Category: Courts

SCOTUS unanimously rules Boston violated group’s rights by refusing to fly Christian flag
SCOTUS said Boston violated the Camp’s free speech rights

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a program of the city of Boston that allows outside groups to fly flags at city hall must permit the flying of flag with a cross that a camp referred to as a “Christian flag.”

The question before the court was whether flying the flag as part of a government program was considered government speech if the flag belonged to a private organization, in this case, Camp Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that it is not.

“We conclude that, on balance, Boston did not make the raising and flying of private groups’ flags a form of government speech,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the court’s opinion, stating that as a result the city improperly violated Camp Constitution’s free speech rights.

Continue reading “”

San Jose hit with second lawsuit over new gun control laws

The mandatory tax and insurance liability requirements San Jose is imposing on legal gun owners won’t take effect until August of this year, but the lawsuits seeking to overturn the new ordinances are already starting to pile up. The Firearms Policy Coalition launched a legal challenge against the ordinances on Tuesday of this week, becoming the second gun rights organization to try to overturn the new laws before they’re enforced.

San Jose’s gun owner insurance requirement is a “demonstrable attack” on Americans’ right to keep and bear arms, said FPC vice president of programs Adam Kraut.

“Governments cannot run roughshod over the constitutional rights of their people simply because they do not care for the rights they choose to exercise,” Kraut said.
FPC’s lawsuit seeks a judgment declaring the ordinance unconstitutional to prevent the city from enforcing it.
FPC attorneys asserted that the ordinance will not improve public safety, nor reduce gun violence.

“It will only burden those who already follow all firearm laws. Even city officials admit that, ‘of course, criminals won’t obey insurance or fee mandates,’” the lawsuit states.

“It is unfathomable to think that the elected officials of San Jose believed such an ordinance would survive a constitutional challenge, particularly when they admit that criminals will not obey the mandates contained within, leaving only the peaceable people of San Jose to be burdened by the ineptness of its government,” Kraut said.

The lawsuit, known as Glass v. San Jose, argues that not only do the insurance mandate and fee violate the Second Amendment rights of city residents, they infringe on their First Amendment rights as well.

The Ordinance directs the City Manager to designate a nonprofit organization that will spend firearm owners’ money on “programs and initiatives” to “mitigate” the supposed “risk” of the “possession of firearms.”

The fee provision thus forces firearm owners to associate with an organization of the City’s choosing and subsidize expressive activities of the organization’s choosing, in violation of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Janus v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees.

Mayor Sam Liccardo may not see a problem with forcing gun owners to pay a fee to a third-party group that will be pushing anti-gun talking points, but hopefully the courts will keep SCOTUS precedent in mind as they consider the constitutionality of the city’s new ordinances.

As for the insurance mandate, FPC argues in its filing that it, along with the annual fee on gun owners, is a clear infringement on our right to keep and bear arms.

Neither provision is based in any “historical tradition” of firearm regulation. Heller, 554 U.S. at 626–28. City officials have themselves touted the Ordinance as the first of its kind. See Ex. A at 3. As such, the Ordinance is categorically invalid under Heller.

Even if the Ordinance were instead subject to means-ends scrutiny, it still violates the Second Amendment. The fee and insurance provisions directly and substantially burden the core Second Amendment right to possess firearms for self-defense and other lawful purposes.

The Ordinance should therefore be subjected to strict scrutiny. In any event, it is at least subject to heightened scrutiny under the standard currently operative in the Ninth Circuit. See, e.g., United States v. Chovan, 735 F.3d 1127, 1137 (9th Cir. 2013). And the Ordinance fails any level of heightened scrutiny.

Neither the fee nor the insurance provision is tailored, narrowly or otherwise, to the City’s apparent goal of reducing gun violence and its associated costs. As seen above, none of the evidence before the City, and incorporated in the Ordinance’s recitals and findings, suggested that Ordinance would have that effect.

FPC points out that the provisions of the ordinance apply only to legal gun owners, and despite the claims of city officials that the funds raised by the annual “fee” on gun ownership will go directly to fund anti-violence initiatives, the 2A org argues that the funds won’t be used to  “defray any of the municipal costs” of gun-involved crime in the city. Instead the ordinance “singles out already law-abiding citizens to pay for anticipated services that they do not need, that are largely unrelated to safe firearm ownership, and that are thus unlikely to reduce such costs..”

