter.

There was a similar situation in the Second Circuit Court of appeals, with a challenge to a New York law that’s unconstitutional – also enacted post NYSRPA v. Bruen – and the plaintiffs were moved to make an emergency appeal to the high court. In that case, the Second Circuit refused to respect the NYSRPA v. Bruen decision. While SCOTUS did not intervene in that case, Justice Alito did state in an unsigned order the following:

Applicants should not be deterred by today’s order from again seeking relief if the Second Circuit does not, within a reasonable time, provide an explanation for its stay order or expedite consideration of the appeal.

Appealing to SCOTUS at these stages in the game for emergency relief is not necessarily something that’s commonplace, but may draw the ire of the justices on how the lower courts are disobeying their orders.

The National Foundation for Gun Rights (NFGR) is asking the United States Supreme Court to provide emergency relief from two assault weapons bans in place in Illinois.

NFGR argues that the Illinois ban violates the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees the right of individuals to bear arms. NFGR’s lawsuit also challenges an AR-15 sale ban enacted by the City of Naperville, IL.

NFGR initially requested a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois blocking both the state and local bans on behalf of fellow plaintiff, Naperville gun store owner Robert Bevis, whose livelihood has been severely impacted by both bans. The district court trampled multiple Supreme Court precedents to rule against gun rights, so foundation attorneys appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, pleading that Plaintiff Bevis was facing the loss of his business without speedy relief.

The Seventh Circuit declined to temporarily block the two semi-auto bans pending its review of the preliminary injunction appeal, so NFGR is filing an Emergency Application for Injunction Pending Appellate Review with the U.S. Supreme Court.

It’s interesting to note that in many cases, lower courts have been getting the orders correct. In this case, the Seventh Circuit, and in the case of Antonyuck v. Nigrelli, from the Second Circuit, they are not willing to enjoin bad laws while the cases play out. We’re likely to see cases out of New Jersey challenging the so-called “carry killer” law there, head to the Third Circuit as soon as an opinion is delivered by Judge Bumb in a Federal Court.

Is this going to be the trend? Are the Circuit Courts of Appeal going to completely ignore the Supreme Court on all these issues concerning firearms by reversing the enjoinment/restraining orders of lower courts, or not enjoining them themselves?

“The assault weapons ban is a blatant violation of the rights of law-abiding citizens and does nothing to address the causes of gun violence,” said Dudley Brown, President of the National Foundation for Gun Rights. “Between them, Illinois and the City of Naperville are about to drive a law-abiding gun store owner into bankruptcy just because they don’t like his business. That’s grossly unconstitutional, and we’re asking the Supreme Court to put a stop to it.”

NAGAR’s opening remark in their filing to the high court hits at the core of the issue:

This is an exceedingly simple case. The Second Amendment protects arms that are commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, especially self-defense in the home. See New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2128 (2022) (citing D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 629 (2008)).

The arms banned by Respondents are possessed by millions of law abiding citizens for lawful purposes, including self-defense in the home. Under this Court’s precedents, “that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons.” Friedman v. City of Highland Park, Ill., 577 U.S. 1039 (2015) (Thomas, J., joined by Scalia, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari). There cannot be the slightest question, therefore, that the challenged laws are unconstitutional.

Kudos! to NAGAR for punting this case into the lap of the Supreme Court. Eventually one of these lower courts’ decisions is going to tick off the high court at one of these stages and they’re going to have to step in. At least, one would think so.

Given the way the Circuits behave, we can almost assume that whenever the pending cases in California make their way to the Ninth Circuit, that we’ll be dealing with similar malfeasance within the judicial system, and who knows what’ll come of the cases in the Third Circuit. We’ll be watching the progress of this case and report back with any new developments.

Court Finds Geofence Warrants to be Unconstitutional

As far as potential privacy violations at the hands of law enforcement go, the so-called geofencing stands out.

