By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—California: Richards v. Newsom: This case is fighting the new law mandating that gun dealers must have audio and video recording in their stores and keep the recordings for one year. Prior to the actual hearing Judge Siena issued a ruling that he did not believe the plaintiffs would win this case and thus was inclined to not issue a temporary restraining order; Delaware: United States v. Biden: Robert Hunter Biden has been charged by a grand jury and the U.S. Department of Justice as an unlawful user of and addicted to a controlled substance who knowingly possessed a firearm; Florida: United States v. Ayala: a postal worker was indicted for possession of a firearm oil a Federal facility. Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle wrote, “I dismiss the § 930(a) charge because it violates Ayala’s Second Amendment right to bear arms.
California: Ninth Circuit
Richards v. Newsom: This case challenges the new state law mandating that California gun dealers must have audio and video recording in their stores, covering all transactions, and keep the recordings for one year. Prior to the actual hearing Judge Siena issued a ruling that he did not believe the plaintiffs would win this case and thus was inclined to not issue a temporary restraining order.
Background: This lawsuit was filed in US District Court for the Central District of California On Dec. 19 by California Rifle & Pistol Association, Gun Owners of California, On Target Indoor Shooting Range, Second Amendment Foundation and others against SB1384, which was passed last year. The lawsuit charges that the law:“violates the right to peaceably assemble and associate without intrusion from the government…also curtails speech and assembly because anything that is recorded under this section can be used against persons in legal actions (civil or criminal), divorce or child custody battles, business litigation, and the like. The recordings can be subpoenaed for any of these uses, which places the FFL and anyone who enters their space in danger of future prosecution.”
On December 20, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order. One week later Judge James V. Seina denied the motion for a temporary restraint order and set a date of Jan. 16 for a hearing on the preliminary injunction.
Delaware: Third Circuit
United States v. Biden: On January 16, 2024 Derek E. Hines, Special Counsel for the Department of Justice responded to Robert Hunter Biden’s motion to dismiss the firearm’s charge by quoting not only from historical sources but also from Heller.
Background: This is the case against Hunter Biden, President Biden’s son. On June 20, 2023 the U.S. Government alleged: “Robert Hunter Biden, knowing that he was an unlawful user of and addicted to a controlled substance…did knowingly possess a firearms, that is, a Colt Cobra 38SPL revolver with a serial number RA 551363, and said firearm having been shipped and transported in interstate commerce. In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 922(g)(3) and 924(a)(2).”
Last Sept. 14, a grand jury returned a three count indictment charging Hunter Biden with committing crimes in connection with the same firearms…making a false statement during a background check to deceive a firearms dealer when he acquired the firearm. A hearing was originally scheduled for Sept. 26, but then was rescheduled for Oct. 3, at which time Biden entered a “not guilty” plea and was released on his own recognizance. On Dec. 11, Biden’s attorney filed several motions to dismiss the indictment.
Florida: Tenth Circuit
United States v. Ayala: a postal worker was indicted for possession of a firearm oil a Federal facility. Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle wrote, “I dismiss the § 930(a) charge because it violates Ayala’s Second Amendment right to bear arms.” Judge Mizelle took the U.S. Government to task for their response on the question of Ayala’s Second Amendment rights. She goes on to say: “The government’s response to Ayala’s motion to dismiss on this ground is unhelpful in this task. It consists of two paragraphs summed up as follows: “A government building has been deemed a sensitive place that can ban the carrying of firearms while not violating an individual’s Second Amendment rights and is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Resp. (Doc. 25) at 4. That assertion simplifies (and likely overstates) the sensitive places exception as definitely carving out from Second Amendment protection all government buildings.”
Interestingly, Royce Barones (Emeritus Professor of Law) @1776Authhority on Twitter has a very good, though long tweet on this case.