The fee and insurance provisions thus fail to serve their purported purpose. This failure confirms what City officials have already implied: that the Ordinance’s actual purpose is to reduce firearm ownership by increasing deterrent costs, creating a pretext for confiscating firearms and outsourcing firearm regulation to private insurers, apparently in the hope that they will regulate firearm owners in ways that the City is unwilling or constitutionally unable to do itself.

That’s exactly right. San Jose’s ordinances aren’t designed to make life a little harder on violent criminals. The provisions target legal gun owners with pretty severe consequences, including the seizure of lawfully-owned firearms, if they don’t cough up cash to the city (or the third party organization that will collect the fees) and insurance companies for the “privilege” of exercising their Second Amendment rights.

It’s akin to a Second Amendment poll tax, and even in California, I’d like to believe this will be a bridge too far for the legal system to condone. But since this is California we’re talking about, it could be a long and winding road to the Supreme Court before San Jose’s anti-Second Amendment ordinance is finally stripped from the local law books.

Missouri Supreme Court lets Jackson County, St. Louis challenge controversial gun law

The Missouri Supreme Court sent a case involving the Second Amendment Preservation Act back to a lower court on Tuesday. The ruling lets St. Louis and Jackson County argue that the law, which prevents police in Missouri from cooperating with federal officials to enforce gun regulations, is unconstitutional.

In a 6-1 decision, Missouri’s highest court sent a case about the Second Amendment Preservation Act back to Cole County Circuit Court. That’s where St. Louis and Jackson County previously tried to persuade a judge to block the law without success.

SAPA prevents Missouri police from cooperating with federal officials who attempt to enforce gun laws or regulations that are seen as an infringement on the Second Amendment right to bear arms. It allows anyone who believes their rights have been violated to sue police departments for up to $50,000.

SAPA has been widely criticized by law enforcement throughout the state who say the law complicates police work.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms said in a brief the law has caused 12 Missouri law enforcement agencies to end their partnerships with the bureau. The brief also stated the Missouri State Highway Patrol stopped participating in some federal investigations after the law was enacted. The Justice Department has also sharply criticized the law.

During oral arguments in February, Missouri Solicitor General D. John Sauer said the court didn’t need to hear the case yet because St. Louis and Jackson County did not argue the constitutionality of SAPA in the Cole County Court case.

The Missouri Supreme Court ruled that St. Louis and Jackson County can argue whether SAPA is legal, but must first have that argument in front of a Cole County judge before the state’s high court will consider the issue.

In a statement Tuesday, St. Louis City, Jackson County and St. Louis County lauded the court’s decision, calling the law, which passed as House Bill 85, “dangerous” and “blatantly unconstitutional.”

“Municipalities and law enforcement groups across Missouri are coming together to challenge HB 85, which takes away critical tools we need to protect communities from gun violence,” the statement read.

Judge Zel Fischer dissented, writing he would affirm the circuit court’s judgment to throw out the case and argued the challengers can challenge the law through other pending lawsuits.

How an unknown high school football coach landed in the center of a Supreme Court religious liberty case

BREMERTON, Wash. — Former Bremerton High School assistant football coach Joseph Kennedy says he never wanted to become a symbol of the religious right, or to have his name mentioned by political figures including Sen. Ted Cruz and former President Donald Trump.

All he wanted, he says, was to connect with young people by coaching football, and to connect with God by saying a brief midfield prayer after each game.

“I’d take a knee and thank God for what the guys just did and the opportunity to be a coach,” Kennedy told ESPN, adding: “I wanted to hang out with my players and develop these young men.”

Yet the 52-year-old finds himself out of coaching and in the midst of a raging legal battle ignited when he insisted on taking a knee at midfield to pray after games, often with students. Bremerton public school officials removed him from his job in 2015 after he refused to stop his on-field prayers, which they said violated the Constitution’s prohibition against government endorsement of religion.

“The coach is a mixture of fear and awe. And you want in with the coach. You want playing time. You don’t want the bench,” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which is representing the school board. She added: “It is a slippery slope to religion being used to discriminate and exclude.”