It’s a dragnet-style type of mass surveillance that determines a geographical area (typically as a criminal investigation is in progress — but the authorities really could use it for anything) — and then all those who happened to be in those confines, at a given time, with their mobile device broadcasting their location and other personal data, are basically fair game for searches.

Concerning and extremely sketchy — particularly without proper legal safeguards or even proper warrants — to say the least. And to say the most, straight up unconstitutional, on account of the Fourth Amendment (protecting from unlawful searches).

The latter definition of the practice is what the California Court of Appeals has gone for when it recently ruled in the People v. Meza case, during the appeals stage of the proceedings.

While it might sound logical to observers, the court’s decision is still very significant — digital rights group EFF says — because it set a precedent, being the first time a US appellate court looked into a geofence warrant.

“Dragnet” means that instead of saying who the suspect is and going after them, their online accounts, etc., law enforcement agencies have reportedly been taking it upon themselves to go the easiest route – not to put too fine a point on it, but just “digitally round up everyone” – and then decide if any of these people were involved in a crime.

According to EFF – thanks to this vast, to say the least, database of everyone’s location – it is mostly Google who is asked to go through that data to identify users in a “geofence” delimited by law enforcement.

The Court of Appeal had problems with all this. But all is not as good as it might seem.

In the case at hand, the court found that the warrant that was operated under did not succeed in placing “any meaningful restriction on the discretion of law enforcement officers to determine which accounts would be subject to further scrutiny or deanonymization.”

The court was also not happy, to say the least, that people could be identified “within six large search areas without any particularized probable cause as to each person or their location.”

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Rules Against The ATF’s Bump Stock Ruling

CINCINNATI, Ohio – A three-judge panel for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF) bump stock rule in Hardin v. ATF.

The case centers around a rule made by the ATFs at the urging of then-President Donald Trump after the 2017 tragic attack on country music concertgoers in Las Vegas. The rule reclassified bump stocks as machineguns. The new rule was an about-face by the ATF, which held for years that bump stocks were not machineguns. Initially, the ATF claimed that bump stocks were not machineguns because the user pulls the trigger each time the firearm fires.

The rule change caused multiple challenges to be filed against the ATF in federal court in various circuits. The Tenth Circuit and DC Circuit Court ruled in favor of the ATF’s bump stock rule. A previous Sixth Circuit case split 8-8 on a legal challenge to the Bureau’s regulation. Because of the tie, the District Court’s decision stood, which ruled in favor of the federal government.

Continue reading “”

Aero Precision Joins In Lawsuit Against Washington’s Unconstitutional Common Weapon Ban

Tacoma, WA – Due to the passage of House Bill 1240 by the Washington Legislature and Governor Jay Inslee signing it into law on 4/25/23, Aero Precision has filed a lawsuit in conjunction with several other plaintiffs to combat this overreaching legislation, seeking a temporary and permanent injunction based on the unconstitutionality of this law.

The case was filed on 4/25/23 in the Eastern District of Washington, U.S. District Court. Plaintiffs include Aero Precision LLC, Amanda Banta (2012 Olympian Sport Shooter), Sharp Shooting Indoor Range & Gun Shop, The Range LLC, and the National Shooting Sports Foundation. The complaint is filed against defendants Robert W. Ferguson, Attorney General of Washington State, and John R. Batiste, Chief of the Washington State Patrol.

“We do not agree with this law and we do not think it is constitutional,” said Scott Dover, CEO of Aero Precision.

“HB1240 bans some of the most common firearms and parts available. It impacts the lawful ownership of products we manufacture and sell to thousands of our customers in the State of Washington. It also restricts the rights of the individuals, Aero Precision employees, who make these parts. We will fight this law in the courts and are confident in the outcome given the clear rulings in multiple Supreme Court cases, including Heller and Bruen.”

Full Lawsuit Linked Here.

Thank you all for doing your part in making your voice heard and helping in the fight to keep our Second Amendment rights intact. We appreciate your loyalty and support. Stay tuned as we will be providing information on how you can help in this fight.

