Category: Courts

SAF Sues to Block Connecticut’s ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban

From the Second Amendment Foundation . . .

The Second Amendment Foundation today filed suit in federal district court, challenging the ban on so-called “assault weapons” in Connecticut, and asking for declaratory and injunctive relief.

SAF is joined by the Connecticut Citizens Defense League and three private citizens, Eddie Grant, Jr., Jennifer Hamilton, and Michael Stiefel. Named as defendants are Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont, plus James Rovella, commissioner of the state’s Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection; Chief State’s Attorney Patrick Griffin and several other officials. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Doug Dubitsky of North Windham, Conn., Craig C. Fishbein of Wallingford, Conn., and Cameron L. Atkinson of New Haven.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. 

Connecticut’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” dates back to 1993. The state criminalizes the possession, sale or transfer of such firearms—about 160 guns named in four subsections—even though many of these guns are in common use across the country. 

“The ban was previously upheld, but that was before the Supreme Court handed down its Bruen ruling earlier this year,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “That landmark decision eliminated the ‘two-part test’ which included an interest-balancing provision that didn’t pass constitutional muster.”

According to the lawsuit, the current ban deprives “responsible citizens of their Second Amendment rights under the guise of providing a panacea for social problems that Connecticut remains unable to solve.” 

Gottlieb said there is no historical foundation for such a ban, and the complaint actually details the historical development of firearms including repeating rifles developed and manufactured in Connecticut and elsewhere. The lawsuit also mentions incidents in which modern semiautomatic rifles were used by private citizens to stop violent crimes.

Thread reader

Rob Romano

The lawsuit complains about an advertisement for a handguard:

Families of three Uvalde shooting survivors sue school district, gun makers, city officials and others

Image
“brazen and provocative marketing”Image
The lawsuit says that AR-15s “are unsuited for home defense, recreation, or casual use and possession.”Image
The lawsuit says the gun store should have known one of its customers would be a mass shooter because they were “always alone and quiet”:Image
According to the lawsuit, Daniel Defense’s guns are weapons of war, but their advertisements are misleading because they use military imageryImage
The lawsuit says that “AR-15 style rifles, rapid-fire trigger systems, and high-capacity magazines are used by most often by young adults in mass shootings.”Image
The lawsuit says that “AR-15 style rifles destroy human bodies, limbs, organs, and tissue, pulverize the human body, explode, and cause immediate death.”Image

• • •

Analysis: Federal Judge Charts Path to Upholding Felon Gun Bans

We now have a new framework for how the federal prohibition on felons owning guns could be constitutional.

District Judge David Counts of Western Texas upheld the conviction ban this week. That’s despite the fact that he struck down the federal ban on people indicted for felonies receiving firearms just a few days beforehand. And he did it under the Supreme Court’s Bruen standard, making him among the first to apply it to federal law.

His logic will sound familiar to anyone who followed his opinion in the indictment case. After calling into question the constitutionality of the indictment ban under Bruen’s text-and-tradition standard, he did the same for the conviction ban.

“Whether this Nation has a history of disarming felons is arguably unclear—it certainly isn’t clearly ‘longstanding,’” Counts said in that ruling, dismissing a claim made in the Supreme Court’s landmark Heller decision.

However, he also outlined how he believed the conviction ban could be constitutional under the Bruen test even without a historical gun law as an analogue. Instead of relying on gun laws, Counts argued, it is better to look at how groups have been excluded from the political rights afforded to “the people.” Those historical examples provide a better guide, he said.

And now, just a few days after laying out his hypothetical test for the convicted felon prohibition, he has applied it in practice. He relied on the fact that governments in the early days of the republic prohibited people from voting if they had been convicted of certain crimes and those inciting people to violence could be prohibited from assembling in public.

“Indeed, there was a ‘longstanding’ historical tradition from the time of ratification that those convicted of a crime could be excluded from the right to vote,” Counts wrote. “For example, one year after the Second Amendment’s ratification, Kentucky’s Constitution stated, ‘[l]aws shall be made to exclude from… suffrage those who thereafter be convicted of bribery, perjury, forgery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.’ Vermont’s Constitution followed one year later, authorizing the removal of voting rights from those engaged in bribery or corruption during elections. As of 2022, only two states and the District of Columbia do not restrict felons’ voting rights.”