Kennedy sued, and over the past seven years his case has wound its way from this blue-collar, military town across the Puget Sound from Seattle to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case thrust Kennedy, a former Marine who only reluctantly signed on to help coach a mediocre high school football team, into what legal analysts see as potentially one of the most consequential cases in recent years testing the separation of church and state.

The question before the Supreme Court is whether Kennedy’s on-field prayers are protected by the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty, or whether they violate the First Amendment by promoting his religion. The justices are scheduled to hear oral arguments Monday and issue an opinion by late June.

Continue reading “”

Arizona Judge Dismisses Lawsuits Aimed at Disqualifying Reps. Gosar, Biggs

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours)

An Arizona judge has tossed lawsuits that attempted to disqualify Reps. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) and Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) from holding office.

The suits, which also took aim at state Rep. Mark Finchem, a Republican, failed because the U.S. Constitution does not provide for private action to enforce Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment, Superior Court Judge Christopher Coury ruled.

The section, known as the Disqualification Clause, says that no person shall hold a federal office if they “have engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the government.

Two groups linked to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a self-described socialist, filed the complaints, claiming that Gosar, Biggs, and Finchem violated the clause because they “helped facilitate” the Jan. 6, 2021, breach of the U.S. Capitol.

But the clause clearly states that Congress is the body that has the power to enforce the section, a determination also outlined in one of the few cases that deal with it, Coury said.

“Congress has not created a civil private right of action to allow a citizen to enforce the Disqualification Clause by having a person declared to be ‘not qualified’ to hold public office,” the judge ruled.

Continue reading “”

Anti-Gunners Are Trying to Decide Just How Bad the Ruling in NYSRPA v. Bruen Will Be

You wouldn’t think that you could write an article about the potential outcomes of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen without talking to at least one person on the plaintiffs’ side of the case, but the hacks at Fast Company managed to do just that.

Even if the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, it’s hard to predict how broad its decision may be. A narrow ruling could involve striking down the “proper cause” requirement for a permit. New York would struggle to restrict guns in public, and may have to start issuing concealed carry permits. The ruling may also extend to the remaining nine may-issue states, including California, Maryland, and Massachusetts, at a time when gun violence is rising across the U.S. Still, this is the best-case scenario.
 
If the ruling is more expansive, it could ditch the entire public-safety framework that lower courts have been using to uphold carry restrictions. It could provide a whole new basis for future decisions—on all kinds of gun regulation lawsuits currently in limbo, and supported by the gun lobby, relating to assault weapons bans, large-magazine bans, and the minimum age for the sale of handguns. They could fundamentally redefine the Second Amendment and change America’s gun laws.

“That could be a really devastating decision that could have wide-ranging—and I think, not currently fathomable—impacts,” [Giffords Law Center deputy chief counsel David] Pucino says. “Because, it potentially could mean that every gun law on the books is called into question.”

Arizona Judge Throws Out Lawsuit to Erase Gosar, Biggs, And Finchem From Ballot

An Arizona judge dismissed a lawsuit Friday that sought to bar three Republicans from appearing on the November ballot because they took part in the rally at the White House Ellipse on Jan. 6, 2021, before the Capitol riot.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Christopher Coury determined the plaintiffs did not have the grounds to sue in the case as they requested but refrained from ruling on the merits of their allegations.

“Congress has not created a civil private right of action to allow a citizen to enforce the Disqualification Clause by having a person declared to be ‘not qualified’ to hold public office,” Coury wrote. “This ruling neither validates nor disproves Plaintiffs’ allegations against the Candidates. The Court expressly is not reaching the merits of the factual allegations in this case.”

The lawsuit was brought forth by lawyers from a voting rights group who contended Rep. Paul Gosar, Rep. Andy Biggs, and state Rep. Mark Finchem should be prohibited from running because they violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The provision bars elected officials in Congress from engaging in an insurrection or rebellion.

Neither of the three individuals is known to have participated in the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol, but the lawsuit claimed they advocated to overthrow the United States government and cited their presence or involvement in the preceding rally as evidence.

Similar lawsuits have targeted key Republican figures such as Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who gave testimony Friday in a case aimed at taking her off the ballot for similar reasons. Some activists in North Carolina have tried to get Rep. Madison Cawthorn booted from the ballot as well, but a judge tossed out a major case in that venture last month.

