Category: Courts

SAF Files Motion to Block Enforcement of Connecticut ‘Assault Weapon’ Designation for ‘Any Other Weapons

From the Second Amendment Foundation . . .

The Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a lawsuit challenging a Connecticut gun control law have filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order because a new rule published by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives on firearms designation places thousands of Constitution State citizens in serious legal jeopardy.

SAF is joined by the Connecticut Citizens Defense League and three private citizens, Jennifer Hamilton, Michael Stiefel and Eddie Grant, Jr. They are represented by Connecticut attorneys Doug Dubitsky of North Windham, Craig C. Fishbein of Wallingford and Cameron L. Atkinson of Harwinton.

“When ATF published its new rule, redesignating a class of firearms known as ‘any other firearm’ or simply ‘others’ as either ‘rifles’ or ‘short barreled rifles’ depending on the barrel length, all of those guns suddenly fell within the state’s definition of an assault weapon,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This immediately put thousands of owners of previously-classified ‘other’ firearms in harm’s way legally because now their possession is a felony.”

“This re-classification,” added SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, who is a practicing attorney, “is a textbook example of the harm which can be caused by an arbitrary change of rules and definitions making legally-purchased firearms suddenly illegal, turning their owners into criminals, essentially by the stroke of a pen. We’re asking the court to step in to prevent a legal nightmare for thousands of Connecticut citizens.”

SAF and its partners filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, and a memorandum in support of their motion. In the memorandum, they say the Court “should find that the change in federal law has placed the Plaintiffs at the likely and extreme risk of being subject to the heavy burden of criminal prosecutions as felons under politically motivated Connecticut law with no prior notice and in violation of their Second Amendment rights.”

“ATF’s rule change, which became effective immediately, egregiously placed thousands of law-abiding Connecticut gun owners on the wrong side of the law, through no fault or action of their own,” Gottlieb observed. “That may be okay in a police state, but not the United States, and we’re asking the court to move swiftly in order to prevent a horrible injustice.”

ATFs pistol brace rule used to challenge CT ban on “assault weapons”

The clock is ticking on the ATF’s mandate for owners of brace-equipped pistols to register their firearms as short-barreled rifles under the National Firearms Act, but while that edict is facing a legal challenge of its own it’s also spurred the Second Amendment Foundation and the Connecticut Citizens Defense League to file for an emergency restraining order and an injunction blocking enforcement of the state’s ban on so-called assault weapons.

As the CCDL explains:

ATF’s new rule impacts tens of thousands of Connecticut residents who are otherwise law-abiding, but who have now found themselves facing possible felony prosecution through no fault of their own. While residents of other states are able to register these firearms with the ATF, or change the short barrels for longer ones to make them  legal, the ATF has stated that it will not permit any such registrations from Connecticut residents due to  Connecticut’s “assault weapon” ban.

Nor will changing out the barrels avoid redesignation as banned “assault  weapons” under Connecticut law. As such, many thousands of Connecticut residents who were previously authorized by the Connecticut State Police’s Special Licensing and Firearms Unit to purchase these firearms, find  themselves without the legal options had by residents of most other states.

The “assault weapons” ban was first challenged by CCDL, SAF, and several individual gun owners last fall, but the ATF’s new rule has given the case new urgency given the effect that it could have on thousands of law-abiding gun owners across the state.

“These three plaintiffs, along with tens of thousands of other good, law-abiding Connecticut residents, suddenly  find themselves facing possible felony charges, all of which could have disastrous implications for them, their  families, their careers, and their standing in the community.

Until Tuesday, the firearms at issue were entirely lawful,  owned by people who may now face detrimental personal damage due to state laws that are not only unclear and  virtually impossible to comply with, but also in blatant and direct violation of the Connecticut and U.S.  Constitutions,” says Holly Sullivan, President of the CCDL.

“As such, we are imploring the federal court to step in to  protect these otherwise lawful gunowners from being arrested under the new application of Connecticut’s  egregious ban on so-called ‘assault weapons’ which are simply commonly owned modern sporting arms.”

The ATF rule isn’t the only threat that’s looming for those who lawfully purchased modern sporting rifles and other arms designated as “assault weapons” by the state.

As we’ve been reporting, Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont had been calling on lawmakers to revise the existing ban and remove the grandfather clause that allowed existing owners to maintain possession of their guns when the state’s ban first took effect back in 1993.