This framework is similar in some respects to one used by Justice Amy Coney Barrett in Kanter v. Barr. Barrett argued in her dissent that those convicted of felonies could be prohibited from owning guns (though only if they committed violent felonies) because there was a tradition of barring dangerous groups from gun ownership as evidenced by early republic bans on Native Americans and Catholics owning guns. New York has sought to use the same argument to defend its gun laws in court.

Of course, the main problem with the Barrett approach is it relies exclusively on bigoted gun bans and attempts to generalize and sterilize them as applying to those early Americans considered “dangerous.” But it is highly questionable why the bans presented as evidence for this theory only fell along racial and religious lines. It seems dangerousness was playing a secondary role in those particular bans.

The Counts approach is not as susceptible to that pitfall. Clearly blacks, other minorities, and women were also excluded from protections afforded to “the people” in the founding era. Certainly, they were denied the right to vote in nearly all circumstances, and blacks in particular were denied all of their rights.

In fact, people in the founding era were as likely to be excluded from protections afforded to “the people” as they were to be included in them. So, relying on that approach for justifying modern gun bans has the potential to result in a fairly broad reading of what’s permissible under the Second Amendment.

Still, the Counts approach does at least provide some examples of longstanding rights restrictions that are based on a person’s criminal actions rather than their race or creed. So, it has a bit more to stand on.

Although, there are other weaknesses too. The number of crimes covered under modern felony laws dwarfs the number in the founding era. While the analogue of felons being prohibited from voting seems to fit fairly well with felons being barred from owning guns, the ban on inciting speech isn’t really the same since it isn’t a permanent ban on protesting for the offender.

It’s likely federal courts will refine the Counts approach if they do adopt it as a framework moving forward. His framework isn’t without its problems, and it’s among the first attempt at reconciling federal gun prohibitions with the Bruen standard. But it has the potential to become very influential among Counts’ piers moving forward.

Trial Date Set for Washington’s Ban on High-Capacity Gun Magazine Sales

A federal judge in Seattle has scheduled a trial to start more than a year from now regarding the legal challenge to Washington state’s new restrictions on high-capacity gun magazines.

Judge David Estudillo of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington set Dec. 4, 2023, as the opening day for what is scheduled as an eight-day bench trial regarding the Second Amendment Foundation’s lawsuit against the state’s ban on sales of new large-capacity magazines for handguns and rifles.

The law, which took effect on July 1, prohibits the sale of gun magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds, along with the manufacturing, distribution or import of such magazines in Washington.

Any high-capacity magazines owned as of July 1, 2022, are unaffected by the law.

“We’re asking the court to declare Washington’s ban on original capacity magazines to be unconstitutional under the Second and Fourteenth amendments,” Alan M. Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Bellevue-based SAF, said at the time the lawsuit was filed.  “We want an injunction against the state because this ban criminalizes something that is common in a majority of states, and also leaves law-abiding Washington citizens more vulnerable to attack by ruthless criminals.”

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms, while the Fourteenth Amendment, in part, reads “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process.”

The complaint alleges the law will negatively impact Washingtonians’ self-defense options.

“The State of Washington has criminalized one of the most common and important means by which its citizens can exercise their fundamental right of self-defense,” the lawsuit reads. “By banning manufacturing, importation, distribution, and sale of standard-capacity firearm magazines that can carry more than 10 rounds of ammunition (‘standard capacity magazines’), the State has barred law-abiding residents from legally acquiring common ammunition magazines and deprived them of an effective means of self-defense.”

Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson has publicly promised to “vigorously defend” the law.

Scheduling the trial more than a year out could be influenced by the U.S. Supreme Court’s June ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, in which the majority held that Americans have the constitutional right to carry firearms.

That ruling has opened the door for another look at cases against high-capacity magazine bans that previously failed in lower courts.

The nation’s highest court vacated a ruling in a San Diego case that upheld California’s ban on magazines holding more than 10 bullets, sending it back to the lower court to reconsider following its Bruen decision.

The court also booted a case challenging New Jersey’s ban on high-capacity magazines back to a lower court for review in light of Bruen.

That means either case could end up being decided before Washington’s case, known as Sullivan v. Ferguson, goes to trial.

According to the schedule, discovery must be completed by next July 10, all motions for dismissal must be filed by next Aug. 7, and a pretrial conference will be held on Nov. 20, 2023.