Gosar noted the case against Greene when he took a victory lap on Twitter following Coury’s dismissal. Both Gosar and Biggs are running for reelection in the House during the midterm elections. Finchem is running to become Arizona’s secretary of state.

In his ruling, Coury included a footnote that emphasized that Gosar and fellow defendants could be subject to future legal scrutiny for their involvement in the events of Jan. 6.

“To be clear, it is a mistake to conclude that the Court is opining that the Candidates’ involvement in the events of January 6, 2021, never can be subject to any judicial review. This decision should not be misconstrued in this way,” he wrote. “Irrespective of this decision, there ultimately will be a different trial for each Candidate: one decided by Arizona voters who will have the final voice about whether each Candidate should, or should not, serve in elective office.”

WA state Supreme Court rules against Edmonds gun storage law

OLYMPIA — The Washington Supreme Court has struck down an Edmonds gun storage ordinance in a court order reaffirming state law that local governments can’t impose their own firearms regulations.

In an opinion signed by all nine justices, the court ruled that Washington state law “fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state.”

The ruling stems from an ordinance passed by the city of Edmonds in 2018 requiring that people secure their firearms. It allowed for civil fines of as much as $10,000 if an at-risk person or child gained access to an unsecured gun.

The city of Seattle passed a similar law that year, which has also been challenged.

Thursday’s ruling was a victory for gun rights organizations, such as the National Rifle Association and the Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation, both of which participated in the legal challenge.

In a statement, Alan Gottlieb, founder and vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, called the ruling “a great victory for the principle of state preemption.”

“This should send a signal to other municipal governments — especially the City of Seattle against which we have a nearly identical pending lawsuit — that they cannot enact their own gun restrictions in violation of state law or the state constitution,” Gottlieb added.

The foundation is also involved in the challenge of Seattle’s safe-storage law, Gottlieb wrote in an email. That Seattle challenge had been held up in anticipation of a ruling on the Edmonds case, he wrote, and “We will now move for judgment in our favor and win.”

Continue reading “”

Fauci proves again that bureaucraps believe themselves to be above law, or the Constitution.

Anthony Fauci Seems To Think The CDC Outranks Our Courts

Dr. Anthony Fauci said Thursday that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) should have the authority to mandate mask wearing regardless of whether it is in compliance with the law.

After a circuit court judge in Florida ruled that the CDC could not impose a mask mandate on public transportation Monday, Fauci blasted the decision in an interview with CNN’s Kasie Hunt released Thursday. The top medical advisor to President Joe Biden said he was “surprised and disappointed” that a court would step in on a public health issue.

Continue reading “”

This is nothing more than political grandstanding from a known anti-gun politician to try to garner support for her campaign for Florida goobernor.

In any case, ATF and/or DOJ can’t do anything about this – and Fried undoubtedly knows that – as the prohibition on drug users is under Federal statute law  18 U.S.C. § 922(g), and Marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug under Public Law 91-513 (1970)- not just bureaucrap regulation and repeal has to go through Congress.

This suit will eventually get thrown out of court, but probably not before the election this fall, which – again – you can be assured, Fried knows too.

Nikki Fried suing Biden, ATF over cannabis prohibition on Form 4473
Florida’s Agriculture Commissioner says she is suing for 2A rights of cannabis users.

Florida’s Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried has always been a bit of an enigma in the Sunshine State. She’s the only Democrat elected to statewide office. She’s running for governor against popular Republican incumbent, Gov. Ron DeSantis, if she can make it through a tight Democratic primary. Her office oversees Florida’s Concealed Weapon and Firearm Licensing program, and she’s a former lobbyist for the cannabis industry and a vocal cannabis advocate.

Fried has said publicly she possesses both a Florida CWFL and a state medical marijuana card — Florida is one of 37 states that have legalized medicinal cannabis. This has raised questions about how Fried purchases firearms, because of the cannabis prohibition on the 4473. The form asks would-be gun purchasers if they are an unlawful drug user, and it explains that cannabis is still considered an illegal drug under federal law:

“Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.”

Lying on a 4473 is a federal crime punishable by up to five years in prison.

