By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—SCOTUS: SCOTUS’ 2024-2025 term officially begins Monday, Oct. 7; Gray v. Jennings: Case No: 24-309: Petition for writ of certiorari; response due Oct. 18; May v, Bonta, Carmaker v, Bonta and Wolford v. Lopez: Case No 23-16164: the plaintiffs will be filing a petition for a rehearing en banc; Worth v. Jacobson: Case # 23-2248: On Sept. 20, the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Issued its mandate that 18-20-year-olds may receive a handgun permit; Reese v. BATFE: Case No. 23-30033: a second hearing before a three-judge panel was held Sept. 23, 2024; Schoenthal v. Raoul: Case No. 3:22-cv-50326: Illinois appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit from the order and final judgment dated Aug. 30.
SCOTUS
Gray v. Jennings: Case No: 24-309: Petition for writ of certiorari was filed September 16, 2024; response due October 18, 2024. The question presented is “Whether the infringement of Second Amendment rights constitutes per se irreparable injury.”The Second Amendment Foundation has a webpage about this case, which states: “Noting in their petition that the high court has previously ruled that “the loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury,” SAF and its partners ask the court to determine whether the same standard applies to the Second Amendment. “All rights protected by the Constitution are equal,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “and therefore any infringements on one right should merit the same degree of scorn as infringements against another right.”
A YouTube video by Mark W. Smith, The Four Boxes Diner channel, explains the petition for cert in great detail. Background: Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association, Inc. v. Delaware Department of Safety and Homeland Security: Gray v. Jennings: Case Numbers: 23-1633, 23-1634, 23-1641: Two cases challenging the 2022 Delaware gun laws, Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association v. Delaware Dept. of Safety and Gray v. Jennings, were consolidated in December 2022, and on March 27, Judge Richard G. Andrews denied the plaintiff’s motions for a preliminary injunction. The case was appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. A coalition of 20 Republican attorneys general filed an amicus brief on July 10, 2023. In this brief, the attorneys general wrote,“Because HB 450 and SS 1 both regulate conduct covered by the ‘plain text’ of the Second Amendment—’ keep[ing] and bear[ing] Arms,’ see U.S. Const. amend. II—they are presumptively unconstitutional.”A hearing was held on March 11, 2024, before Judges Bibas, Montgomery-Reeves, and Roth. The decision by the three-judge panel was issued on July 16, 2024. The denial of a preliminary injunction by the District Court was upheld. Judge Stephano Bibas authored the decision in which he wrote: “We do not hold that Second Amendment harms, or constitutional harms generally, cannot be irreparable. Still, the scant evidence before us here hardly shows that the challengers’ harm is.”
Snope v. Brown: Case No. 24-203 (formerly Bianchi v. Brown): On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit,A Brief of Amicus Curiae was just filed on September 23, 2024, by Amicus Curiae Second Amendment Law Center, Inc., California Rifle & Pistol Association, Incorporated, Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois, Inc, Second Amendment Defense and Education Coalition, LTD., Operation Blazing Sword-Pink Pistols, and Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus in support of Petitioners.
The summary of the argument begins: “Our nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation affirms a clear principle: the most commonly owned semi-automatic rifles and their components cannot be banned. Today, such rifles include the AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles. Indeed, modern Americans overwhelmingly own these firearms for self-defense, home protection, and sporting purposes. Banning these popular rifles today would be as unprecedented as banning muskets and Kentucky Rifles in the Founding era, or Winchester rifles and Colt revolvers during Reconstruction. So-called ‘assault weapon’ bans not only lack support from our historical tradition; they stand in direct opposition to it.”
Certiorari: Several cases requesting certiorari are scheduled to be considered on Sept. 30; among them areSmith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, Case # 23-1141; and Wilson v. State of Hawaii: Case # 23-7517.
Circuit Court
California: Ninth Circuit
May v, Bonta, Carmaker v, Bonta and Wolford v. Lopez: Case No 23-16164: These cases all dealt with state-wide bans on carrying. A three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has upheld some preliminary injunctions against specific carry bans (meaning they remain unenforceable) we covered in the Judicial Report of 9-11-202. These are the places where Right-to-Carry gun owners are still denied their right to carry: Bars and Restaurants that serve alcohol, Playgrounds, Parks, State Parks, Casinos, Stadiums, Arenas, Libraries, Zoos, Museums, and Parking areas attached to those areas. On September 19, 2024, Chuck Michel, CRPA President and Attorney, tweeted: “In May v. Bonta, CRPA will be filing a petition for rehearing en banc shortly with the Ninth Circuit, joining the Wolford plaintiffs in doing so. We point out some major errors the panel made and urge rehearing in full, or at minimum, limited to the Vampire Rule.”
Background: On June 23, 2023, three individual plaintiffs and the Hawaii Firearms Coalition challenged Hawaii’s new law, based onSB1230, designating most of the islands of Hawaii, including private property, as “sensitive places” where carry permits are not recognized. The District Court granted a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and a Preliminary Injunction (PI) on Aug. 8, 2023. In the Hawaii case (Wolfo9rd v. Lopez), the state appealed to the Ninth Circuit on Oct. 5, 2023. They allege that “concealed carry permit holders have been responsible for thousands of deaths nationwide.”
Florida: Eleventh Circuit
United States of America v. Emmanuel Ayala: Case No 24-10462: A brief of Amici Curiae California Rifle & Pistol Association, Incorporated, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, Second Amendment Law Center, Inc., And The Second Amendment Foundation In Support Of Appellee And Affirmance was just filed.