GOA IMMEDIATELY SUES PHILADELPHIA OVER UNCONSTITUTIONAL EXECUTIVE ORDER

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

September 28, 2022

Philadelphia, PA – Yesterday, lame-duck Mayor Jim Kenney signed an executive order prohibiting individuals from lawful carry at all City of Philadelphia recreational facilities. The mayor’s actions are in clear violation of Pennsylvania law prohibiting these types of local gun restrictions. Within hours of Mayor Kenney’s signing ceremony, Gun Owners of America (GOA) filed a lawsuit to enjoin enforcement of this illegal gun regulation.

“Mayor Kenney knows this executive order is pointless: law abiding gun owners aren’t the people committing the violent crime and murder in Philadelphia,”  said Dr. Val Finnell, Pennsylvania Director for GOA. “Instead, Mayor Kenney is trying to deflect attention from his failing policies and failing City by enacting more ‘feel good’ regulations that scapegoat guns for the crisis of crime in Philadelphia. Rather than take responsibility for city policies that created two years of record homicides, Kenney is attempting to capitalize on the tragic deaths of Philadelphia residents to disarm more people and create more victim-only, ‘gun-free’ zones. All this executive order does is put a bullseye on the back of every person at Philadelphia recreational facilities, because they know that Mayor Kenney won’t let you defend yourself there.”

“The lack of respect for taxpayer money is appalling,” said Andrew Austin, attorney for GOA and the plaintiffs in this lawsuit. “Pennsylvania law is clear here: Philly is not allowed to make gun regulations. Every appellate court in Pennsylvania has made this clear multiple times. Yet, they continue to waste taxpayer money by attempting to enact these illegal laws.”

Gun Owners of America will be seeking to enjoin enforcement of Mayor Kenney’s Executive Order in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. In addition, GOA has previously filed several other lawsuits in Philadelphia in the last two years in pursuit of Second Amendment rights, and will continue to fight as long as necessary to ensure every citizen has the ability to defend themselves, particularly in lawless cities such as Mayor Kenney’s Philadelphia.

Dr. Val Finnell, or another GOA spokesperson is available for interviews. Gun Owners of America is a nonprofit grassroots lobbying organization dedicated to protecting the right to keep and bear arms without compromise. GOA represents over two million members and activists. For more information, visit GOA’s Press Center.

-GOA-

Well, I  read it that way too, so………

Judge Issues Time Limits for Briefs in California Magazine Ban Case

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)-– Judge Benitez found California’s ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition to be unconstitutional on its face. On March 29, 2017, Judge Benitez issued an injunction preventing the enforcement of the ban. In the week that followed, hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of magazines were sold to California residents who had been deprived of their Second Amendment rights.

The week of March 29, 2017, to April 5, 2017, has become known as Freedom week.

The name of the case changed as the name of the California AG changed.

Subsequent court actions reversed the injunction, upheld Judge Benitez’s opinion, reversed the three-judge panel with an en banc hearing, and appealed the en banc hearing to the Supreme Court. On June 22, 2022, the Supreme Court issued its decision on the Bruen case. On June 29, the Supreme Court vacated the decision by the Ninth Circuit en banc on Duncan v. Bonta and sent it back to the Ninth Circuit to be re-decided.

The Ninth Circuit sent the case back to Judge Rodger T. Benitez. Judge Benitez is now following proper procedure. He is not allowing delays. On September 26, 2022, Judge Roger T. Benitez of the District Court for the Southern District of California issued an order as to the timing for briefs on the now Duncan v. Bonta case.

From the District Court for the Southern District of California, Judge Roger T. Benitez:

On June 29, 2017, this Court preliminarily enjoined enforcement of California Penal Code § 32310 (c) & (d) requiring persons to dispossess themselves of magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds lawfully acquired and possessed. The preliminary injunction was affirmed on appeal. Duncan v. Becerra, Appeal No. 17-56081 (9th Cir. July 17, 2018). On March 29, 2019, on summary judgment, this Court concluded that California Penal Code § 32310 is unconstitutional. On April 4, 2019, this Court made the preliminary injunction on subsections (c) and (d) permanent but stayed, pending appeal, the injunction of § 32310 (a) & (b).