Now, according to NBC News, Fried is suing the Biden-Harris administration, the ATF and U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland over the cannabis prohibition on the 4473, claiming that it violates the Second Amendment rights of lawful cannabis users. She brought the lawsuit officially as the state’s Agriculture Commissioner, on behalf of three Floridians who she claims were barred from purchasing firearms based upon their use of medical cannabis. The suit has yet to be formally filed — NBC says they were given a draft copy, which Fried’s staff said they hoped to file today, on 4/20.

Continue reading “”

Far from being a ‘wise Latina™’ (having known some real ones, I am assured she’s nowhere near an exemplar), Sotomayor is just flat out stupid

Justice Sotomayor Argues People Familiar With FBI Crime Stats Should be Banned From Capital Case Juries

Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion arguing that jurors who express familiarity with FBI crime stats should be banned from Capital case juries for “racial bias.”

Yes, really.

The opinion was in relation to Kristopher Love, a black man who was convicted of capital murder in the course of a robbery that happened in 2015.

Before Love’s trial, prospective members of the jury filled out a questionnaire which included the following two questions.

“68. Do you sometimes personally harbor bias against members of certain races or ethnic groups?”

“69. Do you believe that some races and/or ethnic groups tend to be more violent than others?”

The prospective juror answered no to the first question but then answered yes to the second and explained that he understood “[n]on-white” races to be the “more violent races” because he had seen statistics to this effect in “[n]ews reports and criminology classes” he had taken.

Despite the juror making clear that his views were based on statistics and not his personal feelings about black people, Love’s counsel moved to exclude the prospective juror based on “his stated beliefs that . . . non-whites commit more violent crimes than whites.”

“Leaving this man on the jury would be an invitation to leaving someone on there that might make a decision on Special Issue No. 1 that would ultimately lead to a sentence of death on his preconceived notions and beliefs that have to do with the race of the defendant,” counsel argued.

The trial court ended up denying counsel’s request to have the juror removed and Love was later sentenced to death.

Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion is republished in part below.

Continue reading “”

JUST IN: CDC APPROVES BIDEN ADMINISTRATION’S APPEAL TO BRING BACK AIRLINE MASK MANDATE.

The CDC has announced that they will support an appeal to reinstate masks for public transportation — piggybacking off the Biden administration’s recommendation on Tuesday.

The Justice Department announced that it would proceed with its appeal, pending a decision by the CDC to veto a federal judge’s order to remove masks from public transportation.

U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle filed a 59-page ruling to end mask mandates on airline travel and other public transportation, defining the restrictions as an infringement on Americans’ rights.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released their statement Wednesday afternoon:

To protect CDC’s public health authority beyond the ongoing assessment announced last week, CDC has asked DOJ to proceed with an appeal in Health Freedom Defense Fund, Inc., et al., v. Biden, et al. It is CDC’s continuing assessment that at this time an order requiring masking in the indoor transportation corridor remains necessary for the public health. CDC will continue to monitor public health conditions to determine whether such an order remains necessary.  CDC believes this is a lawful order, well within CDC’s legal authority to protect public health.

CDC continues to recommend that people wear masks in all indoor public transportation settings. CDC’s number one priority is protecting the public health of our nation. As we have said before, wearing masks is most beneficial in crowded or poorly ventilated locations, such as the transportation corridor. When people wear a well-fitting mask or respirator over their nose and mouth in indoor travel or public transportation settings, they protect themselves, and those around them, including those who are immunocompromised or not yet vaccine-eligible, and help keep travel and public transportation safer for everyone.

Americans reacted positively when they were alerted that masks were no longer required. Still, the Biden administration’s nudging of the CDC may be the catalyst in bringing back the masks.

Federal Judge Strikes Down Biden Admin’s Travel Mask Mandate

A United States District Court judge in Florida vacated the nationwide travel mask mandate on Monday in a ruling that found the mask requirement for travel via mass transit, planes, and trains violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The lengthy ruling explains how the Biden administration “improperly invoked the order and interpretive rule exceptions to notice and comment,” “improperly invoked the good cause exception” to such rulemaking in a manner that “was not harmless error” and how the mandate “is arbitrary and capricious because the CDC failed to adequately explain its reasoning.”

