By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—SCOTUS: The U.S. Supreme Court returns from summer recess; California: Ninth Circuit en banc: Rhode v. Bonta: District Court Case No.: 3:18-cv-00802-BEN-JLB: Court of Appeal Case No.: 24-542: Maryland: Fourth Circuit: Maryland Shall Issue v. Montgomery County: Case 1:16-cv-03311-ELH, Circuit Case # 21-2017 (L); now known under the title Snope v. Brown; Texas: Fifth Circuit
NAGR v. Garland: Case # 4:23-cv-00830-O: After Judge O’Connor ruled against Garland’s motion to stay his order on Aug. 20; Illinois: Seventh Circuit: Schoenthal v. Raoul: Case # 3:22-cv-50326: On Aug. 30, JudgeIain D. Johnston ruled against Illinois’ ban on carrying firearms on transit; Johal v. American Tactical, Inc.: Case #2:24-cv-03969-BHH: The second amended complaint has been filed.
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
Rhode v. Bonta: District Court Case No.: 3:18-cv-00802-BEN-JLB: Court of Appeal Case No.: 24-542: According to the Docket Notice dated Aug. 9, the Court is considering docketing this case during December and January 2024-2025. As of July 31, the following parties have submitted amicus briefs for the plaintiffs:
Gun Owners of California, Gun Owners of America, Inc., Gun Owners Foundation, Heller Foundation, Tennessee Firearms Association, Tennessee Firearms Foundation, America’s Future, U.S. Constitutional Rights Legal Defense Fund, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, Restoring Liberty Action Committee in Support of Appellees-Plaintiffs, Amicus Brief of Ohio, Idaho, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming in Support of Appellees-Plaintiffs, American Firearms Association, New York State Firearms Association, Georgia Gun Owners, Illinois Firearms Association, Iowa Gun Owners, Missouri Firearms Coalition, Minnesota Gun Rights, Ohio Gun Owners, Washington Gun Rights, Wyoming Gun Owners in Support of Appellees-Plaintiffs, The Buckeye Institute in Support of Appellees-Plaintiffs, and National Association for Gun Rights in Support of Appellees-Plaintiffs.
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, the US District Court for the Southern District of California in Duncan v. Becerra ruled that “Magazines holding more than ten 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 Aug. 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. Both sides filed briefs. 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 ten 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.
A hearing date before the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit en banc was held on March 19. Attorney Kostas Moros summarized the oral arguments on X (formerly known as Twitter):
“Most of Duncan’s oral argument today focused on WHO on the panel and the procedures that determine that. Whether they were followed, what corrective action could be taken, etc.
“In doing this, even the judges implicitly acknowledge that in many Second Amendment cases, particularly hardware cases, the case is effectively decided upon by the panel draw before any brief is submitted. Who decides the case is critical because too many judges have no interest in applying the Supreme Court’s precedent in good faith. This is a sad state of affairs and undermines confidence in the court system.
“Until the Supreme Court actively polices the lower courts on this, it will not change.”
He summarized the problem for gun owners in the following tweet:The Ninth Circuit said,“We’re gonna keep this going until the SCOTUS composition changes.”
Maryland: Fourth Circuit
Maryland Shall Issue v. Montgomery County: Case # 1:16-cv-03311-ELH, Circuit Case # 21-2017 (L); now known under Snope v. Brown. We covered this opinion of the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in our report of Aug. 14, under Bianchi v. Williamson, SCOTUS Case No. 21-1255. Now, the plaintiffs of all the cases brought against the HQL and the Maryland assault weapons ban have filed a petition for certiorari before SCOTUS.
Background: This case has been in litigation before Bruen. The current case, before the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (a Court that tends to be anti-Second Amendment), covers the Second Amendment challenge to the Handgun Qualification License (HQL). This case was initially brought by Maryland Shall Issue in 2016 after the Maryland legislature passed the law requiring a HQL. The US District Court for the District of Maryland ruled in favor of the state of Maryland on March 32, 2019. That decision was appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which upheld the lower court’s ruling but remanded the Second Amendment question to the Circuit Court. On Oct. 12, 2021, Judge Ellen L. Hollander decided that the Maryland law was constitutional under the Second Amendment. The case was appealed to a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which, on Nov. 23, 2023, reversed the Judgment of the District Court. The state of Maryland then appealed for an en banc panel review. The review was granted on Jan. 11. The en banc panel, on Aug. 6, decided in favor of the state of Maryland against the plaintiffs.
Texas: Fifth Circuit
NAGR v. Garland: Case # 4:23-cv-00830-O: After Judge Reed O’Connor ruled against Attorney General Merrick Garland’s motion to stay his order on Aug. 20. Garland has now filed an Unopposed Motion to Expedite Appeal tothe US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on August 27, 2024.
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 Reed O’Connor granted the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 17) to preserve the status quo until Sept. 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 of this year, 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.
District Court
Illinois: Seventh Circuit
Schoenthal v. Raoul: Case # 3:22-cv-50326: On Aug. 30, 2024, JudgeIain D. Johnston ruled, “the Firearm Concealed Carry Act’s ban on carrying concealed firearms on public transportation, as defined in the statute, 430 ILCS 66/65(a)(8), violates the Second Amendment, as applied to:
- Benjamin Schoenthal carrying a concealed firearm for self-defense on Metra, and on Metra’s real property to the extent necessary to ride Metra.
- Mark Wroblewski carrying a concealed firearm for self-defense on Metra, and on Metra’s real property to the extent necessary to ride Metra;
- Joseph Vesel carrying a concealed firearm for self-defense on Metra and the CTA, and on Metra and the CTA’s real property to the extent necessary to ride Metra and the CTA; and
- Douglas Winston carrying a concealed firearm for self-defense on Metra and the CTA, and on Metra and the CTA’s real property to the extent necessary to ride Metra and the CTA.
South Carolina: Fourth Circuit
Johal v. American Tactical, Inc.: Case #2:24-cv-03969-BHH: The second amended complaint has been filed.
Background: This case was brought in the US District Court for the Western District of New York by the Estates of several victims of a mass shooting in 2021 at a FedEx facility in Indiana on April 15, 2021. On July 15, that Court transferred this case to the US District Court for the District of South Carolina. On Aug. 7, several plaintiffs withdrew, but the remaining plaintiffs stipulated to a pre-answer schedule: the second amended complaint will be filed on or before Aug. 19; motion to dismiss on or before Oct. 7; Opposition to motion to dismiss on or before Nov. 12; and support of motion to dismiss on or before Nov. 26.
