By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—SCOTUS: Garland v. VanDerStok: Case No. 23-10718: the case has now been distributed for the SCOTUS Conference of April 12; Justice Sonia Sotomayor denied the stay requested in Srour v. City of New York; May v. Bonta & Carralero v. Bonta: Case 23-4354 and 23-4356: Oral argument has been scheduled for April 11; We The Patriots USA Inc. v. Grisham: Case# 23-2166: On March 26, the plaintiffs filed a motion for Oral Arguments and a Consolidated Reply Brief Of Plaintiffs-Appellants. The Reply Brief attacks the Governor’s brief on the relevant historical period and exactly what determines “sensitive places.” Nguyen v. Bonta: Case 3:20-cv-02470-WQH-MMP: California filed an Emergency Motion under Circuit Court Rule 27-3 for a stay pending appeal on April 4, 2024; State of Washington v. Gator’s Custom Guns: Judge Gary D. Bashor of the Superior Court of Washington for Cowlitz County ruled that the 2022 Washinton law, ESSB 5078, a ban on sales and/or, possession of magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds, was unconstitutional under both the Washington and the U.S. Constitutions and within hours the court commissioner for the Supreme Court of the State of Washington issued a stay.
SCOTUS
Srour v. City of New York: Case No. 23-7549: Without referring the case to the full court, Justice Sotomayor denied the application for a stay.
The following cases are scheduled for the SCOTUS conference on April 12. Scheduling does not guarantee the Court will address a case.
Garland v. VanDerStok: Case No. 23-10718: The timetable for responses to the certiorari petition was extended and has now been distributed for the SCOTUS Conference of April 12.
Bianchi v. Brown: Case No. 23-863: Second Amendment challenge to Maryland “assault weapons” ban.
Brown v. United States: Case No. 22-10892: firearms prohibition for a felony offense.
Ratcliff v. United States: Case No. 23-6278: firearms prohibition for a felony offense.
Courts of Appeal
Hawaii: Ninth District
Teter v. Lopez: Case: 20-15948:On March 28, 2024, NRA filed an amicus brief with the en banc Ninth Circuit in Teter v. Lopez, a challenge to Hawaii’s prohibition on possessing butterfly knives.
Background: A multistate coalition of 17 attorneys general is supporting Hawaii’s request to the Ninth Circuit to rehear an appeal defending Hawaii’s ban on butterfly knives. The petition seeks a full en banc review of a panel opinion issued on August 7, 2023. On appeal from the US District Court for the District of Hawaii this case challenges the HI ban on butterfly knives. Oral arguments were held on Feb. 14, 2023. On August 7 US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued the following opinion:
“In Hawaii, it is a misdemeanor knowingly to manufacture, sell, transfer, transport, or possess a butterfly knife no exceptions. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 134-53(a). Because the possession of butterfly knives is conduct protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment, and because Hawaii has not demonstrated that its ban on butterfly knives is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of regulating arms, we conclude that section 134-53(a) violates Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights. We reverse and remand.”
On January 26, 2024, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated Teter and will be hearing it en banc.
New Mexico: Tenth Circuit:
We The Patriots USA Inc. v. Grisham: Case# 23-2166: On March 26, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a motion for Oral Arguments and a Consolidated Reply Brief Of Plaintiffs-Appellants. The Reply Brief attacks the Governor’s brief on the relevant historical period and exactly what determines “sensitive places.”
Background: The following cases have been consolidated as of October 10, 2023: National Association For Gun Rights et al v. Grisham et al, No. 1:23-cv-00771; Donk et al v. Grisham, No. 1:23-cv-00772; We the Patriots USA Inc. et al v. Grisham et al, No. 1:23-cv-00773; Blas v. Grisham et al, No. 1:23-cv-00774; Fort et al v. Grisham et al, No. 1:23- cv-00778; and Anderson v. Grisham et al, No. 1:23-cv-00839. The Plaintiffs have filed a Notice of Appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on Oct. 20, 2023, On Sept. 7, 2023, New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) declared a health emergency and on Sept. 8 she declared that it would now be illegal to carry a gun openly or concealed including those with a valid permit in any area where violent crime is above a certain percentage of the population, banning firearms in Albuquerque and Bernalillo Counties. On Oct. 2, Gov. Grisham amended the original order to just ban the carrying of firearms in parks and playgrounds. On Oct. 6, as a result of Grisham’s amended health order a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction was filed against the new health order. Judge Urias DENIED their Oct. 6 motion.