047124235804

Continue reading “”

Heller Foundation gets settlement from DC

Ghost guns are everywhere! The latest assaults on the civil liberties have yet to fully manifest from the Biden-Harris administration, but we know that the matter of homebuilt firearms are in the crosshairs of the anti-freedom caucus. Regardless to what the Feds have in store for us, people are dealing with local level infringements. Back in November I reported on Dick Heller suing the District of Columbia, again. And getting a win, again. What was the suit about? Homemade firearms and so-called ghost guns. The lawsuit against the District did yield the result of some temporary and emergency rule changes to the laws, however nothing final has been implemented to date. Also wrapped up in the suit was DC seeking to settle with Heller in the form of monetary damages for his rights being usurped. A recent announcement talked about some of that settlement being fulfilled.

The Heller Foundation formally announces a settlement with the city of Washington, DC in his Second Amendment challenge of their infringement on citizens’ Firearms Freedom Civil Rights. Consequently, there was a small financial award to the foundation and the retraction of the unlawful restrictions.

The case was initially filed by George Lyon, Esq. and plaintiffs Dick Heller, Elby Godwin, and others, were told they could neither construct nor own any partial-polymer firearm kits, the so-called Ghost Guns, within the DC city limits. Heller’s gun kit was forcibly returned-shipped to the retailer, Stephen Bozich, President of Bare Arms in Robbins, North Carolina.

The regulations would have also outlawed all police firearms and made individuals’ possession of Glocks illegal. In a Free Country, paid for with the Blood of Patriots, citizens may construct a boat, airplane, or bow & arrow, or a firearm. However, even though residents of DC may purchase or own most types of firearms, they were not allowed, themselves, to construct a firearm within the city limits for private use in the defense of self or one’s household, or any other lawful purpose.

More legal challenges to government’s overzealous and whimsical overreaching Infringements on our Second Amendment Rights are underway. Typical court challenges to these radical state infringements usually start in the $100,000 range. Patriots can support HellerGunCase.org (aka HellerFoundation.org). Losing these cases means we must prepare for the slow erosion of our Second Amendment Rights and for government confiscation of our guns.

I had a chance to catch up with  George L. Lyon, Jr. from Arsenal Attorneys, Heller’s attorney, and talked with him about the settlement. As part of the agreement, the District agreed to pay out to Heller five thousand dollars for the usurpation of his rights. While this is a big step towards having the lawsuit dropped, the settlement has yet to be fully executed. The District still owes about $81,000.00 in attorney and legal fees. Lyon had the following statements to add:

Mr. Heller ordered a Polymer 80 kit and had the kit sent to one of the District’s FFLs in anticipation of registering it. The FFL in turn inquired of the Metropolitan Police Department as to how to handle the matter and was told that the kit was illegal and to send it back to the vendor.

In response, Mr. Heller sued in Federal District Court for the violation of his constitutional rights. Two other District residents who own polymer frame handguns sued as well in light that the District law appeared to criminalize their possession of their legally acquired and registered polymer framed pistols.

In response, the District, concluding that the law was indefensible, enacted temporary legislation to address the plaintiff’s claims. Among the changes the District made to its law was a provision allowing District residents to make their own firearms subject to registration and placing a serial number on the self-made firearm. In addition, the District repealed the ban on unfinished receivers, and amended its definition of “undetectable” firearm to avoid criminalizing the possession of polymer frame receivers.

As compensation for the denial of Mr. Heller’s civil rights, without admitting liability, the District paid the Heller Foundation $5,000.

While the attorney and legal fees have yet to be paid out, Lyon is confident there will be full financial amelioration. I asked Lyon “What’s next?” He did not give me specifics but did note that he and his firm plan on continuing to go after all unconstitutional laws in the District of Columbia, adding that if someone from DC is interested in being a plaintiff, to reach out to the firm as well as keep their eyes peeled for any upcoming suits.

Anytime there’s an opportunity to bring forward news about Heller and these patriots is welcomed. The work that’s getting done in the District of Colombia has a huge impact on the rest of the country, as indicated by the original Heller case. DC is a great petri dish of progressive and unconstitutional laws which are ripe for challenge and poised to be overturned by the judicial system. We’ll be following the progress of this settlement as well as any other cases brought forward by Heller and his representation Lyon.

Whitmer kidnapping trial collapses: Two not guilty, two walk free after mistrial

A jury acquitted two defendants in the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping trial on Friday but was unable to come to a verdict on the alleged ringleaders of the plot.

