By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—SCOTUS: The U.S. Supreme Court is on summer recess.Garland v. VanDerStok: Case No. 23-10718: Many groups, especially the anti-gun groups, are filing amicus briefs in this case with a hearing scheduled on Oct. 8: Commissioner v. Lara: A petition for a writ of certiorari was filed by the state of Pennsylvania on July 25, 2024; Bevis v. City of Naperville; Bianchi v. Williamson. On August 5, 2024, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) announced they were again filing a writ of certiorari with SCOTUS challenging the Fourth Circuit’s ruling; Lane v. Rocah: On August 2, 2024, New York filed a request for an Oral Argument; Mock v. Garland: Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition (FRAC) and Franklin Armory v. BATFE:
SCOTUS
Garland v. VanDerStok: Case No. 23-10718:
Although the U.S. Supreme Court is on summer recess, many groups, especially the anti-gun groups, are filing amicus briefs in cases SCOTUS has agreed to hear in the 2024-2025 term. The National Association of Counties, NACo, has filed one such amicus brief in conjunction with the National League of Cities and the International Municipal Lawyers Association. Their reasoning can be found here. The SCOTUS hearing is scheduled for October 8, 2024.
Background: 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 filed in June.
Commissioner v. Lara: Pennsylvania filed a petition for a writ of certiorari on July 25, 2024, in this challenge to Pennsylvania statutes that deny 18 to 20-year-olds the right to carry firearms in public during a state of emergency. The Response is due August 29, 2024.
Lara v. Commissioner Pennsylvania State Police:As a result of the ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on April 24, 2024, Judge William S. Stickman, IV of the US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, ordered: “The Commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Police (“Commissioner”) is hereby ENJOINED from arresting law-abiding persons 18 to 20 years old who openly carry firearms during a state of emergency declared by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.”
Background: This case is one of those cases that began before the Bruen decision and was stopped for six months while SCOTUS decided Bruen. It was first filed on October 16, 2020. Then, a motion for a preliminary injunction was filed on December 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 January 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.”
On March 27, 2024, an en banc hearing was denied. Thus, the three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversal of the District Court stands. According to @2Aupdates, the vote was 7-6, with every Obama and Biden appointee voting to grant the en banc petition.
Currently, there are over a dozen gun-related cases with petitions for certiorari pending. Most are distributed for conference on September 30, 2024.
Circuit Court
Illinois: Seventh Circuit
Bevis v. City of Naperville: Bevis & National Association for Gun Rights v. Naperville: A status report hearing is set for September 5, 2024.
Background: On December 14, 2023, SCOTUS did not issue a temporary injunction against the Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA) after NAGR had applied for a writ of injunction to Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
Texas: Fifth Circuit
Mock v. Garland: Consolidated Cases: Case # 4:23-cv-00095: On August 12, 2024, the U.S. Government formally appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
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 Plaintiff’s 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.”
District Court
Maryland: Fourth Circuit
Bianchi v. Williamson. On Aug. 5, 2024, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) announced they were again filing a writ of certiorari with SCOTUS challenging the Fourth Circuit’s ruling.
Background: This is a case against Maryland’s “assault weapons” ban law brought by the Second Amendment Foundation, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and the Firearms Policy Coalition on Dec. 1, 2021, In the US District Court for the District of Maryland. It was dismissed on March 4, 2021, and was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. After the Bruen decision in June 2022, SCOTUS vacated and remanded the case to the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, reopened the case on August 1, 2022, and oral arguments were held on Dec. 6, 2022. Thirteen months after oral arguments were heard, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an Order on January 12, 2024, that read, “that rehearing en banc is granted…This case is tentatively calendared for oral argument during the next available argument session.” Because this case was not calendared, the plaintiffs requested certiorari at SCOTUS, which was denied in May. On August 5, 2024, the Fourth Circuit’s en banc decision in which judges for the majority wrote: “The assault weapons at issue fall outside the ambit of protection offered by the Second Amendment because, in essence, they are military-style weapons designed for sustained combat operations that are ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense.”
New York: Second Circuit
Lane v. Rocah: Case No. 7:22-cv-10989: On August 2, 2024, New York filed a request for an Oral Argument while at the same time arguing that the features such as detachable magazines and the seven “characteristics” listed in the assault weapons ban are not “arms.”
Background: On December 30, 2022, J. Mark Lane and James Sears filed a complaint against New York State’s so-called assault weapons ban, seeking a permanent injunction. Attorney General James, a defendant in this case, spent the better part of a year getting removed from this case. The case became Lane v. Rocah. Then, the remaining defendants tried to get the judge to deny the plaintiffs’ standing in this case. On January 4, 2024, the defendants’ motions were denied, and a schedule of new motion dates was set. On January 22, 2024, Superintendent of NY State Police Chiumento requested Judge Kenneth M. Karas for a stay pending the Second Circuit case of NAGR v. Lamont. On a copy of the plaintiff’s letter opposing a stay, Judge Karas wrote, “The Court will not impose a stay. Defendants are to explain, in a letter due by 1/30/24, what discovery they need and how long they need to obtain it. Plaintiffs are to respond by 2/2/24.” On March 15, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a memorandum of law in support of the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. In May, the Office of the Attorney General requested to expand their memoranda to fifty pages, which was denied. Thus, on May 15, both Defendant District Attorney Miriam E. Rocah’s Memorandum of Law Joining Defendant Steven G. James’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross-motion for Summary Judgment and Superintendent James’ Memorandum Of Law In Opposition To Plaintiffs’ Motion For Summary Judgment And In Support Of His Cross-Motion For Summary Judgment was delivered to the Court.