By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—Caulkins v. Pritzker: Originally No. 2023-CH-3, has been appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court; Bevis v. Naperville & State of Illinois: appeal for an injunction to the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit was denied on April 18; Barnett v. Raoul: A twitter thread on the hearing on April 12; Worth v. Harrington: The Plaintiffs filed their response to a stay on April 5; Jinn v. Sig Sauer: The Magistrate Judge recommends summary judgement for Sig Sauer; Bains v. American Tactical: Another attack on PLCAA; Cargill v. Garland: (bumpstock case) Writ of Certiorari has been sent to SCOTUS.
Lawsuits challenging Federal Agencies:
Bumpstock ban
Cargill v. Garland Case: 20-51016. The lawsuit challenges the DOJ’s classification of “bump stocks” as machine guns. The case was initiated in 2019 and the District Court ruled in favor of the DOJ. Then Cargill appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which decided on March 6, 2023, in favor of the plaintiff:the Final Rule’s interpretations of terms within the statutory definition of “machinegun,” which includes bump stocks and bump stock-type devices, are unreasonable and conflict with the statute. On April 4 DOJ filed a motion that it intends to petition the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. A copy of the writ was sent April 6.
This Fifth Circuit case may tip the balance in favor of SCOTUS granting certiorari. There have been two prior bumpstock cases in which SCOTUS has denied certiorari: Aposhian v. Garland (Tenth Circuit) and GOA v. Garland (Sixth Circuit). Both of those cases were denied on October 3, 2022 ending both cases in favor of the government.
Lawsuits challenging State Laws
New York: Second Circuit: Five cases listed belowwere the subject of “expedited appeals” on March 20, 2023” by the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.Three of the cases are appeals from Judges Sinatra and Suddaby’s orders for restraining orders, stays and preliminary injunctions. The fourth case, Gazzola v. Hochul, is an appeal from Judge Sannes’ denial of a TRO or PI: the cases are: Christian v. Nigrelli, Hardaway v. Nigrelli, Spencer v. Nigrelli, Antonyuk, et al v. Hochul, and Gazzola v. Hochul.
California: Ninth Circuit:
Boland v. Bonta: After Judge Cormack J. Carney issued a Preliminary Injunction Order determining that the California Unsafe Handgun Act’s provisions…are unconstitutional in the Boland v. Bonta case, it took almost a week for Attorney General Raoul to announce that California will appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Boland v. Bonta: California has appealed to the Ninth Circuit and on March 31 the Ninth Circuit issued a stay in part.
Renna v. Bonta: Following the PI in Boland v. Bonta, Judge Dana M. Sabraw issued a PI (preliminary injunction) against the California Unsafe Handgun Act’s provisions. Both cases have occurred within a 2-week timeframe.
CASES BEING TRIED TOGETHER in Judge Benitez’ courtroom and an opinion is expected to be published in April 2023.
Miller v. Bonta: On March 20, 2023 Judge Benitez ruled that (assault weapons ban) § 1021.11 of the California Code of Civil Procedure is unconstitutional. We can assume that this will be appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Duncan v. Bonta: (large capacity magazines) The state’s listing of all relevant statutes (their brief) can be found here and the CRPA (plaintiffs brief) is here. A summary by @KostasMoros on Twitter can be found here.This lawsuit deals with CA law passed in 2016 that banned the mere possession of magazines with over ten rounds.
Rhode v. Bonta: (ammunition purchase restrictions) Briefs have been filed by both sides as of Feb 21, 2022. The state’s listing of all relevant statutes (their brief) can be found here and the CRPA (plaintiffs brief) is here.
Other CA cases:
Rupp v. Bonta: This case challenges California’s assault weapon ban and was originally filed in 2017. On April 3, 2023 a Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order to Modify Pretrail Deadlines Motion was filed and on April 7 the Court made changes when it filed its order. The court ordered that 1. The deadline to file dispositive motions remains May 26, 2023;
The hearing on the Plaintiffs’ Daubert motion is April 28;
The deadline to file motions in limine has been continued to Aug. 4, 2023 and the Final Pretrial Conference is continued to September 1, 2023. A Daubert Motion was filed by the plaintiffs to exclude the testimony of Ryan Busse, a former gun industry employee who has been used by the anti-gun groups such as Giffords and Everytown. The motion to exclude Busse, filed by the legal team at Michel & Associates is interesting to gun owners.
District of Columbia: DC Circuit
Allen v. DC: In a case where the DC government revoked a carry permit, Judge Tanya Chutkan denied the DC motion to dismiss the Second Amendment claim that challenged the permit revocation.
