By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—SCOTUS: Arguments scheduled in February and March 2024—Garland v. Cargill: Oral arguments were held; National Rifle Association v. Vullo: oral arguments set for Monday, March 18; State of California v. BATFE: Judge Edward Chen of the US District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part both plaintiffs and defendants motions; City of Baltimore v. BATFE: Case #:23-cv-03762: the city of Baltimore has gone to court to get ATF to release the contents of the federal database known as the Firearms Trace System. NSSF (National Shooting Sports Foundation) has moved to intervene in this case; CRPA v. LASD: hearing date postponed; Update and explanation for Vandermyde v. Cook County.
SCOTUS
Garland v. Cargil: Case No. 22-976. Cert. Granted 11/3/2023. Argument date of Feb. 28. Question presented: “Whether a bump stock device is a “machinegun” as defined in 26 U.S.C. 5845(b) because it is designed and intended for use in converting a rifle into a machinegun, i.e., into a weapon that fires “automatically more than one shot * * * by a single function of the trigger.”
In a YouTube video Attorney Mark W. Smith summarizes the main points of the oral arguments. He also believes that the three liberal Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Brown-Jackson will vote in favor of the ATF, while he thinks that Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Thomas and Barrett will vote in favor of Cargill. Leaving Justice Kavanaugh and Chief Justice Roberts as undecided. A transcript of the oral argument is now available. Smith believes it will be a close call. This decision will probably be published towards the end of the Courts 23-24 session in June.
Background: 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 to petition the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.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 on April 6.
Argument scheduled for March
National Rifle Association v. Vullo: Oral arguments set for Monday, March 18, 2024.
The Counsel of Record is Eugene Volokh, well-known to most people in the firearms and Second Amendment Community. Assisting Mr. Volokh will be a litigator from the ACLU since this case is not a Second Amendment case, but a case dealing with First Amendment issues. Seven amicus briefs representing 40 individuals and organizations, including the ACLU, were filed in support. The question to be resolved is: Case: 22-842 SCOTUS has granted certiorari on the following question: “Does the First Amendment allow a government regulator to threaten regulated entities with adverse regulatory actions if they do business with a controversial speaker, as a consequence of (a) the government’s hostility to the speaker’s viewpoint or (b) a perceived “general backlash” against the speaker’s advocacy?”
March Conference Dates
The SCOTUS 2024 calendar has March conference dates listed as March 1,15, 22 and 28. In the case of Garland v. VanDerStok: Case No. 23-10718, a response to the certiorari petition is scheduled by March 8, 2023. This lawsuit opposes BATFE’s new rule concerning the treatment of “receiver blanks, unfinished frames or receivers, or 80% frames or receivers.” It is in many ways similar to Garland v. Cargill. It will be interesting to see if SCOTUS decides to take another case brought by the Department of Justice regarding ATF-published rulings.
DISTRICT COURTS
State of California v. BATFE: Judge Edward Chen of the US District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part both plaintiffs and defendants motions.
Background: This case was promoted by the gun-control group Giffords in conjunction with the State of California challenging“ATF’s determinations that certain products known in the industry as 80% receivers and frames were not firearms for purposes of the GCA. As noted above, a receiver (for a long gun) or a frame (for a handgun) is the part of the weapon that “houses the hammer, bolt, or breechblock, as well as the firing mechanism.”
Judge Chen agreed with the plaintiffs, State of California, that this ruling is “arbitrary and capricious.” He went on to say, “The Court therefore: (1) declares one subsection of the final rule (Example 4) and related agency actions to be unlawful and enjoins Defendants from enforcing them; (2) vacates one subsection of the final rule (Example 4) and related agency actions; and (3) remands to ATF for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s opinion.”
Thus the rule is now in limbo awaiting the BATFE’s action.
CRPA v. LASD: Case #2:23-cv-10169: Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett changed the hearing date from March 13, 2024, to April 10, 2024. This case’s history was discussed in last week’s Judicial Report.
City of Baltimore v. BATFE: Case #:23-cv-03762: Crime gun trace data is back in the courts. During the past twenty-plus years the federal government has operated under a series of appropriations restrictions to the ATF budget under the name of the Tiahrt Amendments. One of which states: “No funds appropriated under this, or any other Act may be used to disclose part or all of the contents of the Firearms Trace System database maintained by the National Trace Center of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.”
Now the city of Baltimore has gone to court to get ATF to release the contents of the federal database known as the Firearms Trace System. NSSF (National Shooting Sports Foundation) has moved to intervene in this casearguing: “Most if not all of the documents and information at issue were submitted to the ATF by NSSF members, and NSSF has a legally cognizable interest in protecting from public disclosure confidential and sensitive information about the lawful acquisition and disposition of firearms by its members and their customers.”
STATE COURTS
NOTE: In our Feb. 21, Judicial report, an important part of the following case was not included—The legal basis for the reversal and remanding for further proceedings by The Appellate Court of the First Judicial District.
Illinois: In The Appellate Court of the First Judicial District.
Vandermyde v. Cook County: Case No. No. 1-23-0413
The Appellate Court of the First Judicial District on Feb. 20, sent this case back to the Circuit Court of Cook County. The Appellate Court of the First Judicial District ordered:“Held: We reverse the circuit court’s order dismissing this case with prejudice and remand for further proceedings; the trial court erred when it determined it was bound by a prior decision of this court which was reversed by our supreme court; after the reversal the prior judgment has no precedential value.”
The Appellate Court further explained, “Our supreme court reversed, holding that the taxes violated the Uniformity Clause. Guns Save Life, Inc. v. Ali, 2021 IL 126014, ¶ 41. Because the Court found the ordinances to be unconstitutional under the Uniformity Clause, it expressly refrained from addressing the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment arguments. Id. at ¶¶ 18, 39.”
The reasoning is that ordinances that burden a fundamental right are unconstitutional.
Background: This case is against the Cook County gun and ammunition tax that was instituted in 2022. The District Court ruled in favor of Cook County and the case was appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Oral arguments were held on June 24, 2023, in Chicago, Illinois.