That grandfather clause was kept in place when the state modified the ban, first in 2001 and again in 2013, but Lamont was adamant that the clause should be removed… at least until a couple of weeks ago, when he tweaked his proposal to instead add a number of new firearms to the current list of prohibited arms and to demand owners of “assault weapons” manufactured before 1994 register them with the state.

Lamont also wants to make possession of a “large capacity” magazine a felony offense under Connecticut law, and given the Democratic majorities in Hartford gun owners are facing an uphill fight defending their Second Amendment rights in the state legislature. The federal court system will hopefully provide more protection for these gun owners than their own lawmakers, who are intent on nullifying the right to keep and bear arms as much as possible. Even with the request for an emergency hearing, it could be a few weeks before a federal judge hears the pleas of Connecticut gun owners, but we’ll keep our eyes on this case and let you know of any updates when they happen.

An in depth look at the 5th Circuit’s ruling today. Also this was not an en banc ruling, so expect it to go there next.

Fifth Circuit Holds People Can’t Be Disarmed Just Based on Civil Restraining Order

Judge James Ho concurs, adding “I write separately to point out that our Founders firmly believed in the fundamental role of government in protecting citizens against violence, as well as the individual right to keep and bear arms—and that these two principles are not inconsistent but entirely compatible with one another.”From U.S. v. Rahimi, decided today by the Fifth Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Cory Wilson, joined by Judges Edith Jones and James Ho:
 

The question presented in this case is not whether prohibiting the possession of firearms by someone subject to a domestic violence restraining order is a laudable policy goal. The question is whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), a specific statute that does so, is constitutional under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. In the light of N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen (2022), it is not.

The court rejected the view that, under Heller and Bruen, legislatures can disarm anyone who isn’t a “law-abiding, responsible citizen[]”:

There is some debate on this issue. Compare Kanter v. Barr (7th Cir. 2019) (Barrett, J. dissenting), abrogated by Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111, with Binderup v. Att’y Gen. (3d Cir. 2016) (en banc) (Hardiman, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgments). As summarized by now-Justice Barrett, “one [approach] uses history and tradition to identify the scope of the right, and the other uses that same body of evidence to identify the scope of the legislature’s power to take it away.” The Government’s argument that Rahimi falls outside the community covered by the Second Amendment rests on the first approach. But it runs headlong into Heller and Bruen, which we read to espouse the second one.

Unpacking the issue, the Government’s argument fails because (1) it is inconsistent with Heller, Bruen, and the text of the Second Amendment, (2) it inexplicably treats Second Amendment rights differently than other individually held rights, and (3) it has no limiting principles….

Continue reading “”

5th Circuit represent.

Fifth Circuit strikes down firearms prohibition under domestic violence restraining order.

The question presented in this case is not whether prohibiting the possession of firearms by someone subject to a domestic violence restraining order is a laudable policy goal.

The question is whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), a specific statute that does so, is constitutional under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.

In the light of N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), it is not.

 

FPC Files New Lawsuit Challenging ATF Pistol Brace Rulemaking

DALLAS, TX (January 31, 2023) – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of litigation challenging the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ Final Rulemaking on firearms equipped with stabilizing or pistol braces. The Petition in FPC’s Mock v. Garland, along with other case documents, can be viewed at FPCLaw.org.

“This lawsuit challenges, inter alia, the Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached Stabilizing Braces, promulgated by the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to regulate ‘braced pistols’ as ‘short-barreled rifles.’ In so doing, for the reasons set forth herein, the Agencies violate the Administrative Procedure Act and the United States Constitution,” the Petition states.

The Petition continues: “Even if the Final Rule does not violate the APA and is allowed to stand, the Agencies’ National Firearms Act (“NFA”), laws, regulations, policies, and enforcement practices with respect to ‘braced pistols’ that the Agencies’ have classified as “short-barreled rifles” violate the Second Amendment. Plaintiffs thus further seek declaratory and injunctive relief to secure their constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms in the absence of vacatur of the Final Rule.”

“Federal agencies do not have the power to write new laws, and yet the ATF continues to attempt to expand its authority using the federal rulemaking process,” said Cody J. Wisniewski, FPC’s Senior Attorney for Constitutional Litigation. “This ‘rule’ is, in effect, a federal law that will transform millions of peaceable people into felons overnight simply for owning a firearm that has been lawful to own for decades. We won’t stand idly by while the ATF tramples the rights of millions of peaceable individuals.”

