By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—SCOTUS: Argument in March 2024—National Rifle Association v. Vullo: oral arguments were held Monday, March 18; Garland v. VanDerStok: Case No. 23-10718, a response to the certiorari petition is scheduled by March 24;. Lane v. Rocha, (Case 7:22-cv-10989): On March 15, plaintiffs filed a motion in which they highlighted how the NY “assault weapons” ban law is unconstitutional; Rupp v. Bonta, (Case No.: 8:17-cv-00746-JLS-JDE): This case was before the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on appeal from Judge Josephine L. Stanton’s (a Barack Obama appointee) ruling that “assault rifles are dangerous and unusual”; City of Chicago v. Glock, Inc: 2024CH02216: A lawsuit was filed by Everytown and the City of Chicago on March 19, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department – Chancery Division.
SCOTUS
Argument scheduled for March
National Rifle Association v. Vullo: Oral arguments were held on Monday, March 18. The Counsel of Record is Eugene Volokh, well-known to most people in the firearms and Second Amendment Community. Assisting Mr. Volokh was 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 New Republic on its webpage had the headline: The NRA is About to Notch Another Victory at the Supreme Court. The sub-headline read: “At oral arguments on Monday, the court took a dim view of the heavy-handed way that Andrew Cuomo and the State of New York attempted to crack down on the gun rights group.”
Scheduled Conference Dates
The SCOTUS 2024 calendar has March conference dates listed as March 15, 22 and 28. In the case of Garland v. VanDerStok: Case No. 23-10718, a response to the certiorari petition was extended to the March 15 conference date. This lawsuit opposes BATFE’s new rule concerning the treatment of “receiver blanks, unfinished frames or receivers, or 80% frames or receivers.” On March 7, briefs from VanDerStok and an amicus brief from the District of Columbia, NJ, PA, et al were filed. Both sides of the argument agree that the Court should grant certiorari.
Other cases with petitions filed:
Antonyuk v. James: Case #: 23-910: This case takes issue with New York’s “good moral character” requirement. The Petition was filed on February 20, 2024. On February 26, the NY Attorney General’s office requested an extension to May 9, which was granted.
District Courts
California: Ninth Circuit
Rupp v. Bonta: Case No.: 8:17-cv-00746-JLS-JDE: Judge Josephine L. Stanton ruled that “assault rifles are dangerous and unusual” and denied the plaintiffs motions while granting the government’s motion to uphold the California AWCA as constitutional.Remember Judge Stanton allowed anti-gun Ryan Busse, the former gun industry employee who is now the Democrat candidate for Wyoming Governor. Judge Stanton’s explanation of self-defense and the “assault rifle” is unusual:
“Because lawful self-defense is limited in this way, the above-listed dangerous propensities of assault rifles make them inappropriate for lawful self-defense. Assault rifles permit sustained rapid fire, and the A WCA-regulated features further enhance that rapid-fire capability. However rapid fire does not allow a shooter to reevaluate the circumstances and determine whether fatal force is still required. And because lawful self-defense requires imminent harm, it generally occurs “up close*; at that range, it is difficult to use an assault 12 rifle. (Def.’s Ex. 61, Tucker Supp. Expert Report “ Plaintiffs do not dispute this fact, but they argue that the features that permit rapid fire, like a pistol grip or thumbhole stock, are “control and accuracy enhancing,” meaning they improve the weapon’s usefulness for self-defense. (Pls.’ Opp. at S.) However this argument does not explain how assault rifles map onto the doctrine of lawful self-defense. The guns may be accurate, but if they shoot too quickly, too powerfully, and while the alleged instigator is too far away, then they are not well-suited to self-defense.”
Background: 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 Pretrial 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 was May 26, 2023; 2) The hearing on the Plaintiffs’ Daubert motion wa April 28; 3) The deadline to file motions in limine was continued to Aug. 4, 2023, and the Final Pretrial Conference was continued to Sept. 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 anti-gun groups such as Giffords and Everytown, but was denied by Judge Josephine L. Staton.
New York: Second Circuit
Lane v. Rocha, (Case 7:22-cv-10989): On March 15, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a motion in which they highlighted the following points: 1.) New York’s semi-automatic rifle ban is unconstitutional; 2.) New York bans rifles in common use; 3.) New York’s law would make the exercise of plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights into a violation of New York law; and 4.) New York’s Laws and Regulations violated the Second Amendment. In a Press Release issued by the Second Amendment Foundation, SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut stated, “Because modern semi-automatic rifles are not dangerous or unusual, and because they are commonly owned, the Court should grant judgment in Plaintiffs favor, declare the Firearm Ban unconstitutional, and enjoin its enforcement.”
Background: This lawsuit was brought by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) on Dec. 30, 2022, against New York state’s so-called “assault weapons ban.” During May 2023, several defendants, New York State politicians, filed motions to dismiss the suit. On June 6 the plaintiffs filed an opposition to those motions, leading to a request for oral arguments. On Jan. 4, 2024, Judge Kenneth M. Karas (a George W. Bush appointee) denied the government’s motions and requested more motions on plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.
Courts of Appeal
California: Ninth Circuit
Duncan v. Bonta: Case No.: 23-55805: A hearing date before the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit en banc was held on March 19, 2024. Attorney Kostas Moros summarized the oral arguments on X (formerly known as Twitter):
“Most of the Duncan oral argument today focused on WHO is on the panel and the procedures that determine that. Whether they were followed, what corrective action could be taken, etc.
“In doing this, even the judges implicitly acknowledge that in many Second Amendment cases, particularly hardware cases, the case is effectively decided upon the panel draw, before any brief is submitted. Who decides the case is critical, because too many judges have no interest in applying the Supreme Court’s precedent in good faith. This is a sad state of affairs and undermines confidence in the court system.”
Until the Supreme Court actively polices the lower courts on this, it will not change.
Background: (large capacity magazines) This lawsuit deals with a CA law passed in 2016 that banned the mere possession of magazines which hold more than ten rounds. On March 29, 2019 US District Court for the Southern District of California in Duncan v. Becerra ruled that “Magazines holding more than 10 rounds are ‘arms’” and “California Penal Code § 32310 is hereby declared to be unconstitutional in its entirety and shall be enjoined.” The case was then appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Nov. 30, 2021, which overturned the District Court decision using a two-step framework. The Plaintiffs then appealed to the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) for certiorari. On Aug. 1, 2022, after the Bruen decision had been rendered SCOTUS granted certiorari, vacated and remanded for further consideration. The case was then remanded to the District Court and Judge Roger T. Benitez. Briefs were filed by both sides. The state’s listing of all relevant statutes (their brief) can be found here and the CRPA (plaintiffs brief) is here. Finally, on Sept. 22, 2022, Judge Benitez ordered an injunction against California’s ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. On Oct. 13, 2023, CRPA sent out a press release saying that they were going to SCOTUS with an emergency petition to end the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit’s en banc decision to stay Judge Benitez’s decision to enjoin the enforcement of California’s magazine ban.
STATE COURTS
State Court decisions are only valid in the issued State
City of Chicago v. Glock, Inc: 2024CH02216:
A lawsuit was filed by Everytown and the City of Chicago on March 19, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department – Chancery Division. The headline on the Everytown webpage is:
“Chicago Announces First-Of-Its-Kind Lawsuit Seeking to Hold Glock Accountable for Manufacturing and Selling Pistols That Can Easily Be Turned Into Machine Guns Using ‘Glock Switches’”
They are requesting a 12-person jury trial before Judge Caroline Kate Moreland on July 17, at 10:30 A.M. In Court Room 2302.