Texas: Fifth Circuit:
McRory v. Garland April 3, 2024, hearing.https://foundation.gunowners.org/litigation/mcrorey-v-garland
California: Ninth Circuit:
May v. Bonta & Carralero v. Bonta: Case 23-4354 and 23-4356: Oral argument has been scheduled for April 11, 2024. The “luck of the draw” has not been very favorable for this case. On April 1, Mark W. Smith @fourboxesdiner (if you are not following him, you should) on X (formerly known as Twitter), tweeted:
“TERRIBLE ANTI-2A PANEL IN RENO MAY, ET AL CASE. The Ninth Circuit’s panel assignment for the Carralero, May, and Woolford (CA & HI gun-free zone cases) argument is available and it’s terrible. JUDGES MARY SCHROEDER, SUSAN GRABER, and JENNIFER SUNG.”
Background: After the passage of SB2, a Bruen-response bill creating “sensitive places” where firearms are not allowed, this lawsuit was initiated on Sept. 12, 2023. Plaintiffs include CRPA, GOA, SAF, and others. On Octo. 3, the court hearing was rescheduled for December 20, 2023. On Nov. 21 CRPA Attorney Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas on X (formerly known as Twitter) ) informed his followers that a reply brief had been filed. He goes on to write“We’ve also submitted a rebuttal expert declaration which includes an appendix pointing out how California took several historical laws out of context or otherwise mischaracterized them in their opposition brief.”
Dec. 30, 2023, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 3-judge Motions panel, stayed the District Court’s injunction in the combined cases of Carralero v. Bonta and May v. Bonta. Then they sent it to a “merits” panel for further adjudication. Thus on Jan. 1, SB2 went into effect which prohibited those with carry permits from carrying in “specific sensitive places”. There are very few places in the state that are NOT specific sensitive places under that law. On Jan. 6 the Merits panel reinstated the injunction that had been ordered by District Judge Cormack J. Carney and denied the state of California’s motion for a stay. Californians with carry permits are now no longer prohibited from carrying firearms in the same manner they were able to before Dec. 30.
Circuit Courts
California: Ninth Circuit
Nguyen v. Bonta: Case 3:20-cv-02470-WQH-MMP: California filed an Emergency Motion under Circuit Court Rule 27-3 for a stay pending appeal on April 4.
Background: This case was filed on Dec. 18, 2020, against California’s One-Gun-A-Month purchase law. On Jan. 5, 2023, the court ordered “additional expert discovery” and then 11 more months passed until oral arguments were held on Dec. 6, 2023. This case includes the following plaintiffs—The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), North County Shooting Center, San Diego County Gun Owners Pac, and others who —challenged the California One-Gun-A-Month purchase law. It was decided by Federal Judge William Q. Hayes on March 11, 2024, in favor of the plaintiffs. SAF Executive Director announced the decision stating:
“There is nothing in the Second Amendment remotely connected to limiting the number of firearms a person can purchase. This limitation is blatantly unconstitutional, and if this ruling is appealed by the State of California, we intend to defend the lower court’s correct decision.”
Judge Hayes issued a judgment on March 28, and stayed his order for 30 days. The law will remain in effect until April 27.
State Courts
State of Washington v. Gator’s Custom Guns: Case No. 23-2-00897-08: In the Superior Court of Washington for Cowlitz County Judge Gary D. Bashor issued the following order:
“As such there is no set of facts this Court can conceive of which would allow the Consumer Protection sections of ESSB 5078 as written to pass constitutional muster and this Court specifically finds those sections unconstitutional.
Order
“1. The Court Grants the Defense Motion for Summary Judgement on both its Article 1, Section 24 claim and on their Second Amendment Claim.
“2. The Court Denies the State’s Motion for Summary Judgement on both its Article 1, Section 24 claim, and its Second Amendment Claim.”
Additionally, the Court also enjoined the State of Washington from enforcing any provisions of ESSB 5078. Within hours the Supreme Court of the State of Washinton issued a stay.
Background: After the passage of ESSB 5078 om 2022, a bill that made the sale and possession of magazines with more than 10 round capacity illegal, the State of Washington filed a Consumer Protection Act (CPA) enforcement action against Gator’s Custom Guns, Gator’s responded that ESSB 5078 violated Washington Constitution, Article 1, Art.1, § 24 and the U.S. Constitution.