“At its most basic level, this rulemaking represents a massive and unlawful bait-and-switch on peaceable gun owners,” said FPC Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “For nearly a decade the ATF’s position on pistol braces has been relied on by millions of gun owners.  Now, with the stroke of a bureaucrat’s pen, those same people are told they are felons unless and until they submit themselves to invasive regulation, registration, dispossession of their property, or worse.”

 

Big win for gun owners as federal judge grants second TRO against New Jersey carry laws

U.S. District Judge Reneé Marie Bumb delivered a second win to New Jersey gun owners and Second Amendment activists challenging the state’s new carry restrictions on Monday, granting a temporary restraining order that halts enforcement of many of the state’s “sensitive places” where lawful concealed carry is considered a felony offense.

Bumb had already granted a TRO in Seigel v. Platkin, another challenge to several of the “gun-free zones” created by New Jersey lawmakers, but the federal court in Camden recently combined that case with Koons v. Platkin, giving Bumb the chance to take a look at some of the other “sensitive places” that were not a part of Seigel‘s initial complaint. On Monday, Bumb issued her ruling, finding mostly (but not entirely) in favor of the plaintiffs.

The judge concluded that the plaintiffs do not have standing at this time to challenge the “gun-free zones” in zoos, medical treatment facilities, movie sets, airports, and places covered by Fish and Game Department regulations, but are in a position to seek a restraining order against the following “sensitive places”:

  • public parks, beaches, recreational facilities, playgrounds
  • youth sports events
  • casinos
  • public libraries and museums
  • bars and restaurants where alcohol is served
  • entertainment facilities
  • private property unless indicated otherwise by owner
  • private vehicles

Of all those locations, the only ones that Bumb did not subject to the temporary restraining order are the prohibitions on concealed carry on playgrounds and at youth sporting events.

In Bruen and Heller, the Supreme Court expressly identified restrictions at certain sensitive places (such as schools) to be well-settled, even though the 18thand 19th-century evidence has revealed few categories in number. Bruen, 142 S.Ct. at 2133 (citing Heller, 554 U.S. at 626)). The inference, the Court suggested, is that some gun-free zones are simply obvious, undisputed, and uncontroversial. These are: (a) certain government buildings (such as legislative assemblies or courthouses or where the Government is acting within the heartland of its authority), (b) polling places, and (c) schools. Id.

Bruen further instructs courts to consider analogies to such sensitive places when considering whether the Government can meet its burden of showing that a given regulation is constitutionally permissible. Id. Here, Defendants subsume playgrounds within their discussion of historical statutes that regulate firearms where crowds gather and where the vulnerable or incapacitated are located. [See Defs.’ Opp’n at 34–35.] Unfortunately, Defendants neither point to a particular or analogous prohibition on carrying firearms at playgrounds nor provide a more meaningful analysis, despite this Court’s persistent invitation.

In particular, Defendants have done no analysis to answer the question Bruen leaves open: is it “settled” that this is a location where firearms-carrying could be prohibited consistent with the Second Amendment? Where the right to self-defense and sensitive place designations could be read in harmony under the Second Amendment? For that matter, nor have Plaintiffs. This issue must be explored at the preliminary injunction stage. Despite these shortcomings, the Court concludes that schools and playgrounds intersect, that is, playgrounds fall within the sphere of schools. Therefore, under Bruen, the Court “can assume it settled” that playgrounds are a “sensitive place.” See Bruen, 142 S.Ct. at 2133. Accordingly, because Plaintiffs cannot meet their burden as to their challenge to playgrounds in Subpart 10, the Motion will be denied as to playgrounds.

It’s entirely possible that even this “sensitive place” could fall once the case proceeds further, though Bumb seems more convinced that the prohibition on carrying at “youth sporting events” overlaps enough with “schools” that its probably okay to ban firearms there. I disagree, particularly given that many youth sporting events are run by leagues that aren’t school-affiliated at all, but the plaintiffs still have a chance to make their argument at future hearings over an injunction. But in the meantime Bumb has delivered a solid opinion in favor of the Second Amendment rights of all New Jersey residents by telling the state it can’t enforce its carry prohibitions in most of their “sensitive places”, at least in the near term.

