By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—SCOTUS: The U.S. Supreme Court is on summer recess;Snopes v. Brown: the latest petition requesting certiorari was filed on Aug. 21, 2024, and can be found here; CRPA, et al. v. LA County Sheriff’s Department: Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett granted the Plaintiffs’ Motion for a preliminary injunction regarding the delay of the two LASD individual plaintiffs and the California residency requirements for applying for CCW licenses. This is a massive win for CRPA, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and Gun Owners of America (GOA); USA v. Tamori Morgan: District Court grants motion to dismiss charge based on 18 U.S.C. § 922(o); Worth v. Jacobson: Case # 23-2248: On August 21, 2024, the state of Minnesota has been denied both a petition for rehearing en banc and by the panel; Palmer v. Lombardo (formerly Palmer v. Sisolak): Case 3:21-cv-00268: Case against NV law banning manufacturing of firearms; NAGR v. Garland: Merrick Garland and BATFE filed a motion to Stay Judgment Pending Appeal on August 1, 2024. Judge O’Connor, on August 20, 2024, DENIED that motion.
SCOTUS
Maryland: Fourth Circuit
Snopes v. Brown: 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. The case names have changed five times in three years. Bianchi v. Frosh #20-cv-3495, Bianchi v. Brown #21-1255, Bianchi v. Frosh #21-902, and Bianchi v. Brown #23-863. The groups bringing this lawsuit are the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CRKBA), and the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC). The latest petition requesting certiorari was filed on August 21, 2024, and can be found here.
Background: The original case was brought before the District Court before the Bruen decision. It was dismissed on March 4, 2021, by the District Court and, at that time, 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 Aug. 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 Jan. 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 Aug. 5, 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,” has been upheld, so now it’s back to the high court.
Circuit Court
Minnesota: Eighth Circuit
Worth v. Jacobson: Case # 23-2248: 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) has been denied both a petition for rehearing en banc and by the panel. 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.”
Nevada: Ninth Circuit:
Palmer v. Lombardo (formerly Palmer v. Sisolak): Case 3:21-cv-00268: This case was initiated on June 10, 2021, in response to the legislature passing AB 286, a bill that banned“the possession, receipt, manufacturing, and sales of Non-Firearm Objects (“NFOs”), and further bans both the possession of previously self-manufactured firearms as well as, prospectively, any further self-manufacturing of firearms.”The plaintiffs sought injunctive and regulatory relief. A video conference was held on July 16, 2021, and on July 26, Judge Miranda M. Du denied the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. On March 30, 2022, the court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss. On April 28, 2022, the plaintiffs appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit ordered a limited remand of this case on May 26, 2023. A status conference was held on December 21, 2023, to decide how to proceed in light of the remand order. On August 21, 2024, the plaintiffs and the defendants filed their proposed findings of fact. The plaintiffs’ brief explains why the ban is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment and explains why the ban is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
“This Nation has no history or tradition of regulating—much less banning—the self-manufacturing of firearms for lawful purposes.”
The case is still on appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit but is on remand due to the Bruen decision.
District Court
California: Ninth Circuit
CRPA, et al. v. LA County Sheriff’s Department Case No. 2:23-cv-10169:CRPA v. LASD: Case #2:23-cv-10169: On August 20, 2024, Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett granted the Plaintiffs’ Motion for a preliminary injunction regarding “the delay of the two LASD individual plaintiffs and the California residency requirements for applying for CCW licenses.” This is a massive win for CRPA, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and Gun Owners of America (GOA).
Background: On Dec. 4, 2023, CRPA, the Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners of California, and seven individuals sued the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD) seeking Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. They are challenging the constitutionality of the LA County policies and law primarily 1.) the lack of timely process for adjudicating carry permits, 2.) grossly excessive fees, 3.) the use of highly subjective suitability criteria, and 4.) refusal to honor permits issued by other states.
In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs expressly point out that LASD “admits that it takes ‘a year to a year and a half’ to process CCW applications.” They also note that the LaVerne Police Department (LVPD) has a “cost prohibitive” fee structure, costing the applicant $900 to $1000 depending on the varying training costs and other required services. They even point out that the price for psychological exams, if needed, was capped at $150, but since the passage of SB2, the applicant needs to pay the total cost.
Finally, they address the problem that the residents of the other 49 states who choose to visit California must be unarmed and defenseless.
“Accordingly, California’s policy of denying out-of-state residents the ability to lawfully exercise their constitutionally protected right to be armed in public for self-defense inhibits the free interstate passage of citizens and violates equal protection doctrines by treating Americans differently merely on account of their state of residency.”
The hearing was held on April 10, 2024.
Knife Rights v. Bonta: Case No.: 3:23-cv-00474-JES-DDL: On August 23, 2024, Judge James E. Simmons Jr granted the state’s motion to dismiss. Judge Simmons wrote: “The Plaintiffs’ proposed conduct cannot be covered by the Second Amendment because the weapons at issue are not commonly used for self-defense and are dangerous and unusual. The weapons thus fall outside of the scope of the Second Amendment.”
Background: On March 15, 2023, Plaintiffs commenced this action against Defendants, in their official capacities as State and City officials, challenging the constitutionality of certain
switchblades under Cal. Penal Code §§ 17235, 21510, and 21590. ECF No. 1. Both parties moved for summary judgment a year later. Oral arguments were held on May 8, 2024.
Kansas: Tenth Circuit
USA v. Tamori Morgan: Case #23-10047-JWB: Defendant Tamori Morgan was charged with two counts of possessing a machinegun violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). Judge John W. Broomes wrote: “To summarize, in this case, the government has not met its burden under Bruen and Rahimi to demonstrate through historical analogs that regulation of the weapons at issue in this case are consistent with the nation’s history of firearms regulation. Indeed, the government has barely tried to meet that burden…The motion to dismiss on Second Amendment grounds is GRANTED.”
Texas: Fifth Circuit
NAGR v. Garland: Case # 4:23-cv-00830-O: Merrick Garland and BATFE filed a motion to Stay Judgment Pending Appeal on Aug. 1. Judge Reed O’Connor, on Aug. 20, wrote:“Having considered the motion, briefing, and applicable law, the Court find the motion should be and is hereby DENIED. The Court also extends the deadline for compliance with the affirmative obligations imposed on Defendants by SIX (6) MONTHS and must be meet by February 22, 2025.”
Background: 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 O’Connor granted the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 17) to preserve the status quo until September 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, the Court 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. Judge O’Connor writes: “The Court concludes that the ATF exceeded its statutory authority by expanding definition of machinegun and subsequently classifying FRTs as machineguns.”
Additionally, Judge O’Connor suggests that the ATF uses the Chevron defense concept.
“Upon closer examination,” the judge wrote, “Defendants record-rule arguments are little more than a thinly veiled backdoor effort to import Chevron-style deference applies into this case. True, Defendants have “never claimed that Chevron deference applies in this case directly. But by limiting review to the administrative record, the functional result is the equivalent of Chevron deference. Following the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, a court may not defer to an agency’s interpretation of the law— even an ambiguous law— given the APA’s requirement that “court must exercise independent judgment.”
