By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—Koons v. Platkin: Following Judge Bumb’s opinion and injunction these cases were then appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit by the State of New Jersey (I23-1900), which on June 9 issued an expedited order for briefs and reply briefs. On June 20, the Third Circuit then granted in part and denied in part an Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Appeal as well as setting out the briefing schedule and oral arguments scheduled for October 25, 3034 in Philadelphia; Washington State Courts: Guardian Arms v. Inslee: This lawsuit seeking a preliminary injunction against the new “assault weapons” ban was filed in Grant County, but at a hearing on May 12 the judge ruled in favor of the state of Washington’s motion to move the case toThurston County. A hearing was held in Thurston County on June 23 and “Judge Allyson Zipp rejected a request in Guardian Arms v. Inslee to grant a temporary restraining order blocking the implementation of House Bill 1240.” On June 28 and 29 two cases we are following will be argued live: Lara v. Evanchick—6/29 at 9:30 am EDT here and Harrel v. Raoul—6/29 at 9:30 am CDT here, Also National Association for Gun Rights v. City of Naperville, IL & the state of Illinois, also known as Bevis v. City of Naperville, IL & the state of Illinois: Schedules are being met: Government briefs were submitted by June 5, plaintiff’s briefs have been submitted and arguments are scheduled for the morning of June 29; The Ninth Circuit Court in San Francisco—Mock v. Garland (stabilizing braces) Oral arguments are scheduled for June 29; Baird v. Bonta: Is scheduled before the Ninth Circuit Court in Pasadena, CA for June 29;
Supreme Court of the United States
Currently there are three petitions for certiorari pending before SCOTUS on cases that have a nexus to the Second Amendment—United States v. Rahimi, KCI v. Eighth Judicial District, and Garland v. Cargill. None of which were mentioned in the June 26 listing.
Stabilizing Braces
Cases challenging the ATF rule entitled “Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces’” (“the Rule”) which was published in the Federal Register on January 31, 2023. To date six Courts, including the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit have issued limited injunctions against this BATFE rule that became effective on June 1, 2023.
Mock v. Garland: (Texas Northern District)—This case was brought by Firearms Policy Coalition on Jan. 31, asking the court to set aside the ATF action and/or a preliminary injunction. On March 30 District Judge Reed O’Connor denied both requests of the plaintiffs. On that same date the plaintiffs requested a preliminary injunction of the rule pending appeal and filed an appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On May 17 the plaintiffs filed an Emergency Motion for Injunction pending appeal as “the Rule” became effective June 1, 2023. US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on May 23 issued an order granting the appellants’ opposed motion for a preliminary injunction. The court has clarified as to who this injunction actually covers: “only to the customers and members whose interest have represented since day one of the litigation.” Plaintiff-Appellants filed an opening brief on June 5. A responding brief from Michael Cargill was filed on June 7. Oral arguments are scheduled for June 29.
Lawsuits challenging “felon-in-possession” federal law 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)
Pennsylvania: Third Circuit
Range v. Lombardo: In this precedential case the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit’s opinion issued on June 6 stated,“Bryan Range appeals the District Court’s summary judgment rejecting his claim that the federal “felon-in- possession” law—18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)—violates his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. 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.”
Judge David Porter wrote a separate concurring opinion (found at the end of the opinion) that is a well-researched and very thorough concerning Second Amendment jurisprudence. Worth a read.
Lawsuits challenging State Laws
New Jersey: Second Circuit:
Koons v. Reynolds and Siegle v. Platkin: Following Judge Bumb’s opinion and injunction these cases were then appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit by the State of New Jersey (I23-1900), which on June 9 issued an expedited order for briefs and reply briefs. On June 20, 2023 the Third Circuit then granted in part and denied in part an Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Appeal as well as setting out the briefing schedule and oral arguments scheduled for October 25, 3034 in Philadelphia.
After the Judge Bumb’s ruling the ANJRPC requested to consolidate the Siegle v. Platkin caseand the Koons v. Reynolds cases. The Koons case is being supported by the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition and several other groups. The Siegel case is supported by the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc.(ANJRPC).