This Court was again affirmed on appeal. Duncan v. Becerra, Appeal No. 19-55376 (9th Cir. Aug. 14, 2020). The Ninth Circuit granted rehearing en banc, vacated its opinion, and entered an opinion reversing the judgment of this Court.Duncan v. Bonta, Appeal No. 19-55376 (9th Cir. Nov. 30, 2021). The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and vacated the opinion of the Ninth Circuit and remanded for further consideration. Duncan v. Bonta, No. 21-1194, 142 S. Ct. 2895 (June 30, 2022). The Ninth Circuit now remands the case to this Court for further proceedings in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022) and the mandate has issued.

This Court hereby spreads the mandate upon the minutes of this Court. 

The Defendant shall file any additional briefing that is necessary to decide this case in light of Bruen within 45 days of this Order. Plaintiffs shall file any responsive briefing within 21 days thereafter. This Court will then decide the case on the briefs and the prior record or schedule additional hearings.

The previously entered preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of California Penal Code § 32310 (c) and (d) for magazines able to hold more than ten rounds shall remain in effect for all those who previously acquired and possessed magazines legally (including those persons and business entities who acquired magazines between March 29, 2019 and April 5, 2019), pending further Order of this Court. Dated: September 26, 2022 

The 45 days to file briefs ends on November 10th, by my calculations; the time given for response briefs ends on November 30th.

The Miller v. Bonta case briefs will have been in and responded to about a month earlier, at the end of October.

Miller v. Bonta and Duncan v. Bonta are closely related cases about restoring Second Amendment rights.

FPC Files for Injunction Against New York “Sensitive Location” Handgun Carry Bans

BUFFALO, NY (September 28, 2022) – Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced today that it has filed a motion for preliminary injunction in Boron v. Bruen, its lawsuit challenging New York’s “sensitive location” handgun carry bans in public parks, public transportation, and all private property without express consent. The motion can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“Under S51001, ‘ordinary, law-abiding citizens,’ like and including Plaintiffs, are again prevented from carrying handguns in public for self-defense in almost all corners of the State, except in what Governor Hochul said were, ‘probably some streets,’” argues the motion. “S51001 makes a mockery of the Supreme Court’s holding in Bruen, which reaffirmed that personal security extends to more than just ‘those . . . who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force,’ but also emphatically extends to include ordinary, law-abiding Americans ‘outside the home.’”

“The New York Legislature appears to think that when the Supreme Court closed the door on New York’s may issue permit regime it opened a window for equally onerous location restrictions,” said FPC Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “Today’s motion for preliminary injunction is the opportunity for the Court to remind New York lawmakers that those windows are nailed shut by the Constitution.”

Individuals who would like to Join the FPC Grassroots Army and support important pro-rights lawsuits and programs can sign up at JoinFPC.org. Individuals and organizations wanting to support charitable efforts in support of the restoration of Second Amendment and other natural rights can also make a tax-deductible donation to the FPC Action Foundation. For more on FPC’s lawsuits and other pro-Second Amendment initiatives, visit FPCLegal.org and follow FPC on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube.

Firearms Policy Coalition (firearmspolicy.org), a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization, exists to create a world of maximal human liberty, defend constitutionally protected rights, advance individual liberty, and restore freedom. FPC’s efforts are focused on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and adjacent issues including freedom of speech, due process, unlawful searches and seizures, separation of powers, asset forfeitures, privacy, encryption, and limited government. The FPC team are next-generation advocates working to achieve the Organization’s strategic objectives through litigation, research, scholarly publications, amicus briefing, legislative and regulatory action, grassroots activism, education, outreach, and other programs.

FPC Law (FPCLaw.org) is the nation’s first and largest public interest legal team focused on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and the leader in the Second Amendment litigation and research space.

SAF ASKS COURT TO DECLARE HANDGUN BAN FOR YOUNG ADULTS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a complaint in U.S. District Court in West Virginia, challenging the federal prohibition on handgun sales to young adults ages 18-20, and is asking for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief.

Joining SAF in this legal action are the West Virginia Citizens Defense League and two private citizens, Benjamin Weekley and Steven Brown. Defendants are the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, ATF Director Steven Dettelbach and Attorney General Merrick Garland, in their official capacities. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia. The case is known as Brown v. ATF.