This doesn’t mean, by the way, that all entertainment venues, casinos, and diners are going to be welcoming concealed carry holders. Private property owners can still ban concealed carry if they choose to do so, but under Bumb’s TRO the state’s presumption that all private property is off-limits unless otherwise noted is a non-starter. All in all this is very good news for New Jersey gun owners, and likely the first of many disappointments to come for civil rights abusers like Gov. Phil Murphy and his anti-2A ilk in the legislature.

ISIS-Inspired Terrorist Convicted on All Accounts for 2017 NYC Attack

A federal jury on Thursday convicted ISIS-inspired terrorist Sayfullo Saipov on 28 counts stemming from a deadly incident in 2017 during which he drove a rented truck through numerous civilians.

Prosecutors relayed that Saipov, a native of Uzbekistan, had indicated his motivation for the attack came from his interpretation of Islam, which had been inspired by ISIS propaganda.

“‘The Islamic State shall endure.’ These were his words to tell the world why, why he attacked this city, why he targeted innocent civilians, why he turned a bike path into his battlefield, why he ran them over without mercy,” said Assistant US Attorney Jason Richman during the court proceedings, the New York Post reported.

Saipov’s lawyer contended that though he was inspired by ISIS propaganda, Saipov did not carry out his attack in order to join the group outright. Defense attorney David Patton did not deny his client’s guilt for the attack, but merely disputed that he was seeking to join the terror group in so doing.

Twenty-six of the charges Saipov faced were for federal racketeering and stemmed from the allegation that he sought to join the terror group.

Nine of the counts for which the jury convicted him make Saipov eligible to receive the death penalty, according to the Post. The trial will soon proceed to an argument about the application of that penalty.

 

Yeah, this is the result of affirmative action; Promoting people merely by their status as a minority, rather than the content of their character
…and their IQ.
And what does this say about the quality of Gonzaga University School of Law? She’s got a JD. Juris Doctor, the degree usually required to practice law and still is a utter ignoramus about the content of the Constitution.
But demoncraps like stupid and ignorant judges, as they’re more likely to follow their proggie political indoctrination

John Kennedy Stumps Biden Judicial Nominee With Questions About the Constitution

Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) stumped a Biden judicial nominee by asking her what is said in certain parts of the U.S. Constitution since she is being considered for a federal position.

Each of the three questions Kennedy posed, Judge Charnelle Bjelkengren did not have an answer. She is being considered to be the United States District Judge For The Eastern District Of Washington. She has been serving as a judge of the Spokane County Superior Court since 2019.

Bjelkengren got her Juris Doctor from Gonzaga University School of Law.

“Judge, tell me what Article V of the Constitution does?” Kennedy asked.

“Article V is not coming to mind at the moment,” Bjelkengren replied after a long pause.

“How about Article II?” Kennedy followed up.

“Neither is Article II,” said Bjelkengren.

Bjelkengren said in her many years of experience in the judicial system in Washington state, she never had to deal with the legal concept of purposivism, which Kennedy said she will have to deal with it should she be confirmed to the federal position.

Article V outlines the process to add amendments to the the Constitution and Article II lays out the rules on who is eligible to be president of the United States. Students are typically taught about the makeup of the Constitution in grades 4 through 8.

Lawyers who helped win US Supreme Court case train sights on Illinois assault weapon ban

CHICAGO — Two Second Amendment lawyers who helped win a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down a New York concealed carry gun law are now challenging the constitutionality of Illinois’ assault weapons ban – with help from the National Rifle Association.

Paul Clement, who successfully argued the New York case, is one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs in the latest federal lawsuit seeking to overturn Illinois’ two-week old ban.

Clement is a former partner in Kirkland & Ellis’ Washington, D.C., office who served as solicitor general of the United States, representing the government in cases before the nation’s top court from 2004 to 2008, during the George W. Bush Administration.

Clement and attorney Erin Murphy began their own firm after Chicago-based Kirkland & Ellis decided it would no longer handle Second Amendment-related litigation. Murphy, who was part of the New York case, is also working on the challenge to Illinois’ assault weapons ban, filed Tuesday in the Southern District of Illinois.

Plaintiffs in the new federal lawsuit are Sparta resident Caleb Barnett, Marion resident Brian Norman, Benton-based Hood’s Guns & More, Benton-based Pro Gun and Indoor Range and the National Sports Shooting Foundation, Inc.

