By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—SCOTUS: Two cases, Snope v. Brown Case No. 24-203 (semi-automatic firearms ban) and Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island Case No. 24-131 (large capacity magazines) were scheduled for conference on Jan. 10 and 17 and both times were rescheduled…they have again been put on the schedule for Jan. 24, this Friday. NAGR v. Garland: Case # 24-10707: On Jan. 16, 2024, Attorneys General from 16 states requested to intervene as Defendants-Appellants, and were denied; May v. Bonta & Carralero v. Bonta: Case 23-4354 and 23-4356: The decision of the three-judge panel was published on Jan. 15; at the same time, a request for a rehearing en banc was denied; Lowy v. Daniel Defense: Case No. 24-1822: US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: National Rifle Association for Legislative Action has filed an amicus brief in this case supporting Danel Defense on First Amendment grounds; Lara v. Pennsylvania: Case No. 21-1832: On Jan. 13, 2024, US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit after remand from the Supreme Court of the United States December 2, 2024, decided the care in favor of the plaintiff again; Peter v. Lopez: Case 24-cv-00508: This case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, allowed acitizen of the Federated States of Micronesia to buy and possess a firearm while residing in Honolulu; Washington: Washington Supreme Court: State of Washington v. Gator’s Guns: Case No. #102940-3 The oral argument before the Washington Supreme Court occurred last week.
SCOTUS
Absent from the list of cases considered were the following two cases that had been scheduled for conference earlier this month, and currently rescheduled for the Jan. 24 conference.
Snope v. Brown, formerly Bianchi v. Brown, Case #24-203: This case, concerning banning semiautomatic rifles, has been rescheduled by SCOTUS several times. Background: 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 November 11, 2024, followed by the petitioners’ reply brief. The case was distributed for conferences in December 2024, and again twice this month.
Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island: Case No. 24-131: Similar to Snope v. Brown, the Supreme Court has ordered that the case be rescheduled. Background: On March 7, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld Judge McConnell Jr.’s denial of a temporary injunction. The court concluded that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on any constitutional claims, reasoning that HB 6614 did not violate the Second Amendment, as the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that “LCMs are ‘arms’ within the meaning of the Second Amendment’s text.” Consequently, on Aug. 4, 2024 the plaintiffs filed for a writ of certiorari. They had previously appealed Judge John James McConnell Jr.’s denial of their request for a temporary injunction against the Rhode Island ban on magazines holding more than ten rounds to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Similarly, this case was distributed for Conferences on Jan. 10 and 17.
Case waiting for Oral Argument before SCOTUS:
Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos: Docket No. 23-1141: On Dec. 3, the Second Amendment Foundation filed an expanded amicus brief supporting Smith & Wesson. A date for the argument has been set before SCOTUS on March 4.
U.S. Court of Appeals
California: Ninth Circuit
May v. Bonta & Carralero v. Bonta: Case 23-4354 and 23-4356: The decision of the three-judge panel was published on Jan. 15; simultaneously, a request for a rehearing en banc was denied. The three-judge panel allowed the carrying of firearms in the following places: 1. banks & financial institutions and their parking lots; 2. parking lots shared with government buildings and non-governmental institutions; 3. hospitals and similar medical facilities; 4. public transportation areas; 5—gatherings that require a permit; and 6. places of worship. The California default rule was deemed unconstitutional, but the Hawaii default rule was declared constitutional.
Background: The hearing before a 3-judge panel—Judges Mary Schroeder, Susan Graber, and Jennifer Sung—was held on April 11, 2024. The three judges questioned the California Department of Justice attorney concerning a possible split between Circuits due to the Antonyuk v. Chiumento case in the Second Circuit. The two attorneys for the Second Amendment plaintiffs were quite clear in why the Antonyuk decision on the preliminary injunction was incorrect. However, the three judges all appeared to favor California’s expansion of “sensitive places” as provided in SB2. This lawsuit was initiated on Sept. 12, 2023 after the passage of SB2, a Bruen-response bill creating “sensitive places” where firearms are not allowed. Plaintiffs include CRPA, GOA, SAF, and others. The court hearing was rescheduled for Dec. 20, 2023, but on Dec. 30, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 3-judge Motions panel stayed the District Court’s injunction in the combined cases of Carralero v. Bonta and May v. Bonta. Thus, on Jan. 1, 2024, SB2 became effective and prohibited those with carry permits from carrying in “specific sensitive places.” On Jan. 6, 2024, the Merits panel reinstated the injunction ordered by District Judge Cormack J. Carney and denied the state of California’s motion for a stay.
New Jersey: Second Circuit
FPC: Cheeseman v. Platkin: 24-2450 Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs v. Platkin: Case 2402415: and Ellman v,. Platkin: Case No: 24-2506: On Jan. 8, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit filed its brief supporting the Assault weapons ban and the ban on magazines over 10 rounds. The main thrust of the NJ argument is that the state has a responsibility to protect residents from mass shootings and dangerous weapons. They further argue that the burden of proof that a firearm is in common use is the plaintiffs’ responsibility.
Background: Background: The first complaint was filed on June 30, 2022. It read: “New Jersey applies the pejorative label of “assault firearm” to a large number of constitutionally protected firearms and criminalizes their possession. N.J. STAT. ANN. §§ 2C:39-1(w), 2C:39-5(f).”
The case was consolidated with the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs v. Platking and the Ellman, Rogers, and Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs v. Platkin on February 6, 2023. In that decision, Judge Sheridan noted the NJ Attorney General’s propensity for “moving the goalposts.”
