By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—SCOTUS: Waiting for a decision on Rahimi and other certiorari announcements; Garland v. Cargill: 6-3 decision—“We conclude that (a) semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a “machinegun;” Gazzola v. Hochul: certiorari denied; Hawaii: Ninth Circuit: 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. The en banc panel includes Justices Murguia, Gould, Nguyen, R. Nelson, Miller, Bade, Collins, Lee, VanDyke, Sanchez, and De Alba, six of whom were appointed by President Trump; Texas: Fifth Circuit: Mock v. Garland: Consolidated Cases: Case # 4:23-cv-00095: On June 16, 2024, the consolidated case was tentatively calendared for oral arguments on August 5, 2024, at the District Court; Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc, Second Amendment Foundation, Gavin Pate and George Mandry v. Merrick Garland: Case # 24-cv-00565-O: This case was filed on June 18, 2024. The plaintiffs sued to challenge the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C.§ 930(a), the ban on possessing a firearm in a federal building, including the U.S. Post Office, and that bars firearm carry and storage on property under the control of the Postal Service.
SCOTUS
Garland v. Cargill:
In a 6-3 decision, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion upholding the decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. He writes: “We conclude that (a) semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a “machinegun” because it does not fire more than one shot “by a single function of the trigger…A law is not useless merely because it draws a line more narrowly than one of its conceivable statutory purposes might suggest. Interpreting §5845(b) to exclude semiautomatic rifles equipped with bump stocks comes nowhere close to making it useless. Under our reading, §5845(b) still regulates all traditional machineguns. The fact that it does not capture other weapons capable of a high rate of fire plainly does not render the law useless. Moreover, it is difficult to understand how ATF can plausibly argue otherwise, given that its consistent position for almost a decade in numerous separate decisions was that §5845(b) does not capture semiautomatic rifles equipped with bump stocks.”
Garland v. Cargil: Case No. 22-976. Cert. Granted 11/3/2023. Argument date of Feb. 28, 2024 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.’” A transcript of the oral argument is available.
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, the DOJ filed a motion to petition the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. A copy of the writ was sent on April 6, 2023.
Gazzola v. Hochul. On June 17, the Court released its Order List, which included a denial of the certiorari petition.
Background: Gazzola v. Hochul: This case, filed on Nov. 1, 2022, challenges most all parts of New York State gun laws enacted between May 30, 3033 and July 1, 2022. The lawsuit includes 125 complaints against these laws. On December 7, Judge Brenda K. Sannes denied the plaintiff’s motion for a TRO or a Preliminary Injunction (PI). Subsequently, plaintiffs appealed to SCOTUS, and a stay was granted pending the petition to SCOTUS.
Attorney Mark W. Smith, @fourboxesdiner on X (formerly known as Twitter), has a video suggesting that Justice Alito will probably write the opinion in the Rahimi case, which should be announced shortly.
Reactions to the SCOTUS Cargill OPINION
The reaction to the Cargill opinion is split along Second Amendment views. Those who believe the Second Amendment defines the people’s right to possess, carry, and use firearms were delighted with the decision, while those who want more government control over that right were unhappy. For our readers, we have provided a bibliography of thoughts about this decision published online in the days since the decision was rendered. This bibliography does not claim to be comprehensive or complete.
SCOTUSblog: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/garland-v-cargill/
JDSUPrA: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/supreme-court-decides-garland-attorney-9944569/
Statement of President Biden: Statement from President Joe Biden on the Supreme Court Decision Garland v. Cargill | The White House
WGME: Supreme Court overturns Trump-era bump stock ban, sparking heated responses
Bloomberg: Supreme CJustices Nix ATF’s Bump Stock Ban,
The Daily Signal:
Slate via msn.com: Sonia Sotomayor Points Out How Quickly the Conservative Justices Will Drop Their Stated Principles When It Suits Them
Reason: The Supreme Court just effectively legalized machine guns in Garland v. Cargill
Vox.com: Vox Court Upholds the Rule of Law by Rejecting the Trump Administration’s Bump Stock Ban
Duke Center for Firearms Law: SCOTUS Gun Watch – Week of 6/17/24 | Duke Center for Firearms Law
tallahassee.com Bump stocks ban struck down by Supreme Court ahead of DeSantis move
Brady: Supreme Court Upholds Fifth Circuit Decision; Puts Bump… | Brady
Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC): FPC, FPCAF Statement on SCOTUS ‘Bump Stock’ Decision – Firearms Policy Coalition
NRA: NRA-ILA | U.S. Supreme Court invalidates ATF Rule Classifying Bump Stocks as Machineguns
Circuit Court
Hawaii: Ninth Circuit
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. The en banc panel includes Justices Murguia, Gould, Nguyen, R. Nelson, Miller, Bade, Collins, Lee, VanDyke, Sanchez, and De Alba, six of whom were appointed by President Trump.
Background: 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, 2023, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued the following opinion: “It is a misdemeanor in Hawaii 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.”
District Court
Delaware: Third Circuit
USA v. Robert Hunter Biden: Case#:1:23-cv-00061-MN: Dave Workman wrote an article on this website dated June 17, 2024, discussing a motion filed and then withdrawn in this case.
Texas: Fifth Circuit
Mock v. Garland: Consolidated Cases: Case # 4:23-cv-00095: On June 16, 2024, the consolidated case was tentatively calendared for oral arguments on August 5, 2024, at the District Court.
Background: On January 31, 2023, the Firearms Policy Coalition announced they were filing litigation challenging the ATF’s final rule on firearms equipped with stabilizing or pistol braces, Mock v. Garland. On May 23, 2023, the District Court issued a preliminary injunction. ATF appealed the injunction to the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and on June 19, 2023, Judge Reed O’Connor stayed the proceedings at the District Court. On October 2, 2023, the Court granted a preliminary injunction, followed in November 2023 with a plaintiffs’ motion for Summary Judgement and an ATF notice of Appeal. On June 13, 2024, Judge O’Connor ruled that the Plainfiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment was granted.
The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which on December 22, 2023, had consolidated the Mock case with Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. v. Bureau of Alcohol (23-11157), Britto v. Bureau of Alcohol (23-11204), Texas Gun Rights v. Bureau of Alcohol (23-111204), and State of Texas v Bureau of Alcohol (23-40685) in an unpublished order on May 23, 2023, granted the preliminary injunction against the Final Rule. On August 1, 2023, The three-judge panel wrote: “We REVERSE the order denying a preliminary injunction and REMAND with instruction to consider that motion expeditiously. To ensure relative stability, we MAINTAIN the preliminary injunction pending appeal that the motions panel issued on May 23, 2023, as clarified by this merits panel on May 26, 2023.”
Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., Second Amendment Foundation, Gavin Pate and George Mandry v. Merrick Garland: Case # 24-cv-00565-O: This case was filed on June 18. The plaintiffs sued to challenge the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C.§ 930(a), the ban on possessing a firearm in a federal building, including the U.S. Post Office, and that bars firearm carry and storage on property under the control of the Postal Service.