Illinois: Seventh Circuit
Schoenthal v. Raoul: Case No. 3:22-cv-50326: On Friday, September 20, Illinois appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit from the order and final judgment dated Aug. 30.
Background: On Aug. 30,Judge Iain D. Johnston entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs but limited only to the plaintiffs. The defendants filed a motion to stay the decision on Sept. 5, and on Sept. 12, the plaintiffs filed a motion to deny the stay. You can read more about last week’s Judicial Grassroots Report.
Louisiana: Fifth Circuit
Reese v. BATFE: Case No. 23-30033: Since the last oral arguments, the following cases have had challenges similar to this case:Lara v. Commissioner Pennsylvania State Police (21-1832), United States v. Rahimi (22-915), and Worth v. Jacobson 2024 WL 3419668 (8th Cir. 2024). The Lara v. Commissioner Pennsylvania State Police case has a petition for certiorari before SCOTUS with a conference date in October. According to Mark W. Smith, Second Amendment attorney, @FourBoxesDiner on X.com and the Four Boxes Diner on YouTube.com, the reason the three-judge panel scheduled additional oral arguments on Sept. 23, was that the judges wanted to set the record that the Rahimi decision was SCOTUS’ way of demonstrating how gun cases are to be argued. They want to show how the Militia Act of 1792 played a part in “establishing that, at a minimum, at a minimum 18, 19, and 20-year-olds are part of the people. They are part of the people who have the right to keep and bear arms.” The hearing recording is available. Smith believes the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Decision will favor the plaintiffs.
Background: Reese v. ATF: This case filed by FPC, NRA, and SAF challenging the ban on licensed handgun sales to law-abiding 18-to-20-year-olds was decided in favor of the ATF on Dec. 21, 2022. The Plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on March 31, 2023, and have requested oral argument before the Court. A brief for the appellees (FPC, NRA, and SAF) was filed on May 12, 2023. The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit heard oral argument on Nov. 7, 2023, before a three-judge panel of Jones, Barksdale, and Elrod.
Minnesota: Eighth Circuit
Worth v. Jacobson: Case # 23-2248: On September 20, 2024, the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Issued its mandate that 18-20-year-olds may receive a handgun permit. Minnesota’s only appeal is to SCOTUS.
Background: On August 21, 2024, the state of Minnesota (the governor of this state is Tim Walz, the current Democrat candidate for Vice-President on the Democrat ticket) was denied a petition for rehearing by the panel and en banc. The decision of the District Court Judge Katherine Menendez has been upheld. Judge Menendez stated that Minnesota Law requires: “A person must be at least 21 years of age to receive a permit to carry a handgun in Minnesota publicly violates the rights of individuals 18-20 years old to keep and bear arms protected by the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.”
District Court
California: Ninth Circuit
Richards v. Bonta: Case No 3:23-cv-00793: A federal lawsuit challenging California’s 10-day firearm waiting period law. On July 26, 2024, the Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment, and on August 23, 2024, the defendants (the state of California) filed a cross-motion in opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion.
Background: On May 1, 2023, Richards and several other citizens, North County Shooting Center, Inc.; John Phillips; Pwgg, L.P.; San Diego County Gun Owners Pac; California Gun Rights Foundation; Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc.; And Second Amendment Foundation, filed the following complaint: “Defendants’ enforcement of the Waiting Period Laws prevents law-abiding people from taking possession of lawfully acquired firearms for immediate self-defense and other lawful purposes—even after Defendants know the individual is eligible to exercise their fundamental, constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. This relegates the right to keep and bear arms to second-class status.”
Illinois: Seventh Circuit
Harrel v. Raoul, No. 23-877; Herrera v. Raoul, No. 23-878; Barnett v. Raoul, No. 23-879; National Association for Gun Rights v. City of Naperville, No. 23-880; and Langley v. Kelly, No. 23-944: The following cases have submitted certiorari petitions which SCOTUS denied.
Harrel v. Raoul, No. 23-877; Herrera v. Raoul, No. 23-878; Barnett v. Raoul, No. 23-879; National Association for Gun Rights v. City of Naperville, No. 23-880; and Langley v. Kelly, No. 23-944: On March 5, 2024, an extension was sought by all the respondents and was granted. On April 26, 2024, the reply brief from the Second Amendment Foundation for the petitioners was filed. All these cases stem from enacting the Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA) on January 1, 2024, after the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on November 3, 2023, voted 2-1 to uphold the law.
Background: National Association for Gun Rights v. Naperville: On December 14, 2023, SCOTUS did not issue a temporary injunction against the Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA).
Harrel v. Raoul and Barnett v. Raoul: This case was filed on Jan. 17, 2023, by the Second Amendment Foundation, The Firearms Policy Coalition, Marengo Guns, Inc., C4 Gun Store, and David Harrel against the large capacity magazine ban that Gov. Pritzker signed on that date. On Jan. 25, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction (PI). All parties agreed on a motion for a coordinated preliminary injunction briefing, adding the following cases: Federal Firearms Licenses of Illinois v. Pritzker, Caleb Barnet v. Raoul, and Langley v. Kelly in the US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. On April 28, Judge Stephen Patrick McGlynn issued a preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of PICA. He wrote, “PICA seems to be written despite the clear directives in Bruen and Heller, not in conformity with them.”
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.
