By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—SCOTUS: Argument in March 2024—National Rifle Association v. Vullo: oral arguments set for Monday, March 18; In the case of Garland v. VanDerStok: Case No. 23-10718, a response to the certiorari petition was scheduled by March 8, 2023, the Court did not address this case at that time. NYSRPA v. Bruen: On March 8, the winning team filed a Memorandum of Law in Support of the Motion to Enforce the Court’s Judgement. In other words, New York has not paid the $447,700.82 owed; Nguyen v. Bonta: Federal Judge William Q. Hayes issued an order on March 11, in favor of the plaintiffs; Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association, Inc. v. Delaware Department of Safety and Homeland Security: US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held a hearing on this case; Ohio: Court of Appeals Twelfth Appellate District of Ohio: Lazor v. Souders: An online stalking case where the Ohio Appellate Court dismisses the firearms confiscation; Duncan v. Bonta: Case No.: 23-55805: A hearing date before the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit en banc is set for March 19; Bianchi v. Brown: Case No. #23-863. In an order dated March 5, 2023, a hearing date was scheduled for March 20, 2024.
SCOTUS
Argument scheduled for March
National Rifle Association v. Vullo: Oral arguments are scheduled for Monday, March 18, 2024.
The Counsel of Record is Eugene Volokh, well-known to most people in the firearms and Second Amendment Community. Assisting Mr. Volokh will be a litigator from the ACLU since this case is not a Second Amendment case, but a case dealing with First Amendment issues. Seven amicus briefs representing 40 individuals and organizations, including the ACLU, were filed in support. The question to be resolved is:
Case: 22-842 SCOTUS has granted certiorari on the following question: “Does the First Amendment allow a government regulator to threaten regulated entities with adverse regulatory actions if they do business with a controversial speaker, as a consequence of (a) the government’s hostility to the speaker’s viewpoint or (b) a perceived “general backlash” against the speaker’s advocacy?”
March Conference Dates
The SCOTUS 2024 calendar has March conference dates listed as March 1,15, 22 and 28. In the case of Garland v. VanDerStok: Case No. 23-10718, a response to the certiorari petition was scheduled by March 8, 2023, which the Court did not address in this case. This lawsuit opposes BATFE’s new rule concerning the treatment of “receiver blanks, unfinished frames or receivers, or 80% frames or receivers.” On March 7, 2024, briefs from VanDerStok and an amicus brief from the District of Columbia, NJ, PA, et al were filed.
DISTRICT COURTS
NYSRPA v. Bruen: On March 8, the winning team filed a Memorandum of Law in Support of the Motion to Enforce the Court’s Judgement. As the Attorney’s feeds and costs were granted on September 22, 2023, the plaintiffs have made several attempts to have New York state pay the total amount due of $447,700.82. In this court filing, the winning plaintiffs allege they were promised the funds by March 8 and yet nothing has been received.
California: Ninth Circuit
Nguyen v. Bonta: Case 3:20-cv-02470-WQH-MMP: This case includes the following plaintiffs—The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), North County Shooting Center, San Diego County Gun Owners Pac, and others—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.”
Background: This case was filed on December 18, 2020, against California’s One-Gun-A-Month purchase law. On Jan. 5, 2023, the court ordered “additional expert discovery” and then 11 more months passed until oral arguments were held on Dec. 6, 2023.
COURTS OF APPEAL
California: Ninth Circuit
Duncan v. Bonta: Case No.: 23-55805: A hearing date before the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit en banc is set for March 19, 2024.
Background: (large capacity magazines) This lawsuit deals with a CA law passed in 2016 that banned the mere possession of magazines with over ten rounds. On March 29, 2019 US District Court for the Southern District of California in Duncan v. Becerra ruled that “Magazines holding more than 10 rounds are ‘arms’” and “California Penal Code § 32310 is hereby declared to be unconstitutional in its entirety and shall be enjoined.” The case was then appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on November 30, 2021, overturned the District Court decision using a two-step framework. The Plaintiffs then appealed to the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) for certiorari. On August 1, 2022, after the Bruen decision had been rendered SCOTUS granted certiorari, vacated and remanded for further consideration. The case was then remanded to the District Court and Judge Benitez. Briefs were filed by both sides. The state’s listing of all relevant statutes (their brief) can be found here and the CRPA (plaintiffs brief) is here. Finally, on September 22, 2022, Judge Roger T. Benitez ordered an injunction against California’s ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. On October 13, 2023, CRPA sent out a press release saying that they were going to SCOTUS with an emergency petition to end the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit’s en banc decision to stay Judge Benitez’s decision to enjoin the enforcement of California’s magazine ban.
Delaware: Third Circuit
Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association, Inc. v. Delaware Department of Safety and Homeland Security: Case Number: 23-1633, 23-1634, 23-1641. A hearing was held on March 11, before Judges Bibas, Montgomery-Reeves, and Roth. According to attorney Mark W. Smith, the hearing was overly concerned with why Judge Andrews had denied the plaintiffs their motion for a preliminary injunction.
Background: Two cases challenging the 2022 Delaware gun laws, Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association v. Delaware Dept. of Safety and Gray v. Jennings, were consolidated in December 2022, and on March 27, Judge Richard G. Andrews denied the plaintiff’s motions for a preliminary injunction. The case is now on appeal before the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. A coalition of 20 Republican attorneys general has filed an amicus brief on July 10, 2023. In this brief, the attorneys general wrote,“Because HB 450 and SS 1 both regulate conduct covered by the ‘plain text’ of the Second Amendment—’ keep[ing] and bear[ing] Arms,’ see U.S. Const. amend. II—they are presumptively unconstitutional.”
Maryland: Fourth Circuit
Bianchi v. Brown: Case No. #23-863. In an order dated March 5, 2023, the court wrote:
“This case is scheduled for oral argument on March 20, 2024. The parties are directed to file supplemental briefs specifically addressing the following issues:
Whether the inquiry into a weapon’s “common use” occurs at the first step or second step of the framework articulated in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022). In answering that question, the parties are to address who has the burden of establishing a weapon’s “common use.”
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, SCOTUS vacated and remanded the case back to the Fourth Circuit. It was reopened on August 1 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 rehearing en banc is granted.” On Feb. 8, 2024, a petition for writ of certiorari with SCOTUS was filed on Feb. 8, 2024, and is still pending.
STATE COURTS
State Court decisions are only valid in the issued State
Ohio: Court of Appeals Twelfth Appellate District of Ohio
Lazor v. Souders: 2024-Ohio-774
In a case of online stalking, the plaintiff, Anna Lazor, is accusing Souders of internet stalking and seeking an Ohio civil stalking protection order (CSPO). That section of Ohio law governing a CSPO includes a requirement for the “stalker” to use or threaten to use a firearm, as well as referencing 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8). The Ohio Court of Appeals opined that “it is undisputed that the parties have never met in person and that the only personal contact between them occurred during the full hearing. Under any definition of the term, Lazor is not and never was an “intimate partner” of the appellant. Therefore, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8) does not apply and does not support the imposition of the firearm restriction. We further find that the evidence in the record does not support the imposition of the firearm restriction under R.C. 2903.214(E)(1).” {R.C. 2903.214(E)(1) is the Ohio statute} The Court continued, “No evidence was presented that appellant even owned a firearm. The firearm restriction therefore does not bear a sufficient nexus to the conduct the trial court was attempting to prevent.” This March 7 article by Eugene Volokh discusses this case.