Although the NRA is not listed as a plaintiff, a spokesperson for the organization told the Sun-Times it joined the National Sports Shooting Foundation to bring forth the suit, similar to what it did in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which was ultimately taken up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Continue reading “”

Chicago suburb claims semi-autos are unprotected by the Second Amendment

While the legal challenges to the statewide ban on “assault weapons” and “large capacity” magazines is just getting started, there are some lawsuits taking on local bans that have been on the books for several years that are a little further along. One of them is called National Association of Gun Rights v. Highland Park, and last Friday the Chicago suburb issued its reply to NAGR’s request for an injunction blocking enforcement of the law.

The brief, authored with the help of attorneys from the gun control group Brady, can be seen as a preview of the arguments raised by the state of Illinois in its defense of the new gun ban, and one of the first things that stands out is that rather than try to find historical analogues for bans on “assault weapons”, Highland Park argues that the Second Amendment isn’t even implicated by the ban because semi-automatic firearms aren’t protected arms.

The Supreme Court has not specified how legislatures and courts are to determine whether a modern weapon is “in common use.” The Court said that handguns—America’s “most popular” firearm—are “in common use” today. But Plaintiffs do not suggest that the assault weapons at issue, primarily AR-15-style assault weapons, are as commonly used as handguns. Instead, they assert that these weapons must be considered in “common use” because “the number of AR-15 rifles and other modern sporting rifles in circulation in the United States exceeds twenty-four million.” That is not sufficient to carry their burden.

Plaintiffs’ statistic does not address the question that Heller and Bruen require Plaintiffs to answer. The number of weapons “in circulation” merely counts the number of such weapons produced or imported into the country, less exports. See Ex. 22, NSSF, “Commonly Owned: NSSF Announces Over 24 Million MSRs in Circulation” (July 20, 2022). This figure, which presumably includes weapons in the possession of law enforcement agencies and criminals, and those on store shelves or in warehouses, is almost certainly an over-estimation of the number of weapons lawfully possessed by civilians. The number also says nothing about the frequency with which these weapons are used for lawful purposes.

Even starting with this inflated number, this lone statistic does not carry Plaintiffs’ burden. Heller and Bruen command an approach rooted in “history.” The Court “relied on the historical understanding of the [Second] Amendment to demark the limits on the exercise of that right.” According to the historical approach, the general meaning of the Second Amendment is “fixed,” but also “applies to new circumstances.” In other words, courts must extract general principles or definitions from the historical understanding, and then apply them to modern weapons and circumstances. The “common use” rule emerges from that historical understanding. That is, the Supreme Court has declared that weapons “in common use” at the time of the Founding were protected by the Second Amendment. At a minimum, the Supreme Court’s historical approach indicates that a modern weapon can be considered “in common use” only if it is as commonly used as weapons that the Second Amendment protected at the time of the Founding.

This is a nutty argument, to put it mildly. Modern sporting rifles are the most commonly-sold style of rifle in the United States today, which by itself indicates that they’re in common use. But the Brady argument suffers from another, more fundamental flaw when it declares that modern firearms can only be considered in common use if they’re as commonly used as 2A-protected arms at the time of the Founding.

In Caetano, the Supreme Court ruled that a Massachusetts court decision upholding a ban on stun guns contradicted the precedent established in Heller that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” The state of Massachusetts’ argument that stun guns were “dangerous and unusual” because they weren’t around in 1791 didn’t hold up to judicial scrutiny in 2016, and I don’t think Brady’s argument is going to pass the smell test in 2023.

Pistols weren’t all that common at the time of the Founding; certainly far less so than smoothbore muskets or long rifles. And yet the Supreme Court has explicitly held that handguns are protected by the Second Amendment, which is a conundrum Highland Park simply can’t talk its way out of.

Instead, the attorneys next argue that the guns the town has banned are “dangerous and unusual”; another ham-handed attempt to strip modern sporting rifles of their 2A protections, claiming that “assault weapons were originally created as weapons of modern warfare during the Cold War, in the 1950s and 1960s,” while ignoring the fact that semi-automatic rifles have been available in the civilian market since the early 1960s.