Weekley and Brown, both being in the affected age group, were unable to purchase handguns from a West Virginia sporting goods store earlier this year. According to the lawsuit, “The Handgun Ban impermissibly infringes upon the right to keep and bear arms of all law-abiding, peaceable individuals aged eighteen to twenty,” and further asserts the ban “is flatly unconstitutional under the Second Amendment” and Supreme Court opinions in the 2008 Heller case and 2022 Bruen decision.

“There is no historical evidence supporting an arbitrary prohibition on purchase and ownership of handguns for young adults over the age of 18,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Indeed, history goes the other direction, with young adults considered mature enough for militia service, duty in the armed forces and in today’s world being able to vote, run for public office, start businesses, get married, enter into contracts and enjoy the full protections set down in the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth amendments.

“Yet these same young adults are hampered by a politically selected age limit that prohibits them from purchasing handguns from licensed firearms dealers,” he added. “This makes absolutely no sense. This handgun ban for young adults is an unconstitutional infringement of their rights s protected by the Second Amendment.”

About 3 1/2 years ago, Judge Benitez ruled that California’s magazine ban was unconstitutional and enjoined the state from enforcing the ban. That injunction was in effect for about a week before the 9th circuit reversed it.
During that week anyone could  -legally- buy, and retain, magazines that had been previously banned. It was called ‘Freedom Week’.
What this did, in effect, was make possession of all previously banned magazines legal in California since there is really no way for the state to prove someone didn’t buy them during that week
The case, still at the 9th circuit, was remanded back to him last week with the instruction to rehear the case, taking SCOTUS’ Bruen ruling into account.
So the Judge made his original injunction effective again. Heh heh heh heh.

Image

2nd Amendment Foundation Backs Federal Challenge Of Illinois Transit Weapons Ban

BELLEVUE, WA – -(AmmoLand.com)- The Second Amendment Foundation announced today it is financially supporting a federal lawsuit filed by four Illinois residents who are challenging a ban on licensed concealed carry on Public Transportation under the state’s Firearm Concealed Carry Act.

The plaintiffs in the case are Benjamin Schoenthal, Mark Wroblewski, Joseph Vesel, and Douglas Winston. They are all residents of counties in northern Illinois in the greater Chicago area. They are represented by attorney David Sigale of Wheaton, Ill. The case is known as Schoenthal v. Raoul.

Defendants are Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul and State’s Attorneys Rick Amato (DeKalb County), Robert Berlin (DuPage County), Kimberly M. Foxx (Cook County), and Eric Rinehart (Lake County), all in their official capacities.

“We’re financially supporting this case because it is the right thing to do,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “All four plaintiffs in this case are law-abiding citizens who cannot exercise their fundamental rights as spelled out by three Supreme Court rulings, including SAF’s 2010 McDonald victory that nullified Chicago’s unconstitutional handgun ban.

“Illinois lawmakers have made it as difficult as possible for honest citizens to exercise their right to bear arms,” he continued, “and the prohibition on licensed carry while traveling via public transportation is a glaring example. This ban is a direct violation of the Second and Fourteenth amendments, and we are delighted to support this case because it cuts to the heart of anti-gun extremism.

“Buses and commuter trains are public places, but they are hardly sensitive places,” Gottlieb observed. “The four plaintiffs in this case rely on public transportation to travel to and from various places, including work, and they should be able to carry firearms for personal protection while in transit. However, current laws, regulations, policies and practices enforced by the defendants have made that legally impossible.

“Illinois is trying to perpetuate an indefensible public disarmament policy despite the clear meaning of Supreme Court rulings,” he concluded, “and we’re going to help the plaintiffs put an end to this nonsense.”

US V. Quiroz – §922 (N) Held Unconstitutional

Jose Gomez Quiroz was indicted in a Texas state court for burglary and later indicted for jumping bail. Both are felonies under Texas state law. While on the lam, Quiroz sought to buy a .22LR pistol from a dealer and answered “no” on the Form 4473 when asked if he was under indictment for a felony. He got a delayed (but not denied) response and subsequently took possession a week later. Then, the NICS System notified the BATFE of Quiroz’s transaction. He was charged with lying on the Form 4473 (18 USC §922(a)(6)) and illegal receipt of a firearm by a person under indictment (18 USC §922(n)). A Federal jury found him guilty on both charges. A week later, Quiroz moved to set aside the conviction under Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and asked the court to reconsider in light of Bruen.

