{"id":113400,"date":"2025-11-19T18:14:31","date_gmt":"2025-11-20T00:14:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=113400"},"modified":"2025-11-19T18:14:31","modified_gmt":"2025-11-20T00:14:31","slug":"113400","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=113400","title":{"rendered":""},"content":{"rendered":"

Grassroots Judicial Report\u2014November 19, 2025<\/a><\/p>\n

What\u2019s New\u2014<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0SCOTUS: Duarte v. United States<\/strong>\u2014Useful article by Jacob Sullum on this case;\u00a0Gustafson v, Springfield:\u00a0<\/strong>PLCAA case; Two \u201cAssault Weapons Ban\u201d cases\u2014National Association for Gun Rights v. Lamont; Case No: 25 \u2013 421,\u00a0<\/strong>and\u00a0Viramontes v. Cook County: Case No: 25-238; The Four Boxes Diner interviews Judge VanDyke; District Court:Missouri: Brown v. ATF: Case No. 4:25-cv-01162:\u00a0<\/strong>Plaintiffs argueargues that because Congress eliminated the making and transfer taxes on most NFA-regulated firearms in 2025, the NFA\u2019s remaining registration and recordkeeping mandates are now unconstitutional:\u00a0Vermont: Second Circuit:<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

VT. Fed of Sportsmen\u2019s Clubs v. Matthew Birningham: Case No. 24-2028:<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0An appeal regarding a denied preliminary injunction, and an amicus curiae;<\/em>New Jersey: Third Circuit:\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>Struck v. Platkin: Case No. 3:24-cv-09479:\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>On Nov. 13, the Firearms Policy Coalition joined the NRA\u2019s lawsuit to challenge New Jersey\u2019s ban on purchasing more than one gun every 30 days<\/em>.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

SCOTUS<\/p>\n

The question of 18-to-20-year-olds being denied Second Amendment rights<\/p>\n

Oral argument in\u00a0Wolford v. Lopez<\/a>, one of (at least) two Second Amendment cases the Court will hear this term, is set for Jan. 20, 2026. The cases about the Second Amendment rights of young adults aged 18 to 20 were scheduled to be taken up in SCOTUS\u2019 conference on Nov. 14. These cases\u2014NRA v. Glass, Paris v. Lara, McCoy v. ATF, and West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. v. ATF<\/em>\u2014 all challenge restrictions that prevent people under 21 from buying firearms. The McCoy and WVCDL cases focus on federal limits on handgun sales, while Glass and Paris contest state laws in Pennsylvania and Florida, respectively. Unfortunately, they were not decided, so we begin the waiting\u2014again!<\/p>\n

Duarte v. United States<\/p>\n

Last week\u2019s Judicial report on amicus briefs included a discussion of the\u00a0Duarte\u00a0<\/em>case. A well-reasoned\u00a0article\u00a0<\/a><\/strong>by Jacob Sullum covering Section 922(g)(1) was recently published. The article explains federal law Section 922(g)(1), which permanently bans gun ownership for anyone convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year in prison\u2014even for nonviolent offenses. The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is being asked to determine whether this broad ban is constitutional, especially as it applies to people with nonviolent criminal records.<\/p>\n

Sullum notes that over the past three years, seven federal appeals courts \u201chave ruled that the provision is constitutional in all of its applications.\u201d Three, including the 5th, 7th, and 3rd circuits, have held that the ban may be unconstitutional in specific cases. The 6th Circuit has agreed with that general position but has also stated that people challenging their disqualification [to own guns under the law] have the burden of proving they are \u2018not dangerous.’\u201d Duarte\u2019s petition is not the only one urging the court to address the circuit split.<\/p>\n

Sullum points out that support for Duarte\u2019s SCOTUS petition comes from ideologically diverse groups like the NRA and the ACLU, who argue there is no historical tradition of disarming nonviolent offenders and that the statute is \u201cwildly overinclusive.\u201d Although the 9th Circuit recently upheld the law\u2019s constitutionality for Duarte, the ruling mainly relied on Supreme Court dicta rather than the full historical analysis required by the Bruen decision.<\/p>\n

The question before SCOTUS is whether felon-in-possession laws have exceeded their original purpose and now target offenses that do not threaten public safety.<\/p>\n