Plaintiffs contend that there is a significant “practical difference” between military and civilian assault weapons—military weapons (like M-16s) can fire in either semi-automatic or full automatic mode, while civilian weapons (like AR-15s) can fire only in semi-automatic mode. Mot. 13. But this does not help Plaintiffs. The fact that fully automatic weapons are banned by federal law, as Plaintiffs point out, does not mean that weapons dissimilar to them in any respect may not be banned. The Supreme Court has also upheld a ban on short-barreled shotguns, which also cannot fire multiple rounds with a single pull of the trigger. The difference in trigger mechanism is immaterial compared to what does matter: whether semi-automatic weapons are unusually dangerous. The evidence is clear that they are. Indeed, semi-automatic weapons are, in fact, even more lethal than fully automatic weapons.

Note that Highland Park (and the Brady attorneys) didn’t claim that semi-automatic “assault weapons” are more lethal than fully automatic rifles. They applied that designation to all semi-autos, which would encompass the vast majority of handguns sold in the United States. You know, the handguns that the Supreme Court has already said are protected arms under the Second Amendment.

Now, maybe these attorneys are just absolute morons who’ve somehow never heard of the Heller decision, but I doubt that’s the case. Highland Park’s argument doesn’t make much sense in light of the Heller decision, but maybe that’s because the attorneys who wrote it aren’t interested in upholding or abiding by Heller, but getting rid of it instead.

Rights Protected by the Second Amendment are Being Restored, NOT Created

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)-— The jurisprudence of the Second Amendment is: it was ratified to protect the existing right of the people to keep and bear arms. It did not create new rights. One reason to protect the right was to enable the creation of militias from the armed population.

It was well understood, at the time of ratification, the right to keep and bear arms included the right to do so for self-defense as well as community defense, for hunting, and included the ancillary rights to practice, buy, sell and make weapons, as well as ammunition and accessories for them. These rights were not disputed and were considered to be derived from the natural rights to life and liberty. From Heller:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

The American Second Amendment was recognized as needed because the English right to arms had been construed too narrowly to protect the colonists against the exercise of power by King George and the British Empire. The Americans had recently fought a long and bitter war sparked by the British attempts at disarming the American colonists.  The initial battles of Lexington and Concord were direct attempts by the representatives of the British Crown to confiscate gunpowder and, particularly, cannon.  Cannon were crew served weapons. The officers of the Crown confiscated plenty of individual weapons as well.

Continue reading “”

Illinois AG, Buried In Lawsuits, Has Bad Day At Gun Ban Court Date.

Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul finds himself in the unpleasant position of defending the indefensible.  It falls upon him to defend Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s new gun and magazine ban in the courts.  At a court hearing yesterday, Raoul got off to a rocky start.  Despite 450 attorneys working for him, Illinois’ top lawyer couldn’t even muster enough juris doctors to defend each of four named defendants in the first court hearing.

I know. You’re probably like me, reaching for a tissue at the news.

Just kidding.

Many if not most of Raoul’s crew of attorneys work in Chicago. Those city slickers try to avoid going south of Interstate 80, which in the minds of more than a few Chicagoans represents the demarcation between their idea of civilization and the cornfields, hicks, and bumpkins that could star in Deliverance 2.

As an Illinois resident from south of the I-80 demarcation line, I can just imagine the reaction of Raoul’s attorneys being asked to travel four hours downstate to defend the Senate President and the Speaker of the Illinois House. “You want me to go where? That’s way down there in hillbilly country! Besides, they probably don’t even have running water there.”

Anyway, it didn’t go well for AG Raoul.  First he tried to delay by asking for a new judge to hear the case. The chief judge assigned a new jurist, but kept the hearing time at 11a.m. on Wednesday.

Frustrated on the first request, Raoul’s office then asked for a week-long delay in the hearing. Bzzt.

In the end, the hearing happened and only the named defendants of the Governor and Attorney General had legal representation. The Attorney General’s office left the Senate President and the House Speaker without any legal counsel.

That’s right, AG Raoul has 450 attorneys and he couldn’t get four of them to show up in Effingham for an emergency hearing. Meanwhile, Attorney Tom Devore moved forward, asking for a temporary restraining order to block enforcement of HB-5471, the Draconian new gun and magazine bans that outlaw the hottest-selling firearms for personal defense in the Land of Lincoln. And a whole lot more.

Continue reading “”

Missouri AG prioritizing Biden social media collusion lawsuit, defending Second Amendment law

(The Center Square) – A lawsuit against President Joe Biden’s administration for alleged collusion with social media companies and defending Missouri’s Second Amendment Preservation Act are priorities for Republican Attorney General Andrew Bailey.