US District Court Judge David Counts of the Western District of Texas issued his decision yesterday and found §922(n) facially unconstitutional. Moreover, since §922(n) was found unconstitutional, Quiroz’s lie on the Form 4473 was immaterial. The US Attorney is already appealing the decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The media is making a big deal over the fact that Judge Counts was appointed by President Trump. What they fail to say is that Counts was originally nominated for the position by President Barack Obama and that the clock ran out before he could be confirmed by the Senate. Prior to the nomination by President Obama, Counts served as a Magistrate Judge in the Western District and was the State Judge Advocate for the Texas National Guard where he was a Colonel.

The expansion of civil rights has often come in cases with less than desirable defendants. Witness the expansion of rights thanks to Clarence Earl Gideon, a drifter, and Ernesto Miranda, a kidnapper and rapist, whose cases established the right to counsel and the right to a warning against self-incrimination respectively.

Now it is time to examine the decision in detail.

Continue reading “”

Just now, the Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded the lawsuit challenging California’s magazine ban, which means it will now go back to the district court to be heard again….by Judge Benitez!!

The judgment in this case is vacated, Duncan v. Bonta, 142 S. Ct. 2895 (2022), and this case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. ____, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022)

19-55376

Raising age to buy rifles in Texas won’t prevent mass shootings. There’s an obvious reason why

Before the Uvalde school attacker perpetrated obvious felonies such as capital murder and aggravated assault — before he even pulled the trigger — he had already committed numerous crimes.

Among them was bringing a firearm on school premises, making a menacing public display of the weapon, and trespassing on school property. Some people think there ought to be another law, as if just one more penal provision would have averted the tragedy in Uvalde.

They are demanding that Gov. Greg Abbott call a special session so the Legislature can outlaw the purchase of semiautomatic rifles by adults between the ages of 18 and 20. Reflexively enacting this gun-control measure would be no quick fix for school shootings, however, in no small part because it is patently unconstitutional.

And it would be wrong. Young adults have the same rights as other adults, including the right to self-defense. The Heritage Foundation notes that “Americans use their firearms in self-defense between 500,000 and 3 million times annually.” Though no government agency tracks those incidents and records the ages of those who defended themselves, many are surely younger than 21.

We can’t answer lawlessness with more lawlessness or a disregard for the Constitution. Even the notoriously liberal 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agrees with that.

This year, the court held that California violated the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when it imposed a blanket ban on the sale of semiautomatic rifles to young adults between the ages of 18 and 20. Holding that such rifles are not “dangerous and unusual weapons,” which would have left them unprotected under Heller, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the age-based ban unconstitutionally deprives young adults of their right to lawful self-defense within the home.

The Second Amendment argument against a young-adult rifle ban has only gotten stronger with the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark opinion in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, handed down after the May 24 Uvalde shooting. As Justice Clarence Thomas explained in striking down New York’s scheme to prevent carrying a handgun for self-defense, the days of treating the Second Amendment as a second-class right are over.

Going forward, lower courts will have to scrutinize modern laws for consistency with the constitutional text and history. The court’s decision has already changed the Second Amendment landscape in Texas, according to a respected federal judge in Fort Worth. This past month, Judge Mark Pittman held that the Bruen decision overrules 5th U.S. Circuit Court decisions allowing a young-adult handgun ban.

On this basis, he has issued an injunction against a Texas law that prevents young adults from getting licensed to carry handguns in public. In addition, the Texas Constitution independently guarantees a Texan’s “right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself.”

A young-adult rifle ban from the Legislature, whether enacted in a special session or in the regular session beginning in January, would not make Texas schools any safer. It would not even go into effect before being enjoined as unconstitutional — on the strength of that Ninth Circuit ruling, which struck down an identical provision.

The heart-wrenching tragedy in Uvalde has generated universal agreement that something must be done to avert a repeat of what happened there. Identifying the villain of Uvalde was easy; calibrating a meaningful response to the attacker’s murderous rampage will be hard.

It will take months of difficult deliberation for the Legislature to understand and address the interrelated problems of gun violence, mental health, school hardening, and law-enforcement failures. But there can be no unconstitutional lawless shortcuts.

Instead of passing a young-adult rifle ban that will immediately fail judicial scrutiny, the Legislature should continue working on bills that will actually make schools safer, without trampling the constitutional rights of law-abiding Texans.

