By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—SCOTUS: The U.S. Supreme Court is on summer recess; Mexico v. Smith & Wesson: certiorari request before SCOTUS; Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island: on Aug. 4, the plaintiffs filed for a writ of certiorari. Nguyen v. Bonta: Case 3:20-cv-02470: Ninth Circuit Case 24-2035: Three days after the oral argument, the three-judge panel removed the stay granted by the Circuit Court; Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition (FRAC) and Franklin Armory v. BATFE: Eighth Circuit reverses and remands case;
SCOTUS
Smith & Wesson v. Mexico: Case # 23-1141: On April 22, this case was docketed when Smith & Wesson petitioned SCOTUS for certiorari. On July 17, the case was distributed for the conference of September 30, 2024.11 Amici briefs were filed in support of Smith & Wesson. On August 8, 2024, lawyer Noel Francisco, former Solicitor General under President Donald Trump, wrote a letter to SCOTUS that states: “So just as before, leading members of the American firearms industry are facing years of litigation costs and the specter of business-crushing liability. And just as before, this Court’s review is warranted now because Congress made clear in PLCAA that this sort of lawfare against any law-abiding firearms industry member has no business in American courts and must be promptly dismissed.”
Background: In 2021, the Government of Mexico decided to sue American gun companies in the First Circuit, an anti-Second Amendment Circuit, because American guns were causing violence in Mexico. A federal district court judge dismissed the case against virtually all the defendants except Smith & Wesson and Interstate Arms, two companies whose businesses were located in Massachusetts.
Rhode Island: First Circuit
Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island: On March 7, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld Judge McConnell Jr.’s denial of a Temporary Injunction; the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit found: “In concluding that plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on any of their constitutional claims, the district court reasoned that HB 6614 did not violate the Second Amendment because plaintiffs failed to prove that “LCMs are ‘Arms’ within the meaning of the Second Amendment’s text.”
As a result on Aug. 4, the plaintiffs filed for a writ of certiorari. SCOTUS has granted the State of Rhode Island its second motion to extend the time to file a response to Nov. 5.
Background: The plaintiffs appealed Judge John James McConnell Jr’s denial of their request for a Temporary Injunction against the Rhode Island ban of magazines greater than 10 rounds to the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Over a dozen gun-related cases currently have petitions for certiorari pending. Most are distributed for a conference on September 30, 2024.
Circuit Court
California: Ninth Circuit
Nguyen v. Bonta: Case 3:20-cv-02470: Ninth Circuit Case 24-2035: Three days after the oral argument, the three-judge panel removed the stay granted by the Circuit Court. We now await the decision on the merits of the case.
Background: This case was filed on Dec. 18, 2020, against California’s One-Gun-A-Month purchase law. On Jan. 5, 2023, the court ordered “additional expert discovery,” then 11 more months passed until oral arguments were held on Dec. 6, 2023. This case includes the plaintiffs—The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), North County Shooting Center, San Diego County Gun Owners Pac, and others who —challenged the California One-Gun-A-Month purchase law. It was decided by Federal Judge William Q. Hayes on March 11, 2024, in favor of the plaintiffs. SAF Executive Director announced the decision, stating: “There is nothing in the Second Amendment remotely connected to limiting the number of firearms a person can purchase. This limitation is blatantly unconstitutional, and if this ruling is appealed by the State of California, we intend to defend the lower court’s correct decision.”
Judge Hayes issued a judgment on March 28, and stayed his order for 30 days. The law will remain in effect until April 27. California filed an Emergency Motion under Circuit Court Rule 27-3 for a stay pending appeal on April 4. On April 24, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted the stay. Oral arguments were held on Aug. 14.
North Dakota: Eighth Circuit
Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition (FRAC) and Franklin Armory v. BATFE: Case #23-3230: On August 9, 2024, the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Background ruled: “The district court denied the Coalition’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The Coalition appeals that denial. We conclude the Coalition is likely to succeed on the merits of its arbitrary-and-capricious challenge, so we reverse and remand to the district court.”
As a result, the case will go back to the District Court for a new decision.
Background: In January 2023, this suit was filed in the US District Court for the Western District of North Dakota. The plaintiffs allege that the BATFE misclassified Franklin Armory’s FA1-15 Antithesis as a “short-barreled rifle (SBR)” under both the National Firearms Act (NFA) and the Gun Control Act (GCA). The defendants have moved to dismiss, and in April, the plaintiffs motioned for summary judgment. On May 5, BATFE sent a letter to Franklin Armory changing the classification of “the Reformation firearms to classify each as a “shotgun” under both the GCA and the NFA.” Before this letter, these firearms were not considered NFA firearms. On June 1, plaintiffs notified the court of supplemental authority in Texas v. ATF and Mock v. Garland. In the District Court case, Judge Daniel Hovland denied an Administrative Stay of Agency Action on Sept. 12, 2023; on Oct. 12, 2023, he declined to alter his previous judgment. As a result, this decision was appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. At the Eighth Circuit court, the plaintiffs filed motions for injunction pending appeal, which were denied on Jan. 2, 2024. On March 14, this case was argued before a three-judge panel comprised of Judges Raymond W. Gruender, Bobby E. Shepherd, and L. Steven Grasz.
District Court
New Jersey: Second Circuit
FPC: Cheeseman v. Platkin: Case # 1:22-cv-04360 and Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs v. Platkin: Case #18-10507: On July 30, District Judge Peter G. Sheridan ruled on this combined case that dealt with New Jersey’s assault weapons. In a strange decision, Judge 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 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.
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 Feb. 6, 2023. In that decision, Judge Sheridan noted the NJ Attorney General’s propensity for “moving the goalposts.”