Litigation in both cases began while Republican U.S. Sen. Eric Schmitt was serving as Missouri’s attorney general. After the State of the State address on Wednesday, Bailey, who was appointed in November to replace Schmitt, said depositions in the social media collusion case are leading toward an injunction.

“We have documentary evidence, we have testimonial evidence and we intend to seek more evidence in the coming weeks,” Bailey said in an interview with The Center Square. “We’re on an expedited discovery timeline. At some point, we’re going to get into a procedural posture where we’re going to ask for an injunction to prevent further coercion and collusion from the federal government and prevent Biden and his team from censoring speech.”

Missouri v. Biden was filed by Schmitt and Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry in May and they were granted a motion for discovery to expedite a possible preliminary injunction in July. In addition to releasing documents in the case, they released the transcript of a deposition of Dr. Anthony Fauci, Biden’s chief medical advisor who recently retired.

Last week, Bailey released emails from White House Digital Director Robert Flaherty and other associates to major social media platforms. It included an email from Flaherty to Facebook asking why a video by Tucker Carlson on COVID-19 vaccines didn’t violate the social media platform’s standards.

“What we’ve demonstrated and what we believe is going on is censorship because it’s unelected federal bureaucrats targeting specific speech that they disfavor and asking that it be removed from big-tech social media platforms,” Bailey said. “That’s the problem. It stifles free, fair and open debate and it undermines our First Amendment. There should be marketplace of ideas that is free from government censorship.”

Bailey said defending the Missouri’s Second Amendment Preservation Act in lawsuits also will be a priority. The city of Arnold filed a lawsuit and St. Louis city and county and Jackson County filed a separate suit seeking to overturn the law. Both lawsuits claim the law restricts local police cooperating with federal law enforcement on gun violations.

“The Second Amendment is what makes all of the other (amendments) possible,” Bailey said. “It prevents enforcement of federal firearm regulations that exceed or violate the Second Amendment. We need to be going after criminals and not guns, first and foremost. I think most law enforcement officers in the state of Missouri agree with that. If we spent more time going after the criminals and not the guns, we will have safer streets.”

Bailey said the Missouri law is aligned with the principles of the authors of the U.S. Constitution.

“The founders understood that, number one, our rights come from God and not men,” Bailey said. “The federal constitution was a floor, not a ceiling, and the states could be guarantors of individual liberties. So the state legislature wants to expand upon the foundational rights codified in the Second Amendment and they have authority to do that. It’s about federalism and individual liberty.”

This Challenge To Illinois’ Gun Law Tees Up SCOTUS To Finally Nuke ‘Assault Weapons’ Bans

Illinois’ recently enacted ban on most semi-automatic rifles and so-called “high-capacity” magazines violates the Second Amendment, according to a lawsuit filed on Tuesday in a federal district court. The case, Harrel v. Raoul, represents one of the first challenges to so-called “assault-weapons” bans since the 2022 Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle v. Bruen made clear that the right to bear arms is not “a second-class right.”

Here’s what you need to know about the case and current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

On Jan. 10, 2023, Illinois enacted a ban on the manufacturing, delivery, sale, purchase, or possession of so-called “assault weapons,” which is defined by statute to include any semi-automatic rifle “with the capacity to accept a magazine holding more than ten rounds of ammunition,” if the rifle possesses any one of several features, such as “a pistol grip or thumbhole stock,” a “folding, telescoping, thumbhole, or detachable stock,” or a “flash suppressor.” The Illinois statute also identifies dozens of rifles expressly banned as “assault weapons,” including all AK-type rifles, all AR-type rifles, several Barrett and Bushmaster rifles, along with a catalog of other guns.

Illinois’ recently enacted statute also makes it a crime to “manufacture, deliver, sell, purchase,” or “possess” magazines branded by the state as “large capacity ammunition” devices and referred to colloquially as “large-capacity magazines.” The statute categorizes magazines as “large capacity” if they can hold more than “10 rounds of ammunition for long guns and more than 15 rounds of ammunition for handguns.”

A group of individuals, gun businesses, and private organizations, including the Second Amendment Foundation, the Illinois State Rifle Association, and the Firearms Policy Coalition, filed suit on Tuesday against the Illinois attorney general, as well as several state prosecutors and law enforcement agents, arguing the statute violates the Second Amendment. On Wednesday, the case was assigned to federal Judge Stephen P. McGlynn, a Donald Trump appointee.