Robert Henneke is the executive director and general counsel at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a think tank based in Austin.

New York City Man and Alabama Woman Plead Guilty to Attempting to Provide Material Support to ISIS

Today in the Southern District of New York, Arwa Muthana, 30, of Hoover, Alabama, pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, aka ISIS, a designated foreign terrorist organization. On Friday, her husband James Bradley, aka Abdullah, 21, of the Bronx, entered a guilty plea to the same charge.

According to court documents, Bradley and Muthana are ISIS supporters who attempted to travel to the Middle East to join and fight for ISIS. Bradley expressed violent extremist views since at least 2019, including his desire to support ISIS by traveling overseas to join the group or committing a terrorist attack in the United States. In May 2020, Bradley stated to an undercover law enforcement officer (UC-1) that he believed that ISIS may be good for Muslims because ISIS was establishing a caliphate. Bradley further expressed his desire to conduct a terrorist attack in the United States and discussed potentially attacking the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, New York. Bradley explained that if he could not leave the United States, he would do “something” in the United States instead, referring to carrying out an attack.

Continue reading “”

Federal Judge Grants Marines Class Action Status in Challenge to COVID Vaccine Requirement

A federal judge has granted class action status for U.S. Marines in their fight against Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The ruling is another blow to the Biden administration and consistent with other court rulings that have found military branches are violating federal law.

Judge Steven Merryday of the U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida Tampa Division granted a classwide preliminary injunction for Marines serving in active and reserve duty who were denied religious accommodation requests from taking the COVID-19 vaccine.

Merryday preliminarily enjoined the Department of Defense from “enforcing against a member of the class any order, requirement, or rule to accept COVID-19 vaccination, … from separating or discharging from the Marine Corps a member of the class who declines COVID-19 vaccination, and … from retaliating against a member of the class for the member’s asserting statutory rights under RFRA [Religious Freedom Restoration Act].”

Continue reading “”

Standard practice these days.
If a person is considered too dangerous to possess a weapon, he’s too dangerous to be left out on the street.

DOJ requests appeal after judge rules felony indictment can’t prevent gun purchases

The Justice Department plans to appeal a Texas judge’s ruling that a federal law blocking people under felony indictment from purchasing firearms is unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court’s latest gun-related ruling.

U.S. District Judge David Counts found that the law’s prohibitions did not correlate with the Supreme Court’s June decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, in which the justices voted 6-3 (along conservative-liberal ideological lines) that law-abiding citizens have a right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense purposes.

“The Second Amendment is not a ‘second class right,'” Counts wrote. “After Bruen, the Government must prove that laws regulating conduct covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text align with this Nation’s historical tradition. The Government does not meet that burden.”

Counts, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, was tasked with weighing the case of Jose Gomez Quiroz, who was indicted on felony burglary charges related to a June 2020 incident. He allegedly jumped bail, attempted to purchase an automatic gun, and lied on his Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives transaction form but was still able to purchase the gun.

Quiroz was later convicted of making a false statement during the purchase of the weapon and illegal receipt of a gun by a person under indictment. He sought to dismiss the verdict because “of the United States Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Bruen,” according to court filings from Sept. 19.

Although Quiroz’s burglary charge is still pending, Counts sided with his position that the high court established a new “standard” in how it views Second Amendment rights.

“No longer can courts balance away a constitutional right,” Counts wrote.

Counts also voiced his doubt that a felony indictment should prevent someone from owning a firearm.

“The nature of grand jury proceedings is one such area that casts a shadow of constitutional doubt on” someone making a false statement on a firearm form, Counts wrote. “Some feel that a grand jury could indict a burrito if asked to do so.”

In a subsequent filing, the DOJ requested an appeal of Counts’s ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

DC says no right to carry on public transportation

One of the first lawsuits filed after the Supreme Court struck down New York’s “may issue” carry laws and firmly established that the right to bear arms in public for self-defense is protected by the Second Amendment was a challenge to the ban on firearms on the Metro public transportation system that serves Washington, D.C. and the city’s suburbs in Maryland and Virginia. The lawsuit argued that, based on the Court’s opinion in Bruen, the complete ban is a violation of the right to keep and bear arms and that the transit system should not be considered a “sensitive place” where the Second Amendment doesn’t apply.