Aero Precision LLC, et al vs Robert W. Ferguson, Attorney General of Washington State

About Aero Precision

Aero Precision is a firearms manufacturer based out of Tacoma, WA. Aero Precision has been in business in Washington since 1994, originally starting in the Aerospace industry. Today, Aero Precision is the largest firearms manufacturer in Washington, employing roughly 650 employees in Washington and over 200 in other areas around the US. Aero Precision manufacturers AR Parts and Components, Bolt Action Rifles, Suppressors and more.

There is no argument. They are!

Every Firearm Can Be Used For Self-Defense! Argues the Second Amendment Foundation

BELLEVUE, WA – Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a case challenging the Illinois semi-auto ban today filed a 36-page response to Cook County’s motion for summary judgment in a case challenging Cook County’s ban.

Joining SAF, in this case, are the Firearms Policy Coalition and three private citizens, all Cook County residents. They are Cutberto Viramontes, Rubi Joyal, and Christopher Khaya. They are represented by attorneys David Sigale of Wheaton, Ill., David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, and William V. Bergstrom, all with Cooper & Kirk in Washington, D.C. The case is known as Viramontes v. Cook County. It was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in August 2021.

“Cook County has made only one argument in its motion that seems to misread the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling from June of last year,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The county is claiming that ‘arms’ applies only to firearms that ‘facilitate armed self-defense,’ and makes the arbitrary claim that the banned firearms are excluded from this definition because ‘there is nothing defensive whatsoever’ about them.

“Every firearm can be used for self-defense,” he added, “and either the county knows that already, or they are woefully ignorant about firearms in general, and especially the ones affected by the ban.”

SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, a practicing attorney, noted, “The Bruen ruling made it clear that every Second Amendment case must proceed first by analyzing the text of the amendment and then examining the country’s history of firearm regulation, to determine whether the banned firearm is ‘dangerous and unusual.’ One look at the number of modern semiautomatic rifles currently owned by private citizens shows they are hardly ‘dangerous and unusual’ in any context.

“The county further argues the AR-15 is a semiautomatic version of the military M-16, which is nonsense,” Kraut continued. “All of the county’s arguments seem aimed at creating a false impression about the banned firearms, which operate no differently than any other semi-auto. The county is simply wrong in its arguments, and the motion for summary judgment should be denied.”

Tesla beats Autopilot lawsuit as jury rejects crash victim’s claim.

Tesla today defeated a lawsuit that claimed its Autopilot technology caused a car crash that left the plaintiff with severe injuries.

“A California state court jury on Friday handed Tesla a sweeping win, finding that the carmaker’s Autopilot feature did not fail to perform safely in what appears to be the first trial related to a crash involving the partially automated driving software,” Reuters reported.

Justine Hsu sued Tesla in Los Angeles County Superior Court in 2020, saying Tesla’s Autopilot technology in her Model S malfunctioned and caused the car to swerve into the road’s center median so fast that she had no time to react. The lawsuit said the airbag deployed improperly during the July 2019 crash, “caus[ing] numerous breaks in Hsu’s jaw and the loss of multiple teeth.”

Hsu’s lawsuit said she had undergone three surgeries and continued to require medical treatment. “Because of the Autopilot failure, and the improper deployment of the airbags, Plaintiff Hsu suffered severe injuries, resulting in a broken jaw, broken teeth, and multiple injuries to her face, hands, and legs,” the complaint said.

Hsu sought over $3 million in damages, while Tesla argued “that Hsu used Autopilot on city streets, despite Tesla’s user manual warning against doing so,” according to Reuters. In addition to rejecting Hsu’s Autopilot claim, the jury “found that the airbag did not fail to perform safely, and that Tesla did not intentionally fail to disclose facts to her,” Reuters wrote.

Tesla is expected to face more trials over its automated-driving technology. One pending case was brought by five Texas police officers who were injured in February 2021 when a Tesla Model X in Autopilot mode crashed into police vehicles that were stopped and had their flashing lights turned on. There’s also an ongoing investigation by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration into crashes involving Tesla cars using Autopilot.