The lead attorney for the plaintiffs, David G. Sigale, told The Federalist he anticipates seeking a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction “very soon,” noting that the statute has been in force since the governor signed the law on Jan. 10.

In seeking a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs will need to establish they have “a likelihood of success on the merits,” meaning they will likely prevail on their claim that the Illinois law violates the Second Amendment.

Continue reading “”

Florida Top Court Upholds Fines for Passing Local Gun Rules

A Florida law penalizing local government officials who experiment with new city or county gun regulations was upheld by the state Supreme Court Thursday.

The high court, in a 5-1 ruling, preserved a 2011 state law imposing $5,000 fines on local officials that intentionally pass or enforce gun regulations not enacted by the state Legislature. The law allows private citizens to bring suits enforcing the law, and limits officials’ use of public funds to defend themselves in these cases.

The decision forecloses Democratic leaders of Florida local governments from experimenting with gun rules in the wake of the US Supreme Court’s 2022 New York Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen decision which has led to expanded blue-state regulation of firearms in “sensitive places.”

Dozens of local governments and officials claimed the state’s fine and fee-shifting provisions—the losing official pays the plaintiffs’ attorney fees—violated the Florida Constitution’s powers granted to local government and immunity given to lawmakers. The majority opinion, written by Justice Ricky Polston, said the state Legislature had the power to limit local officials’ immunity.

Ruling otherwise would “frustrate the ability of the Legislature to set policies for the state,” Polston said.

In a dissent, Justice Jorge Labarga said that the ruling incorrectly places judges in the shoes of legislators and forces courts to analyze their intent, amounting to “nothing less than an impermissible judicial intrusion into the official’s legislative thought process.”

Everytown for Gun Safety advocates for background checks and other gun control measures. Michael Bloomberg, the majority owner of Bloomberg Government’s parent company, serves as a member of Everytown’s advisory board.

The cases are Fried v. Florida, Fla., No. SC21-917, 1/19/23 and City of Weston v. Florida, Fla., No. SC21-918, 1/19/23.

This was a request for a temporary injunction to stop enforcement while the case makes its way through the system.

I think this is simply lawyers being lawyers and making sure that other lawyers have the opportunity to bill more hours, but it sure makes me wonder why even Justice Thomas wouldn’t even respond to the clear poke in the eye this is by the State of New York.

Supreme Court Rejects New York Gun Retailers’ Bid to Block New Concealed Carry Laws

The Supreme Court rejected a bid by New York gun retailers on Wednesday to block a slew of new gun control laws in the state, which they argued violate their Second Amendment rights and hurt their businesses.

There were no noted dissents in the order or explanations from the justices for their decision.

Federal Lawsuit Filed Against Unconstitutional Illinois Gun Ban

BELLEVUE, WA – -(AmmoLand.com)- The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the recently-signed Illinois gun ban legislation, alleging it to be unconstitutional and asserting the state has criminalized “a common and important means of self-defense.” The case is known as Harrel v. Raoul.

Joining SAF in this legal action are the Illinois State Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, C4 Gun Store LLC, Marengo Guns, Inc. and a private citizen, Dane Harrel. Named as defendants are Attorney General Kwame Raoul, Illinois State Police Director Brendan F. Kelly, and other officials in their official capacities. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

“Illinois has banned the future sale, importation, purchase, delivery and manufacture of the most popular rifle in the United States, along with their standard capacity magazines,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “People who already own such firearms must now register their guns with the State Police. This ban violates the constitutional rights of Illinois gun owners, and we intend to prove it in court.

“Once again,” he continued, “Illinois lawmakers are scapegoating firearms and people who own them in a transparent attempt to convince people they are doing something about the horrible violence the state has suffered in recent years, especially in Chicago. In reality, it’s an effort to distract the public from the fact that these same lawmakers have been unable or unwilling to crack down on criminals responsible for violent crime.”

Modern semiautomatic firearms banned under the new Illinois law have been deliberately mischaracterized as “assault weapons” and even “weapons of war,” Gottlieb explained. He called this patently dishonest and deceitful.

“Anti-gun politicians tout this sort of legislation,” Gottlieb observed, “while they know it really won’t accomplish anything beyond creating the false public impression they are making the community safer. No neighborhood, no city, and no state ever became safer by restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens.”