In the complaint, the four plaintiffs (all of whom already possess a valid carry license in Washington, D.C.) acknowledge that D.C. has the authority to “regulate consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation the manner of carrying arms, including handguns, and may prohibit certain arms in narrowly defined sensitive places,” but argues that the blanket ban on lawful concealed carry on public transport isn’t narrowly defined or confined to a truly “sensitive place”.

… Even if the public transportation vehicles in question could be labeled “sensitive places”, the lawsuit argues that the ban has severe implications on the right of self-defense for those who have no other means of transportation and is a “substantial infringement” on their Second Amendment rights, with the practical effect of disarming all Metro riders “for the entirety of their journey.”

Now Washington, D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine has weighed in with the District’s response to the lawsuit, and unsurprisingly is arguing that it’s perfectly acceptable to bar the hundreds of thousands of riders from carrying a firearm for self-defense.

Attorney General Karl Racine, in a pretrial motion in a federal suit filed by four people seeking to carry guns on the public transit system, said Metro, with rail and bus passengers, including thousands of federal workers and children riding to school, is one of the “sensitive places,” where guns can remain prohibited.

The lawsuit, which was filed shortly after the Supreme Court’s decision expanding gun rights, says while bans in schools, stadiums and restaurants are likely constitutional, the gun owners should be allowed to carry concealed weapons on Metro.

Racine disagreed, saying, “every modern mode of interstate transportation prohibits the carrying of loaded firearms on one’s person,” including commercial aircraft and interstate buses.

“In dense spaces characterized by jostling and interpersonal conflict, the risk of a gun being accidentally discharged or hastily fired is tragically high — not only for the innocent bystanders who may be shot, but also for the countless other victims who may be crushed or thrown from a platform by a panicked crowd,” Racine wrote.

In addition, Racine said any incident involving a gun “could disrupt transit of transit for the hundreds of thousands relying on government-provided transportation each day.”

Unfortunately for Racine, simply barring lawful concealed carry doesn’t stop criminals from violating the “gun-free zones”, as we’ve seen in  New York City, Chicago and Washington, D.C. Instead, they prevent law-abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves against violent attacks inside these “sensitive places”.

Racine may be correct about interstate transportation banning the carrying of loaded firearms, but I would note that airlines and Amtrak at least allow for firearms to be stowed in checked baggage. Metro doesn’t provide riders with that opportunity, which means that those concealed carry holders who are dependent on public transportation are in essence disarmed throughout their day because they’re unable to lawfully bring their gun on board a bus or train car.

But as we discuss on today’s Cam & Co (today’s video can be found at the bottom of this post), Racine’s argument also opens the door to a challenge on those interstate bans on carrying. Why is the Second Amendment the only constitutionally-protected right that stops at the border of your home state? As a Virginian with a valid concealed carry license, why can’t I exercise my right to bear arms in neighboring Maryland or Washington without first obtaining a license to carry issued by those jurisdictions? In fact, some states like New York and California don’t issue licenses to non-residents, which means my right to keep and bear arms in self-defense ends at the state line. How can that be if we’re talking about a real and fundamental right?

That’s not the main thrust of this particular lawsuit, however. Instead, the complaint focuses on the “sensitive place” designation for Metro, and rightfully points out that the restriction has a chilling effect on the Second Amendment rights of riders; particularly those who don’t have a car of their own and must depend on public transportation to get from Point A to Point B. Even if those individuals can lawfully carry in each of those locations, by prohibiting them from bringing their legally-owned guns onto Metro the transportation network is preventing them from doing so since they have no legal way to keep their firearm with them as they’re traveling.

D.C.’s public transportation system isn’t the only one facing a lawsuit over its prohibition on concealed carry. On Tuesday, the Second Amendment Foundation announced that it will be backing a similar lawsuit aimed at Illinois’ ban on firearms in public transportation, with SAF founder and executive vice president Alan Gottlieb remarking that the state is “trying to perpetuate an indefensible public disarmament policy despite the clear meaning of Supreme Court rulings and we’re going to help the plaintiffs put an end to this nonsense.”

That’s a welcome development, and hopefully we’ll soon see these infringements on the right to bear arms disappear from the books and be replaced with policies that respect the right to carry and the right of self-defense for all those who rely on public transportation to get them where they need to be.