Gustafson v. Springfield, Inc. Docket No. 25-120: The SCOTUS docket entry for Gustafson v. Springfield, Inc. indicates the petition was officially filed on July 31. The SCOTUS petition for certiorari questions the application and constitutionality of the PLCAA, asserting that it infringes on state authority and individual legal remedies in cases involving firearm manufacturers and sellers. The litigators and the amici were mainly groups that support anti-Second Amendment positions.<\/p>\n

In 2016, J.R. Gustafson was accidentally shot and killed by a friend. His parents, Mark and Leah Gustafson, sued Springfield Armory (a firearm manufacturer) and Saloom Department Store (a retailer) in Pennsylvania state court for product liability, negligence, and inadequate warnings or marketing. The\u00a0trial court\u00a0dismissed the Gustafsons\u2019 complaint, citing the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which generally prohibits civil lawsuits against gun manufacturers or sellers for injuries caused by misuse of their products. The court also upheld the constitutionality of the PLCAA.<\/p>\n

The\u00a0Gustafsons appealed to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. A three-judge panel initially ruled that the PLCAA was unconstitutional and would have allowed the lawsuit to proceed under state law. On\u00a0en banc review, the full Superior Court reversed the trial court\u2019s dismissal, but the court was divided in its reasoning \u2014 some judges believed the PLCAA was unconstitutional, while others said it did not bar the claims. This resulted in ongoing appeals.<\/p>\n

The\u00a0U.S. federal government intervened to defend the constitutionality of the PLCAA at the state appellate level since the constitutional challenge was at issue. The\u00a0Pennsylvania Supreme Court\u00a0heard the case and ultimately ruled in 2025 that the PLCAA is constitutional, thereby barring the Gustafsons\u2019 lawsuit. As a result, the court ordered the trial court\u2019s dismissal to be reinstated. A\u00a0petition for review was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS).\u00a0The case thus drew federal attention for potential review.<\/p>\n

Two AR-15\/\u201cassault weapons\u201d ban cases seeking certiorari before SCOTUS<\/p>\n

Attorney Mark Smith of the Four Boxes Channel on\u00a0youtube.com<\/a>\u00a0has published a\u00a0video\u00a0<\/a>discussing the two AR-15 \u201cassault weapons\u201d ban cases seeking certiorari before SCOTUS. The two latest cases to be filed are:<\/p>\n

National Association for Gun Rights v. Lamont; Case No: 25 \u2013 421:<\/p>\n

The petition for certiorari was filed on Oct. 3, from the decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that stated:<\/p>\n

\u201cEven assuming arguendo that the desired firearms and magazines are \u2018typically possessed\u2019 and \u2018in common use\u2019 for lawful purposes, we disagree [that the Second Amendment necessarily protects them.]\u201d<\/p>\n

The question presented to the Court is:<\/p>\n

\u201cWhether a ban on the possession of AR-15-style rifles and firearm magazines with a capacity in excess of ten rounds\u2014both of which are possessed by millions of law-abiding Americans for lawful purposes\u2014violates the Second Amendment.\u201d<\/p>\n

As of today, the motion to file a response has been extended to Dec. 8.<\/p>\n

Viramontes v. Cook County: Case No: 25-238<\/strong><\/p>\n

The petition for certiorari was filed on August 29, 2025, from the decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Both the District Court\u2019s opinion and the subsequent order of the Court of Appeals are unpublished.<\/p>\n

The question presented to the Court is:<\/p>\n

Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.<\/p>\n

As of today, this case has been distributed for the Dec. 5 conference.<\/p>\n

A side note: Attorney Mark W. Smith produced a second\u00a0video\u00a0<\/a>after the one listed above. In this video, he responds to Cook County litigators\u2019 opposition brief, which includes a footnote criticizing the plaintiffs for using Smith\u2019s article titled \u2018\u201cAssault Weapon\u2019 Bans: Unconstitutional Laws for a Made-Up Category of Firearm\u2019 because it was published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. Smith defends the credibility and influence of the\u00a0Harvard Journal<\/em>, noting that its articles have been cited by Supreme Court justices and prominent federal judges. He further argues that Cook County\u2019s attack is an ad hominem, targeting the source rather than the substance of the arguments.<\/p>\n