The not guilty verdicts are a serious blow to the FBI, which had been accused by defense attorneys of having “conceived and controlled every aspect” of the kidnapping plot through the more than a dozen confidential informants it embedded into the defendants’ group in the summer of 2020.

The jury announced Friday afternoon that it had ruled unanimously to find Daniel Harris and Brandon Caserta not guilty on charges of conspiring to kidnap the Democratic Michigan governor in 2020. Harris was also acquitted of charges related to explosives and firearms.

Cries of relief were reportedly heard in the courtroom as the jury read Caserta’s verdict.

GRETCHEN WHITMER KIDNAPPING: CRACKS FORMING IN FEDERAL CASE

“Best birthday gift ever,” Caserta said in the courtroom after the verdict was read.

Caserta and Harris will be freed from jail following the verdict after spending nearly two years behind bars, the Detroit News reported.

Jurors also announced they were unable to reach a unanimous decision on the charges against the alleged ringleaders of the plot, Adam Fox and Barry Croft. Judge Robert Jonker declared a mistrial in those cases.

The jury’s decision to find two defendants not guilty in the kidnapping conspiracy and its failure to reach a unanimous decision for Fox and Croft will likely renew questions about whether the defendants, who were members of the Three Percenters and Wolverine Watchmen militia groups, were entrapped by undercover FBI informants embedded into their group.

Continue reading “”

Judge restores Jan. 6 defendant’s gun rights over DOJ objection

A judge has restored a Texas woman’s right to possess firearms just weeks after she was sentenced for illegally entering the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

U.S. District Court Judge Trevor McFadden issued an order on Thursday granting florist Jenny Cudd’s request to lift a term of her probation that forbade her to own or possess any “firearm, ammunition, destructive device, or dangerous weapon.”

Cudd had asked that the condition be set aside, citing threats she received following publicity about her role in the storming of the Capitol as lawmakers were preparing to certify Joe Biden’s win in the 2020 presidential election.

The judge’s ruling was a rebuke to prosecutors, who opposed the change, and it was the latest setback for prosecutors dealt by McFadden, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump. The decision further cements the judge’s reputation as the most skeptical member of the D.C. District Court bench about the stance prosecutors have taken in the wake of the Capitol riot.

In his two-page ruling on Thursday, McFadden noted that Cudd wore a “bulletproof sweatshirt” to the Jan. 6 rally, but he credited her explanation that she wore the defensive garment because she feared violence, not because she was seeking it.

“The Government presented no evidence that Cudd incited anyone to violence,” McFadden wrote. “Nor did it present evidence that she participated in violence. She has no prior criminal history. And Cudd’s bullet proof sweatshirt is consistent with her fear of being attacked at the rally preceding her entry into the Capitol. This says nothing about her danger to others.”

McFadden cited the Supreme Court’s 2008 ruling in D.C. v. Heller that held that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right of self-defense.

“The Court will not limit that right for a nonviolent misdemeanant who credibly fears for her safety,” the judge wrote.

McFadden’s order came one day after he delivered the first outright acquittal of a Jan. 6 defendant, finding a former government contractor from New Mexico, Matthew Martin, not guilty on four misdemeanor charges.

McFadden, who also served as the No. 2 official in the Justice Department under Trump before being confirmed to the bench, has openly questioned the priorities of federal prosecutors. He has suggested that they’re taking a more aggressive stance toward the Jan. 6 defendants, while taking a more lax approach to people accused of violence during racial-justice protests in 2020.

Other judges have expressed disagreement with McFadden about the 2020 protests, saying some participants in violence got stiff sentences. They’ve also said the storming of the Capitol during the election-related proceedings was uniquely dangerous, since it posed a threat to the democratic transfer of power.

Prosecutors had sought a 90-day jail sentence for Cudd, noting that she made a slew of incendiary statements on Jan. 6. In one Facebook video she said she participated in pushing against police and was “proud” of her actions.

“I’m proud of everything that I was a part of today,” she said in the video. “And I’ll be proud of everything that I’m a part of at the next one.”

Typically, judges have imposed harsher sentences for defendants who celebrated their actions on Jan. 6.

While McFadden has offered criticism of prosecutors’ approach, he has uniformly rejected motions from Jan. 6 defendants to have their cases dismissed on grounds of selective, politically motivated prosecution.