Illinois: Seventh Circuit
Cases currently in the federal court system challenging the newly passed Illinois Public Act 102-1116 (HB5471), the new IL gun control law.: Accuracy Firearms, LLC et al v. Pritzker; Langley v. Kelly; and Barnett v. Raoul: Also see Caulkins v. Pritzker under State Court cases.
Barnett v. Raoul: The Plaintiffs have filed a reply in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction. A thread on twitter by @BishopOnAir of the consolidated case against the Illinois’ gun ban is a very interesting read for gun owners.
Bevis v. Naperville & State of Illinois: A lawsuit against the city of Naperville’s assault weapons and magazine bans. Judge Kendall of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois eastern division denied the plaintiffs motion of the preliminary injunction. The case was appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and the plaintiffs filed a motion for an injunction pending appeal. On April 18, the Court of Appeals denied the motion,
Minnesota: Eight Circuit
Worth v. Harrington: Minnesota’s 2003 Citizens’ Personal Protection Act required applicants to be “at least 21 years of age.” In this case three plaintiffs under the age of 21 brought suit against their respective sheriffs for enforcing the Minnesota statute. Judge Katherine Menendez on March 31 stated that Minnesota Law requiring “a person must be at least 21 years of age to receive a permit to publicly carry a handgun in Minnesota violates the rights of individuals 18-20 years old to keep and bear arms protected by the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.” As of April 1 Judge Menendez put a hold on entering final judgment until the MN AG’s emergency order is ruled upon. The Plaintiffs filed their response to a stay on April 5. On April 18 the Court extended the deadline for the plaintiff to file a motion for costs and fees.
Firearms Industry Lawsuits
New York: Second Circuit
Jimmy S.C. Jinn v. Sig Sauer: The plaintiff, Jinn, brought suit alleging that he suffered injury when his Sig Sauer P320 fired in his holster without him pulling the trigger. Plaintiff alleged defective design and/or manufacture. However the plaintiff has also moved to exclude the testimony of both his expert witnesses, leading to the Magistrate Judge recommending summary judgment for Sig Sauer writing ”there is insufficient evidence to support critical elements” of the plaintiff’s claims.
Bains v. American Tactical, Inc: Lawsuit is being promoted by Brady United against the seller of 60 round magazines that were used by the assailant in 2021 in Indianapolis, Indiana. The lawsuit alleges “A company that imports, manufactures, distributes, or sells highly lethal products to civilians owes a duty to the public to be particularly careful about whose hands those products end up in.”
Lawsuits before State Courts
Illinois: Caulkins v. Pritzker: Originally No. 2023-CH-3 that was before the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Macon County, IL. This case was directly appealed to the Supreme Court of Illinois after the Circuit Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs ruling that the law, that passed the legislature on its last day of the 2022 session, was unconstitutional. That bill became Public Act 102-1116 §25. In a motion to the Supreme Court of Illinois the plaintiffs questioned the impartiality of two new justices, who were elected to their positions in 2022, asking the Court to recuse said justices. Both these justices received $1 million each in campaign donations from Governor Pritzker.
Both Justices filed motions denying the motion to recuse. Justice Elizabeth Rochford wrote, “That contributors to my campaign committee might appear as counsel or parties before this court does not require my recusal from this case. Our supreme court rules specifically allow a judicial candidate’s campaign committee to solicit and accept reasonable campaign contributions and public support from lawyers.”
Justice Mary O’Brien’s motion stated, “Because plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently plead any facts that would require disqualification under Rule 2.11 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, I am required under Rule 2.7 to hear and decide the instant appeal.”
Finally the Court issued a terse motion, IT IS ORDERED that, because disqualification in this Court is a decision that rests exclusively within the determination of the individual judge, appellees’ request that the Court disqualify Justices Rochford and O’Brien is denied.
Jerry Stocks, the attorney for the plaintiffs, commented on the failure of the recusal motion by issuing the following statement:
We raised a fair question arising from appearances that reasonably informed the grounds for recusal and stand by the content of our Motion. Ultimately, each justice must make an independent evaluation whether a party to the appeal seeks that evaluation or not. In this respect, the suggestion that as movants raising the issue that we had a burden of proof to show actual impartiality on the part of the justice is a contention with which we disagree. The decision has been made and we turn to the merits of the challenge to the facially unconstitutional law. It is premature to determine the remedy, if any, for the participation of the Justices if our view is valid.
