By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—SCOTUS: The U.S. Supreme Court returns from summer recess; California: Ninth Circuit three-judge panel: May v, Bonta, Carmaker v, Bonta and Wolford v. Lopez: Case No 23-16164;a partial win; Delaware: Garland v. Range, Case No. 28-2835: Oral arguments are scheduled for October 9, 2024; Texas: United States v. Jose Paz Medina-Cantu: The Fifth Circuit upheld the law that illegal aliens do not have Second Amendment rights;
SCOTUS
Several cases requesting certiorari are scheduled to be announced on Sept. 30, among them areSmith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, Case # 23-1141; and Wilson v. State of Hawaii: Case # 23-7517.
Circuit Court
California: Ninth Circuit
May v, Bonta, Carmaker v, Bonta and Wolford v. Lopez: Case No 23-16164: These cases all dealt with state-wide bans on carrying. A three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has upheld the preliminary injunctions against the following carry bans (meaning they remain unenforceable) in the following places:
Hawaii:
1) Banks
2) Parking lots adjacent to banks
3) Parking lots shared by government buildings and non-governmental buildings
California:
1) Hospitals and similar medical facilities
2) Public transit
3) Gatherings that require a permit
4) Places of worship
5) Financial institutions
6) Parking areas and similar areas connected to those places
In addition, the court reversed the preliminary injunction against Hawaii’s private property default rule while upholding the preliminary injunction against California’s, saying the critical difference is that California only allows property owners to give notice via specific signage. However, these are the places where Right-to-Carry gun owners are still denied their right to carry: Bars and Restaurants that serve alcohol, Playgrounds, Parks, State Parks, Casinos, Stadiums, and Arenas, Libraries, Zoos, Museums, and Parking areas attached to those areas.
@MorosKostas, Attorney Kostas Moros of Michel & Associates, one of the law firms in this case, wrote a post on X (formerly known as Twitter), explaining that the Ninth Circuit panel relied on “a law from Louisiana in 1865, was enacted right after the Civil War ended and appears to be part of the infamous ‘Black Codes.’”
Attorney Mark Smith has an interesting video concerning the decision in this case, and he goes into great depth on the strategy he would pursue to get the May V Bonta case to SCOTUS as quickly as possible.
Background: On June 23, 2023, 3 individual plaintiffs and the Hawaii Firearms Coalition challenged Hawaii’s new law, based onSB1230, designating most of the islands of Hawaii, including private property, as “sensitive places” where carry permits are not recognized. The District Court granted a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and a Preliminary Injunction (PI) on August 8, 2023. In the Hawaii case (Wolford v. Lopez), the state appealed to the Ninth Circuit on Oct. 5, 2023. They allege that “concealed carry permit holders have been responsible for thousands of deaths nationwide.”
Delaware: US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit :
Garland v. Range, Case No. 28-2835: As noted below, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit asked for supplemental briefings. In early August, the Attorney General filed its supplemental briefing, as did Brian Range. The Court has scheduled oral arguments for October 9, 2024, and has denied the DOJ’s request to reschedule oral arguments. On August 9, the Federal Public and Community Defender Offices of the Third Circuit filed an amicus brief.
Background: Brian David Range, over 25 years ago, pled guilty to making a false statement to obtain food stamps, which was a misdemeanor offense but punishable by up to 5 years in prison. That makes him a prohibited person under federal law 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g). Range filed a lawsuit in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to restore his Second Amendment rights. On August 20, 2021, Judge E. K. Pratter denied his motion. He then appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. During the consideration by the Court of Appeals, the NYSRPA v. Bruen case was decided. Thus, the Court ordered briefs to be submitted concerning Bruen’s impact on this case. On November 15, 2022, a three-judge panel affirmed the decision of the District Court. That decision was then appealed to an en banc panel. The case was argued on February 15, 2023. In a 5-2 decision, the en banc panels reversed the three-judge panel and wrote: “We agree with Range that, despite his false statement conviction, he remains among “the people” protected by the Second Amendment. And because the Government did not carry its burden of showing that our Nation’s history and tradition of firearm regulation support disarming Range, we will reverse and remand.”
Attorney General Merrick Garland then appealed that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which said: “Petition for certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and remanded to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit for further consideration in light of United States v. Rahimi on July 2, 2024.”
On July 12, 2024, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ordered a supplemental briefing. Attorney Mark Smith @fourboxesdiner believes that the Third Circuit will reaffirm its ruling, and then Garland must reapply for certiorari with SCOTUS.
Texas: United States v. Jose Paz Medina-Cantu: This is a case from the Southern District of Texas. The appellant is an illegal alien who appealed the lower court’s decision that illegal aliens do not have Second Amendment rights. The Judges ruled: “We agree with the Government and hold that the Supreme Court’s decisions in Bruen and Rahimi did not unequivocally abrogate Portillo-Munoz’s precedent. As such, under this circuit’s rule of orderliness, we are bound to follow Portillo-Munoz. The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.”