The Four Boxes Diner interviews Judge VanDyke<\/p>\n

Last week, the YouTube channel The Four Boxes Diner featured an interesting\u00a0video\u00a0<\/a>about Ninth Circuit Judge Lawrence Van Dyke. This is the judge who created a YouTube video to explain the practical necessity of magazines that he included in his dissent from the Ninth Circuit\u2019s 7-4 vote upholding the constitutionality of California\u2019s ban on magazines, in their decision in Duncan v. Bonta.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The video\u2019s overall message is a strong endorsement of Judge VanDyke\u2019s qualifications, background, and perspective on the Second Amendment and its implications for judicial decision-making.<\/p>\n

Court of Appeals<\/strong><\/p>\n

Vermont: Second Circuit<\/strong><\/p>\n

VT. Fed of Sportsmen\u2019s Clubs v. Matthew Birningham: Case No. 24-2028:\u00a0<\/strong>First, on November 10, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a BRIEF AND SPECIAL APPENDIX, followed on Nov. 13 with an\u00a0amicus curiae<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0from the<\/p>\n

SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, CALIFORNIA RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, SECOND AMENDMENT LAW CENTER, INC., MINNESOTA GUN OWNERS CAUCUS, and the NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA. The plaintiffs are seeking a preliminary injunction against Vermont\u2019s three-day waiting period.<\/p>\n

Background:\u00a0<\/strong>The underlying complaint was filed on Dec. 18, 2023, and Appellants\u2019 Motion for a Preliminary Injunction blocking enforcement of two Vermont laws\u2014the waiting period for firearm acquisition and the ban on acquiring or transferring certain magazines\u2014was filed two days later, on Dec. 20. Vermont District Court Judge William K. Sessions, III held evidentiary hearings on May 23 and June 10, 2024. Judge Sessions denied the motion for a preliminary injunction in its entirety on July 18, 2024.<\/p>\n

District Court<\/strong><\/p>\n

District Court: Missouri<\/strong><\/p>\n

Brown v. ATF: Case No. 4:25-cv-01162:\u00a0Firearms Policy Coalition filed a motion for summary judgment on November 14, 2025, in this case that was originally filed in August 2025. The motion\u2014filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri\u2014argues that because Congress eliminated the making and transfer taxes on most NFA-regulated firearms in 2025, the NFA\u2019s remaining registration and recordkeeping mandates are now unconstitutional.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Background: We reported in August that when this lawsuit was initially filed, there were two legal arguments:<\/p>\n

1. Article I (Enumerated Powers) Challenge: Without the tax, the federal government loses its constitutional authority to demand registration and regulation under its taxing power.<\/p>\n

2. Second Amendment Challenge: The continued regulatory regime violates the Second Amendment, as there is no historical tradition justifying such restrictions.<\/p>\n

New Jersey: Third Circuit<\/strong><\/p>\n

Struck v. Platkin: Case No. 3:24-cv-09479:<\/strong>\u00a0On Nov. 13, the Firearms Policy Coalition joined the NRA\u2019s lawsuit to challenge New Jersey\u2019s ban on purchasing more than one gun every 30 days.<\/p>\n

Background:\u00a0<\/strong>This case was brought on Sept. 26, 2024. On June 23, 2025, Judge Karen M. Williams granted defendant Platkin\u2019s motion to consolidate both this case and Benton v. Platkin, Case 3:24-cv-09479.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Grassroots Judicial Report\u2014November 19, 2025 What\u2019s New\u2014\u00a0SCOTUS: Duarte v. United States\u2014Useful article by Jacob Sullum on this case;\u00a0Gustafson v, Springfield:\u00a0PLCAA case; Two \u201cAssault Weapons Ban\u201d cases\u2014National Association for Gun Rights v. Lamont; Case No: 25 \u2013 421,\u00a0and\u00a0Viramontes v. Cook County: Case No: 25-238; The Four Boxes Diner interviews Judge VanDyke; District Court:Missouri: Brown v. ATF: … Continue reading “”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[23,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-113400","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-courts","category-rkba"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/113400","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=113400"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/113400\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":113401,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/113400\/revisions\/113401"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=113400"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=113400"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=113400"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}