By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—SCOTUS: Garland v. Cargill: 6-3 decision—Stephen Halbrook article on this case; United States v. Rahimi: Decided June 21. 2024; 8-1 in favor of the US government; Benton v. Platkin: Case # 1:24-cv—7-98: On June 18, Christopher Benton, Coalition of New Jersey Gun Owners, Gun Owners of America, and Gun Owners Foundation sued the government for failure to issue three applied for Purchases to Purchase within the statutory required 30 days; Fouts v. Bonta: This case is back to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit after four years of back and forth; Wilson v. State of Hawaii: Case No. 23-7517: Brief of National Association For Gun Rights As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Petitioner was filed on June 14.
SCOTUS
2024-06-24 Writs of Certiorari:
Guedes v. BATFE: Case No. 22-1222: The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for further consideration in light of Garland v. Cargill, 602 U. S. ___ (2024).
Garland v. Hardin: Case No. 23-62: Certiorari Denied. Since the Department of Justice lost at the Appeals court in this bump stock case, the case is over.
United States v. Rahimi: Case: 22-915. Decided June 21.
In an 8-1 decision, with Justice Clarence Thomas casting the only Nay vote and Chief Justice John Roberts authoring the opinion, SCOTUS ruled:
“When an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed, which is consistent with the Second Amendment.”
Unfortunately, Chief Justice John Roberts went on to say,
“The Second Amendment permits more than just those regulations identical to ones that could be found in 1791. Holding otherwise would be as mistaken as applying the protections of the right only to muskets and sabers…An individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment…The Second Amendment permits more than just those regulations identical to ones that could be found in 1791. Holding otherwise would be as mistaken as applying the protections of the right only to muskets and sabers.”
In a very well-written editorial in the Wall Street Journal, the writers discuss how the concurring opinions of Justices Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh understood the case.
Justice Thomas wrote in his dissent:
“Not a single historical regulation justifies the statute at issue, 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(8). Therefore, I respectfully dissent…”In addition, §922(g)(8) strips an individual of his ability to possess firearms and ammunition without any due process. “Rather, the ban is an automatic, uncontestable consequence of certain orders. See §922(g) (‘It shall be unlawful for any [qualifying] person [to] possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition’). There is no hearing or opportunity to be heard on the statute’s applicability, and a court need not decide whether a person should be disarmed under §922(g)(8). The only process §922(g)(8) requires is that provided (or not) for the underlying restraining order.”
In this dissent, Justice Thomas describes the methodology used by Heller and Bruen. He then finds the Roberts decision flawed because it was based on earlier surety and affray laws. Unfortunately, this is a dissent, not a concurrence.
Background: At the end of the 2022-2023 term, SCOTUS granted certiorari in United States v. Rahimi. This case dealt with 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), a federal law that bans anyone subject to a domestic violence restraining order from firearms possession. The Fifth Circuit ruled that Section 022(g)(8) was unconstitutional under Bruen, and the DOJ appealed to SCOTUS. The hearing was held on December 7, 2023.
Garland v. Cargill: Case No. 22-976. Decided June 14, 2024
Last week, we covered this vital case regarding bump stocks. Second Amendment Litigator Attorney Stephen Halbrook wrote a comprehensive analysis of this case on reason.com. In his analysis, he makes three important points:
1. First, it is settled once and for all that a semiautomatic is not a machinegun.
2. Justice Sotomayor referred to AR-15s as “commonly available, semiautomatic rifles.”
3. Cargill was decided solely on the statutory text. It is not a Second Amendment issue but an administrative one. As the Court stated. “On more than 10 separate occasions over several administrations, ATF consistently concluded that rifles equipped with bump stocks cannot ‘automatically fire more than one shot ‘by a single function of the trigger.’
Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed:
Wilson v. State of Hawaii: Case No. 23-7517: Brief of National Association For Gun Rights As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Petitioner was filed on June 14, 2024.
Circuit Court
California: Ninth Circuit
Fouts v. Bonta: Case 3:19-cv-01662-BEN-JLB: On May 8, 2024, the State of California appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and filed their opening brief. On June 7, 2024, the Appellees Answering Brief was filed.
Background: This case was initially filed on September 1, 2019, and assigned to Judge Roger Benitez. A year later, a motion for summary judgment was filed. As a result of the COVID restrictions, the date for a hearing was rescheduled five times. On Sept. 22, 2021, Judge Roger Benitez ruled that the Billy club was not in common use and the regulation was long-standing. Following the two-step process, Judge Benitez denied the motion for Summary Judgment. The case was appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On Sept. 22, 2022, after the Supreme Court decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen, the California Attorney General remanded this case to the District Court. On remand, the district court reversed course and struck down Section 22210 as applied to Billie’s. On Feb. 23, the state appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
District Court
New Jersey: Second Circuit
Benton v. Platkin: Case # 1:24-cv—7-98: On June 18, Christopher Benton, Coalition of New Jersey Gun Owners, Gun Owners of America, and Gun Owners Foundation sued the government for failure to issue three applied for Purchases to Purchase within the statutory required 30 days. Dave Workman covered this story on June 20.
