By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—SCOTUS has another conference date this Friday, Dec. 13, 2024, and Snope v. Brown was scheduled for that conference; On Dec. 9, Scotus denied certiorari for Wilson v. Hawaii. The Justices emphasized that applying for certiorari before the case went through the system was unacceptable to them. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch all were not in agreement with the Hawaiian Supreme Court’s opinion in this case; Montgomery v. Rosenblum: Case # 3:24-cv-01273: Also on Dec. 9, the Firearms Policy Coalition announced that it had filed a combined brief; FPC files brief in Ninth Circuit on State of Washington v. Gator’s Custom Guns.
SCOTUS
A federal lawsuit challenging Maryland’s “assault weapons” ban as
unconstitutional under the Second Amendment
Snope v. Brown, (formerly Bianchi v. Brown), Case #24-203: On 8-21-2024, a petition for a writ of certiorari was filed on August 21, 2024, with the question presented being: “Whether the Constitution permits the State of Maryland to ban semiautomatic rifles that are in common use for lawful purposes, including the most popular rifle in America.”
The state of Maryland filed its brief in opposition on Nov. 11, followed by the reply brief from the Petitioners, and the case was Distributed for Conference on Dec. 13. Thus, gun owners hope SCOTUS grants certiorari and then schedules the case for oral arguments in early 2025.
Michigan: Sixth Circuit
Petition for Certiorari: Case #24-178: The petitioner’s reply brief of Nov. 5, presents a “clear split in the Circuits” concerning zoning ordinances regarding shooting ranges.
Oakland Tactical v. Howell Township: Case #23-1179: On May 31, Judges Cole, Kethledge, and White issued a 2-1 decision upholding the District Court’s decision. Kethledge was the dissenting judge. However, Judge Kethledge would relitigate the case on two issues: “first, whether training for purposes of confrontation or self-defense is limited to target shooting at certain distances ….and second, whether the Township’s restrictions on the plaintiffs’ proposed conduct is consistent with the Nation’s historical traditions of firearm regulation (which the Township thus far has not briefed at all)..
Background: The lawsuit was filed in June 2019 by Oakland Tactical, which desires to construct and maintain a shooting range facility on agricultural land within the township. The allegation was: “Howell Township has prohibited the siting, construction, and operation of shooting ranges in the town through its zoning regulations by failing to provide or allow any designated areas within the town wherein the siting, construction, or operation of a shooting range would be permissible.”.
On Sept. 10, 2020, Judge Bernard A. Friedman ruled that the defendant violated none of the plaintiff’s Second Amendment rights by denying the requested zoning amendment at issue and granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Mach 2021. On August 5, 2022, the Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded under Bruen. Following the District Court’s granting of the Township’s motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs appealed again to the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. An oral argument was held on September 8, 2023, before the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. During the oral argument, the plaintiff’s lawyer quoted the 2011 Ezell v. City of Chicago in the Seventh Circuit, a significant case dealing with firearms training. The “Ezell case held that the core individual right of armed defense includes a corresponding right to acquire and maintain Proficiency in firearm use through target practice.”The Ezell Court further stated “the city of Chicago had failed to establish that target practice is wholly unprotected as a matter of history and legal tradition in the founding era or when the 14th amendment was ratified.”
Wilson v. Hawaii: Case # 23-7517: Although SCOTUS denied certiorari on Dec. 9, the written comments by Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch should be very helpful to plaintiff Wilson in dealing with this case going forward, as well as for Second Amendment attorneys handling cases before the federal courts. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Alito, wrote:
“In New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. 1 (2022), we singled out Hawaii’s firearms-licensing regime as “analoglous]” to the New York regime we held unconstitutional. Id., at 15. We explained that States cannot condition an individual’s exercise of his Second Amendment rights on a showing of a” special need.” Id., at 70-71. Yet, the Hawaii Supreme Court ignored our holding in the decision below. See 154 Haw. 8, 543 P. 3d 440 (2024). It instead stated that petitioner Christopher Wilson could not invoke the Hawaii regime’s unconstitutionality as a defense in his criminal proceedings because he had never applied for a license. That conclusion contravenes the settled principle that Americans need not engage in empty formalities before they can invoke their constitutional rights, and it wrongly reduces the Second Amendment to a “second-class right.” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 780 (2010) (plurality opinion). Although the interlocutory posture of the petition weighs against correcting this error now, I would grant certiorari in an appropriate case to reaffirm that the Second Amendment warrants the same respect as any other constitutional right.”
Justices Thomas and Alito then proceeded to berate the Hawaii Supreme Court by writing:
“The [Hawaii Supreme Court] specifically took aim at our focus on original meaning. See id., at 19-23, 543 P. 3d, at 451-455. Bemoaning the policy consequences, the court asserted that an originalist interpretation of the Second Amendment “disables the states’ responsibility to protect public safety, reduce gun violence, and safeguard peaceful public movement,” by putting firearms restrictions “mostly out of bounds.” Id., at 22, 543 P. 3d, at 454.
“And, it denigrated the need for public carry in particular, rejecting as un-Hawaiian “a federally mandated lifestyle that lets citizens walk around with deadly weapons.” Id., at 27, 543 P. 3d, at 459. On the Hawaii Supreme Court’s view, a sounder approach to constitutional interpretation would give due regard to the “spirit of Aloha” and would preclude any individual right to bear arms….”
Finally, Justice Gorsuch adds more advice to the Hawaii Supreme Court:
“I do not mean to suggest Mr. Wilson’s Second Amendment defense has merit. I observe only that no one knows the answer to that question because the Hawaii Supreme Court failed to address it. And that failure invites with it the distinct possibility that Mr. Wilson may be convicted of, and ordered to serve time in prison for, violating an unconstitutional law. ….
“And often courts revisit and supplement interlocutory rulings later in the course of proceedings. Perhaps the Hawaii Supreme Court will take advantage of that opportunity in this case. If not, Mr. Wilson remains free to seek this Court’s review after final judgment.”
My thanks to Attorney Mark W. Smith for analyzing this late-breaking decision on his youtube channel, The Four Boxes Diner.
Background: A petition for a writ of certiorari was filed on May 25, 2024. Finally, on December 9, 2024, certiorari was denied. This lawsuit is a result of the case in which Christophe L. Wilson was charged with carrying a handgun without a license. This case is a result of a decision by the Hawaii Supreme Court:
District Court
Oregon: Ninth Circuit
Montgomery v. Rosenblum: Case # 3:24-cv-01273: On December 9, 2024, the Firearms Policy Organization announced that it had filed a combined brief opposing Oregon’s motion to dismiss and motion in the alternative in support of summary judgment in its challenge to the State’s HB 2005 ban on constitutionally protected self-manufactured arms.
Background:This case, filed in August 2024, seeks to overturn Oregon’s HB2005, passed and signed during the 2023 legislative session that bans the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer, or possession of unserialized firearms, among other things. On August 7, the defendants, the state of Oregon, filed a motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, which was denied on October 20, 2024. On October 8, 2024, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint for Declaratory, Injunctive, or Other Relief.
Washington, Ninth Circuit
Washington: State of Washington v. Gator’s Custom Guns: Case No. 23-2-00897-08: We covered this case last week. On December 9, 2024, the Firearms Policy Organization announced that it had filed a brief on this case with the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit