Happy Birthday, USA
By Tanya Metaksa
UPDATE: What’s New—SCOTUS: Garland v. VanDerStok: Case No. 23-10718: The DOJ plaintiffs’ brief was due June 25; Guedes v. BATFE: Case No. 22-1222: The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for further consideration in light of Garland v. Cargill, 602 U. S. ___ (2024); Garland v. Hardin: Case No. 23-62: Certiorari Denied. Three cases were GVR and remanded to the Appeals Court from which they were adjudicated: 23-374 GARLAND, ATTY GEN. V. RANGE, BRYAN D., 23-910 ANTONYUK, IVAN, ET AL. V. JAMES, STEVEN G., ET AL., 23-682 DOSS, REGINALD C. V. UNITED STATES; The five Illinois cases challenging the new Illinois “assault weapons” law have been denied certiorari with a Dissent by Justice Clarence Thomas.
SCOTUS
SCOTUS announced more cases on July 2 and is expected to hold an end-of-term “clean-up” conference before July 4 that should decide the Range, Daniels, and other undecided § 922(g) petitions. The NAGR petition, which was again relisted, is still outstanding for this term.
2024-06-24 Writs of Certiorari:
Guedes v. BATFE: Case No. 22-1222: The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for further consideration in light of Garland v. Cargill, 602 U. S. ___ (2024).
Garland v. Hardin: Case No. 23-62: Certiorari Denied. Since the Department of Justice lost at the Appeals court in this bump stock case, the case is over.
Garland v. VanDerStok: Case No. 23-10718: On April 22, 2024, SCOTUS granted certiorari for the 2024-2025 term. This certiorari petition was brought by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) on Feb. 7, 2024. The DOJ petition asked the following questions:
1. Whether “a weapon parts kit that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive,” 27 C.F.R. 478.11, is a “firearm” regulated by the Act.
2. Whether “a partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver” that is “designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver,” 27 C.F.R. 478.12(c), is a “frame or receiver” regulated by the Act.
Since the case challenges an administrative ATF regulation, similar to the Cargill case, it is unlikely that Second Amendment issues will be involved in this litigation at the Supreme Court. The DOJ plaintiffs’ brief was due June 25.
Background: This lawsuit against the BATFE’s new rule concerning treating “receiver blanks, unfinished frames or receivers, or 80% frames or receivers” as firearms was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas in August 2022. On June 30, 2023, Judge Reed O’Connor issued an order VACATING the final rule. The Department of Justice (DOJ) appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On July 24, they DENIED DOJ’s motion to stay O’Connor’s Vacatur. DOJ then appealed to SCOTUS for a STAY of the Fifth Circuit’s order. On Aug. 8, in a 5-4 vote, SCOTUS issued a stay of Judge O’Connor’s “global” vacatur that applied to all entities nationwide.
The plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for a Preliminary Injunction against the Rule on August 9 and 14 in the District Court. Judge O’Connor issued an order granting injunctive relief for the plaintiffs on Sept. 14. The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held oral arguments on Sept. 7 and, on Oct. 2, issued another unpublished order that vacated the District Court order as to nonparties. Still, it Denied the DOJ motion to stay the District Court’s injunction that was issued on September 14. On Octo.5, the DOJ appealed to SCOTUS to vacate the District Court’s September 14 injunction against the Rule as it applied to the original plaintiffs, Defense Distributed and BlackHawk Manufacturing. On Aug. 8, 2023, in a 5-4 decision, SCOTUS wrote that the original District Court rulings are:
“Stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such a writ is timely sought. Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically.”
On Nov. 9, 2023, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit enjoined the ATF Frames and Receiver rule.
“The agency rule at issue here flouts clear statutory text and exceeds the legislatively imposed limits on agency authority in the name of public policy. Because Congress has neither authorized the expansion of firearm regulation nor permitted the criminalization of previously lawful conduct, the proposed rule constitutes unlawful agency action, in direct contravention of the legislature’s will. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM IN PART and VACATE AND REMAND IN PART the judgment of the district court.”
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s order that enjoined ATF from enforcing the regulation against Defense Distributed and BlackHawk Manufacturing and their customers. They vacated the District Court’s order of a Preliminary Injunction against ATF since, during the trial, the Fifth Circuit judges asked ATF if they would enforce the new regulations against the customers, and ATF testified that they would not. This ruling allows the plaintiffs to stay in business and the customers to keep their purchased items. Then, they remanded the case back to the District Court. On November 16, 2023, the Plaintiffs-Appellees, the parts manufacturers in the lawsuit, filed a joint Motion for immediate issuance of the Mandate, asking the Circuit Court to send the case back to the District Court, which is responsible for issuing the remedy for the manufacturers who are losing their businesses due to the ATF regulation. Four days later, the Fifth Circuit granted their motion.
Circuit Court
California: US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
B&L Productions v. Gavin Newsom: Case No. 23-55431: As we reported on June 12, a three-judge panel ruled that “B&L has failed to establish that the challenged Statutes violate its constitutional rights.”On June 25, B&L Productions filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc. For further analysis, please check out CRPA.
Background: B&L Productions (Crossroads of the West), California Rifle & Pistol Association, et al. filed a lawsuit in federal court in 2022 challenging state bill SB 264, banning gun shows by prohibiting the sale of firearms, firearms parts, and ammunition at the Orange County Fairgrounds. Two years after the lawsuit was filed, Judge John W. Holcomb, US District Court for the Central District of California, granted the Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and enjoined the state from enforcing the statute. Judge Holcomb wrote that California’s ban on gun shows at the Orange County Fairgrounds and on state-owned property likely violates the First and Second Amendments. The preliminary injunction has been lifted after the three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled against B&L Productions.
District Court
Pennsylvania:
Brown v. Paris: Case 1:24-cv-01015-CCC: The Second Amendment Foundation filed on June 20, this lawsuit challenging Pennsylvania’s prohibition against young adults’ (18-20 years of age) ability to acquire a license to carry a firearm (LTCF) for defense was filed in the US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
An article by Dave Workman explains the case.
