By Tayna Metaksa
What’s New—Scotus has four conference days scheduled this month: Gray v. Jennings: Case No: 24-309: On Oct. 28, 2024, a response was requested with a due date of November 27; Snope v. Brown (formerly known as Maryland Shall Issue v. Montgomery County) filed their response from the state of Maryland (Snope) on November 18, 2024; Ziegenfuss v. McGraw: The case against Texas law that criminalizes possession of firearms in specific locations; Belt v. City of Savannah: A lawsuit against The City of Savannah, GA’s, ordinance regulating the storage of firearms in a motor vehicle.
SCOTUS
Certiorari: The first four Fridays in November are listed as conference days, with order list issuance days on November 18 and 25. Several cases requesting certiorari were scheduled:
Gray v. Jennings: Case No: 24-309: Petition for writ of certiorari was filed September 16, 2024; On Oct. 28, 2024, SCOTUS told Delaware that they are required to respond to the petition for certiorari by November 27. Thus, it is unlikely that any decision will be made before December, if not later. The state of West Virginia and 17 other states have filed an amicus in favor of cert. There is a split between the Third Circuit and the Seventh and Ninth Circuits on the question before the court—Whether the infringement of Second Amendment rights constitutes per se irreparable injury. The Second Amendment Foundation has a webpage about this case, which states:
Noting in their petition that the high court has previously ruled that “the loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury,” SAF and its partners ask the court to determine whether the same standard applies to the Second Amendment. “All rights protected by the Constitution are equal,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “and therefore any infringements on one right should merit the same degree of scorn as infringements against another right.”
Snope v. Brown (formerly known as Maryland Shall Issue v. Montgomery County) filed their response from the state of Maryland (Snope) on Nov. 18, 2024. Hopefully, a decision may be forthcoming before the end of the year. As we noted in the Sept. 9, 2024, Judicial Report, an amicus brief by a group of Second Amendment scholars, including CRPA, the Second Amendment Defense and Education Foundation, and others, wrote:
Our nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation affirms a clear principle: the most commonly owned semi-automatic rifles and their components cannot be banned. Today, such rifles include the AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles. Banning these popular rifles would be as unprecedented as banning muskets and Kentucky rifles in the Founding Era or Winchester rifles and Colt revolvers during Reconstruction. So-called “assault weapon” bans not only lack support from our historical tradition; they stand in direct opposition to it.
However, the response from the state of Maryland just reiterated their same argument
the court recounted most of what it had explained in Kolbe, including the AR-15’s development as a powerful combat-tested military rifle and its transition into the civilian market in the 1970s. Pet. App. 31a-32a. The court then explained how “[t]he civilian versions of the AR-15 have not strayed far from the rifle’s military origin,” including with regard to its powerful muzzle velocity, its long range and accuracy, and the amount of kinetic energy it can deliver upon impact.
Additionally, Maryland dismissed the petitioner’s argument that AR15s are arms within the meaning of the Second Amendment and account for 20% of all firearms sales. Now, we wait for SCOTUS to decide whether to grant certiorari.
District Court
Texas: Fifth Circuit
Ziegenfuss v. McGraw: Case 23-cv-01049-P: The case was brought on Oct. 28, 2024, by the Firearms Policy Coalition in the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas against Texas Penal Code § 46.03 (“Section 46.03”) that criminalizes possession of firearms at, among other locations: (a) businesses where alcohol accounts for 51% of the business’ sales, (b) racetracks, and (c) sporting events. They seek a declaratory judgment against this law and permanent injunctive relief.
State Court
Belt v. City of Savannah: SPCV24-00555-KA: The City of Savannah, GA, recently enacted an ordinance (No.9-1028) that regulates the storage of firearms in a motor vehicle. The defendant, Clarence Belt, is a frequent visitor to Savannah who carries a firearm for self-defense and cannot comply with the ordinance requirements. On May 1, 2024, he filed this lawsuit requesting an interlocutory injunction while his case against the ordinance is pending. He alleges that the ordinance violates Georgia’s firearm preemption statute. On July 9, 2024, several plaintiffs were added to the complaint.