On July 30, 2024, District Judge Peter G. Sheridan held that: “AR-15 Provision of [New Jersey’s] Assault Firearms Law is unconstitutional under Bruen and Heller as to the Colt AR-15 for the use of self-defense within the home.”
However, Judge Sheridan upheld the magazine ban. The decision has been stayed while both the plaintiffs and the defendants appeal the case.
Texas: Fifth Circuit
NAGR v. Garland: Case # 24-10707: On Jan. 16, 2024 Attorneys General from 16 states requested to intervene as Defendants-Appellants, supporting the state of Oregon. This coalition sought this unusual appeal, arguing in their brief that “federal defendants can no longer be relied upon to defend the Final Rule” and claiming that if the new rule is invalidated, there would be “significant harms” in their states while overlooking the considerable harms that arise from the rule itself. The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit wasted no time denying these requests.
Background: District Case # 4:23-cv-00830-O: On Aug. 9, 2023 this lawsuit was filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas. It was filed to seek declaratory and injunctive relief to end BATFE’s efforts to misclassify Forced Reset Triggers as Machine guns under the National Firearms Act of 1934. On Aug. 30, 2023, Judge Reed O’Connor granted the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 17) to preserve the status quo until Sept. 27, 2023 or until such time that the Court rules on the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 22). The Defendants are enjoined from implementing the “ATF’s expanded definition of “machine-gun” against Plaintiffs Carey, Speegle and Wheeler.
In a 64-page ruling on July 23, 2024 Judge O’Connor declared BATFE’s reclassification of Forced Reset Triggers (FRT) unconstitutional, not based on Second Amendment rights but on agency powers granted to the agency by-laws passed by Congress. Both sides have filed briefs in the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The brief by the appellees, NAGR, Texas Gun Rights, and individual plaintiffs is available here.
Virginia: Fourth Circuit:
Lowy v. Daniel Defense: Case No. 24-1822: US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: Four organizations that oppose Second Amendment rights: Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Everytown for Gun Safety, Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence and Global Action on Gun Violence filed an amicus curiae brief on Nov. 4, 2024. The National Rifle Association for Legislative Action has filed an amicus brief in this case supporting the First Amendment rights of firearms manufacturers to post non-commercial messages on social media.
Background: Case No. 1:23-cv-01338. Karen Lowy brought this case as a result of her being struck by a bullet during a school shooting on April 22, 2022, in Washington, D.C. On July 24, 2024, Judge Claude Hilton dismissed the case in favor of the defendant. As a result, the case was appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Pennsylvania: Third Circuit
Lara v. Pennsylvania: Case No. 21-1832: On January 13, 2024, US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit after remand from the Supreme Court of the United States December 2, 2024: “It is now hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Judgment of the District Court entered on April 16, 2021, is hereby REVERSED and REMANDED.”
After the Supreme Court reviewed the Third Circuit Court of Appeals’ original decision and vacated and remanded the case to be reheard in light of Rahimi, the Appeals Court reaffirmed its previous opinion, once more striking down Pennsylvania’s laws preventing 18-to-20-year-old adults from openly carrying a loaded firearm outside their homes during a declared state of emergency.
Background: This case began before the Bruen decision and was stopped for six months while SCOTUS decided Bruen. It was first filed on Oct. 16, 2020. Then, a motion for a preliminary injunction was filed on Dec. 1, 2020. The final order by Judge William B. Stickman denying the motion for a preliminary injunction and granting the state of Pennsylvania’s motion to dismiss was issued on April 16, 2021. The Plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal on April 23, 2021. Then came Bruen. In July 2022, the case at the Circuit Court had to be reargued with the new SCOTUS guidelines in mind.The District Court ruled against the plaintiffs, and they appealed to theUS Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. A three-judge panel of that Court issued this opinion on Jan. 18, 2024: “The words ‘the people’ in the Second Amendment presumptively encompass all adult Americans, including 18- to 20-year-olds, and we are aware of no founding-era law that supports disarming people in that age group. Accordingly, we will reverse and remand.”
Effect on other cases: Currently, there is a case, Young v. Ott, that challenges Pennsylvania’s ban on handgun carry permits for individuals aged 18-20. The judge has issued a stay pending Lara’s outcome. It’s interesting to see how the Young v. Ott case progresses.
District Court
Hawaii: Ninth Circuit
Peter v. Lopez: Case 24-cv-00508: This case, filed on 11/27/24 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, seeks protection under the Second Amendment for Billy Peter, a resident of Hawaii and a citizen of the Federated States of Micronesia, allowing him to buy and possess a firearm while residing in Honolulu.
State Court
Washington: Washington Supreme Court:
Washington v. Gator’s Guns: Case No. #102940-3 The oral argument before the Washington Supreme Court occurred last week. You can listen to the argument here. This case involved the state’s 2 1/2-year-old magazine ban on magazines holding over 10 rounds. The state’s main argument for upholding the law is that magazines have little utility for self-defense and are often misused in mass shootings.
Background: This lawsuit was filed after the passage of ESSB5078 in 2022, making magazines holding more than 10 rounds illegal. The original lawsuit was decided on April 8, 2024, by Judge Gary D. Bashor, who ruled that “the Court specifically finds the Consumer Protection sections of ESSB 5078 unconstitutional. Almost immediately, the Supreme Court of Washinton issued a stay, A similar case is making its way through the federal court system in Washington state: Sullivan v. Ferguson: Case No.3:22-cv-05403-DGE
