By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—SCOTUS: A relist is scheduled for US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: Harrel v. Raoul, Federal Firearms Licenses of Illinois v. Pritzker, Caleb Barnet v. Raoul, and Langley v. Kelly, now known as Barnet v. Raoul; Hawaii: Ninth District: Teter v. Lopez: Case: 20-15948: Oral argument in this en banc case will be held at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, June 25, 2024; Oregon: Ninth Circuit: United States v. Kittson: Case #: 23-4132: an amicus curia has been submitted; Delaware: Third Circuit: USA v. Robert Hunter Biden: Case#:1:23-cv-00061-MN: The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit DISMISSED his appeal since “Criminal defendants ordinarily cannot appeal until after final judgment.”
SCOTUS
Conferences were scheduled for May 23 and 30. The Scotus orders from the May 23 conference include a relists for an appeal from the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit decision in the following combined cases:
US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: Harrel v. Raoul, Federal Firearms Licenses of Illinois v. Pritzker, Caleb Barnet v. Raoul, and Langley v. Kelly, now known as Barnet v. Raoul: In a 2-1 decision (with Judges Easterbrook and Wood in the majority), the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit vacated the District Judge’s Preliminary Injunction. Judge Brennan wrote a 44-page dissent. The National Association for Gun Rights v. City of Naperville, Illinois,and Gun Owners of America v. Raoul have filed additional certiorari petitions.@bryanlafonte noted that the article in scotusblog.com on this case acknowledges the recognition of “the ubiquity of AR and AK-type firearms.”
Court of Appeals
Oregon: Ninth Circuit:
United States v. Kittson: Case #: 23-4132: A powerful legal brief has been filed in support of the Second Amendment, submitted by the California Rifle and Pistol Association, the Second Amendment Foundation as well as the Second Amendment Law Center in Nevada, to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit explaining the legal theory concerning machine guns and whether or not they’re protected arms. This brief does not support either Mr. Kittson or the government. The amici are laying out the theory that the Ninth Circuit needs to analyze the question under the Bruen standard.
Background: Kittson was an intermediary between an ATF who was charged with personally owning the firearm in violation of U.S.C § 922(g)(3) but acquitted of that in a jury trial. However, he was convicted of violating U.S.C § 922(o) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. 2-ER-79.
Delaware: Third Circuit
USA v. Robert Hunter Biden: Case#:1:23-cv-00061-MN: The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Issued the following: “The defendant appealed a pretrial order entered on May 9, 2024, denying his motion to dismiss the indictment, which had argued the charges violated the Second Amendment.
This appeal is DISMISSED. Criminal defendants ordinarily cannot appeal until after final judgment. See Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S. 259, 263 (1984). The District Court’s order does not qualify as an immediately appealable collateral order. The collateral-order doctrine is a “narrow exception” to the final-judgment rule and “interpreted [. .] with the utmost strictness in criminal cases.” See Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States, 489 U.S. 794, 798-99 (1989).”
Background: On July 27, 2023, the government brought criminal charges against Robert Hunter Biden, son of President Joe Biden, in the area of failure to pay taxes and charged with possession of a firearm by a person who is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance in violation of 18 United States Code Sections 922(g)(3) and 924(a)(2). On May 9, 2024, Hunter Biden’s motion to dismiss his gun charges based on 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(2) was denied by District Judge Maryellen Noreika.
Hawaii: Ninth District
Teter v. Lopez: Case: 20-15948: Oral argument in this en banc case will be held at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, June 25, 2024, in Courtroom One (Eighth Floor) of the William K. Nakamura Courthouse, located at 1010 Fifth Avenue in Seattle, Washington 98104.
Background: A multistate coalition of 17 attorneys general supports Hawaii’s request to the Ninth Circuit to rehear an appeal defending Hawaii’s ban on butterfly knives. The petition seeks a total en banc review of a panel opinion issued on Aug. 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 Aug. 7, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued the following opinion:“In Hawaii, it is a misdemeanor to knowingly manufacture, sell, transfer, transport, or possess a butterfly knife, with 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 Jan. 26, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated Teter and will hear it en banc. On March 28, NRA filed an amicus brief with the en banc Ninth Circuit. On April 22, the Hawaii Office of the Public Defender filed an amicus brief with the Ninth Circuit opposing the state’s butterfly knife ban. In the brief, they write:“When people who carry a butterfly knife for their personal safety and self-defense are prosecuted, the State’s (sic) violates the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