On May 16 Judge Bumb issued an opinion and an order. She wrote: “Accordingly, on balance, the Court finds that the final PI factors weigh in favor of granting Plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary relief…In conclusion, the Second Amendment’s “right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not a ‘second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.’” Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2156 (quoting McDonald, 561 U.S. at 780).
California: Ninth Circuit:
Baird v. Bonta: On December 8, 2022 Judge Mueller denied the Third Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and DISMISSED IN Part the Second Amended Complaint. The Plaintiff’s on January 3, 2023 appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. During the first six months of 2023 various motions have been submitted and now Oral Argument is scheduled for June 29, Courtroom 1 in Pasadena, CA.
NSSF v. Bonta: This lawsuit was filed by NSSF on May 23, 2023 challenging the constitutionality of AB1594, titled the “Firearm Industry Responsibility Act,” that was signed into law only 22 days after Bruen was handed down by SCOTUS. “Governor Newsom then signed AB 1594 into law on July 12, 2022, in an elaborate ceremony in which he explicitly decried the Supreme Court’s decision and implicitly told the world that the Golden State would not comply with Bruen unless forced to do so.” On June 13. 2023 NSSF file a motion for a preliminary injunction.
Oregon: Ninth Circuit
Oregon Firearms Federation v. Kate Brown, Fitz v. Rosenblum, Eyre v. Rosenblum, & Azzopardi v. Rosenblum (the Oregon consolidated case): These cases were initiated in Nov. 2022 challenging Oregon’s Measure 114. The Trial was held June 5-6, 2023. On June 13 the Oregon Alliance for Gun Safety (intervenor-defendant) submitted a brief concerning the United States v. Alaniz, upholding the enhancement of sentencing guideline for possessing a dangerous weapon at the time of a felony drug offense.
Illinois: Seventh Circuit
National Association for Gun Rights v. City of Naperville, IL & the state of Illinois, also known as Bevis v. City of Naperville, IL & the state of Illinois: On May 12 US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a scheduling order: 1. Government briefs were submitted by June 5, 2023; 2. Briefs for plaintiffs were submitted; and 3. Reply briefs are due June 26, 2023. No Motions to extend dates will be entertained. Arguments will be on the morning of June 29.
Harrel v. Raoul: Oral arguments are scheduled for June 29 and on June 26 the defendants, state of Illinois, Cook County and Chicago filed reply briefs that promoted the concept the weapons “must be in common use for self-defense”, rather than just in common use. They also promote the idea that magazines are not arms, but accessories.
Atkinson v. Garland: Another case of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) in which Patrick Atkinson challenged the constitutionality of that law. On March 15, 2022 Judge John Robert Blakey DISMISSED Atkinson’s complaint. Atkinson then appealed to Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. On June 20, 2023 Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded this lawsuit back to the District Court. “The parties briefing on appeal only scratches the surface of the historical analysis required by Bruen. In these circumstances, we think the best course is to remand to allow the district court to undertake the Bruen analysis in the first instance.”
Maryland: Fourth Circuit
Novotny v. Moore: Before the ink had dried on Maryland Governor Wesley Moore’s signature on SB1, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Maryland Shall Issue (MSI) and three individuals filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the new Maryland law. SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb alleged, “Maryland lawmakers scrambled to make gun laws more restrictive than they were before. Indeed, the additional restrictions make it nearly impossible to legally carry firearms for personal protection, even on public land.” On June 9 a motion to consolidate Novotny v. Moore and Kipke v. Moore was made by the defendants.
Lawsuits before State Courts
Washington: Guardian Arms v. Inslee: This lawsuit seeking a preliminary injunction against the new “assault weapons” ban was filed in Grant County, but at a hearing on May 12 the judge ruled in favor of the state of Washington’s motion to move the case toThurston County. A hearing was held in Thurston County on June 23 and “Judge Allyson Zipp rejected a request in Guardian Arms v. Inslee to grant a temporary restraining order blocking the implementation of House Bill 1240.”