McFadden’s latest stances are something of a sharp turn for the judge against the government. Despite his past skepticism, he had largely ruled in accordance with other judges on the court.

He rejected claims by one rioter who is accused of setting off a firework amid the most violent confrontation during the Jan. 6 riot that he was being selectively prosecuted. He also ordered the pretrial detention of Timothy Hale-Cusanelli, a former Army reservist who expressed hope for a civil war and was described by former colleagues as openly racist and antisemitic. Hale-Cusanelli, who remains incarcerated, is not charged with violence for his role in the Capitol attack.

McFadden’s handling of Cudd’s case generated headlines last year when he approved her request to take a trip to Mexico that she said was work-related and prepaid.

Prosecutors did not oppose the proposed international trip, but coming just weeks after the riot, McFadden’s decision drew criticism as an indication that the courts were not dealing sternly with those accused of participating in the takeover of the Capitol.

Suspect in Sacramento Mass Shooting Released on $500,000 Bond

One of the suspects arrested after Sunday’s mass shooting in Sacramento that claimed the lives of six people has been released on a $500,000 bond.

Daviyonne Dawson, 31, was released from the Sacramento County Jail Wednesday, only two days after being arrested and booked on one count of unlawful possession of a weapon. It remains unclear if Dawson paid all of the $500,000 bond or only a portion of the total.

Two other men arrested after the shooting are brothers Smiley and Dandrae Martin, aged 27 and 26 respectively who remain in custody on gun possession charges.

Currently, investigators don’t believe Dawson fired his weapon during the gang fight between two rival groups that led to the shooting, but that he was in the same place at the same time and was armed.

Continue reading “”

Judge considers novel privacy challenge brought by California gun owners
The overarching question of the privacy challenge brought by California gun owners is what personal information is needed to conduct gun violence research.

SAN DIEGO (CN) — An attorney representing millions of California gun owners said Tuesday their challenge to a California law disclosing their personal information to gun violence researchers is the first of its kind.

“We have been unable to find a single case like this one where vast amounts of information that have been collected and stored by the government is then sought to be disclosed to third parties without notice where people could not consent to disclosure,” Michael Reynolds of Snell & Wilmer told U.S. District Judge Larry Alan Burns.

At issue is a constitutional challenge by California gun owners who claim Assembly Bill 173 — a 2021 law which amended California firearms laws to authorize the state attorney general to disclose gun owners’ personal information to the California Firearm Violence Research Center at UC Davis — violates their privacy rights.

Burns was tasked Tuesday with deciding whether the case should be dismissed.

Previously, personal information collected by California gun owners during sales transactions and license applications was authorized to be used only for “legitimate law enforcement purposes.”

But AB 173 now allows the California Department of Justice to share gun owners’ personal information with researchers who study firearm-related crime, suicide and accidents.

Reynolds reiterated arguments he made during an unsuccessful temporary restraining order hearing in January seeking to block the release of gun owners’ information.

He suggested the disclosure of gun owners’ information including the addresses of their personal residence and business could make them “subject to attack” by people opposed to gun ownership or burglars looking to steal the weapons.

Continue reading “”

NEW VERDICT IN CAPITOL RIOT CASE THROWS A WRENCH INTO POLITICAL NARRATIVE:

A federal defense contractor who had been charged with four misdemeanors for walking into the Capitol on Jan. 6, fought the charges and was acquitted on all counts today by Judge Trevor McFadden. Matthew Martin was charged with: entering and remaining in a restricted building, disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building, violent entry and disorderly conduct in a Capitol building, as well as parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building.

But Martin didn’t commit any violence or break into the building. He argued that he believed that the Capitol Police had allowed him into the building, and he just walked in.

From Politico:

McFadden said that, based on video of the scene, that assertion was at least “plausible” and that prosecutors failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

“People were streaming by and the officers made no attempt to stop the people,” said the judge [….]

“I do think the defendant reasonably believed the officers allowed him into the Capitol,” the judge said.

McFadden said that the government did not show any evidence of Martin crossing police lines, and that Martin’s “conduct was about as minimal….as I can imagine.”

This is a significant verdict. While some are charged with more serious offenses, many of the people charged for Jan. 6 offenses are in a similar position to Martin — they didn’t do much beyond walk into the building. Some have argued — as Martin did — that the police let them in.