By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—Tennessee: Beeler v. Long: In Tennessee adults between the ages of 18-21 can now apply for a Right-to-Carry permit. In this case against a 2021 TN law that denied adults between the ages of 18-21 from carrying a handgun, both parties came to an agreement that the law violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. As a result, the state of Tennessee shall not deny issuance of a concealed handgun carry permit on the basis of age alone. Accuracy Firearms v. Pritzker: Judge Joshua Morrison issued a preliminary injunction against Illinois law (HB5471), but only for the over 860 plaintiffs in the lawsuit; Langley v. Kelly: Another lawsuit from IL has been moved from Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, Crawford County, Illinois, to the US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois (federal); Antonyuk v. Hochul: A group of 16 Democrat Attorney Generals filed an amicus curia for the State of NY; Boland v. Bonta: Hearing scheduled and took place on Jan. 23, 2023—more briefing required; Maryland: MSI v. Hogan: Scheduled for hearing March 7-10, 2023. New York: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit announced that all four cases on appeal will be the subject of “expedited appeals” that “will be held in tandem on March 20, 2023;” Oregon Measure 114: Judge Raschio’s court is still holding up the implementation of Measure 114.
Federal cases
Lawsuits challenging Federal Agencies:
Cargill v. Garland: In the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals by a 13 -3 vote the ruling read: “Cargill is correct. A plain reading of the statutory language, paired with close consideration of the mechanics of a semi-automatic firearm, reveals that a bump stock is excluded from the technical definition of “machinegun” set forth in the Gun Control Act and National Firearms Act…Therefor we must REVERSE.”The Court has ruled that Congress must pass gun laws, not the BATFE. Due to disagreement between circuit courts, it is likely this case may be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
VanDerStok v. Garland: The California-based Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a lawsuit last Aug. 11 challenging BATFE’s new rule concerning the treatment of “receiver blanks, unfinished frames or receivers, or 80% frames or receivers”as firearms in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. On Nov. 2Judge Reed O’Connor granted Second Amendment Foundation and Defense Distributed’s motion to intervene and the following day he granted BlackHawk Manufacturing Group’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
Morehouse Enterprises v. ATF: Judge Peter D. Welte not only denied the preliminary injunction sought against the “ATF from enforcing various parts of an omnibus rule scheduled to take effect Aug. 24”, but found the Plaintiffs motion for oral argument Moot. As a result, the plaintiffs are seeking an interlocutory appeal of that order with the Court of Appeals and have requested that the proceedings before the District Court be stayed until the appeal is adjudicated.The ATF rule regulated unfinished, nonfunctioning firearm components identically to finished and operational firearms.This case has been joined by 17 states attorneys general.
Lawsuits challenging State Laws:
New Jersey: Third Circuit: Judge Renee Marie Bumb on Jan. 9 issued her first order in Koons v. Reynolds granting a motion for a temporary restraining order. At the time, she wrote thatthe new law“essentially renders the entire state of New Jersey a ‘sensitive place’ where firearms are prohibited.” After the Judge Bumb ruling the ANJRPC requested to consolidate the Siegle v. Platkin caseand the Koons v. Reynolds cases. Judge Karen Williams, who was assigned Siegle v. Platkin, agreed to the transfer to Judge Bumb. 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)
New York: Second Circuit: The legislature went to great lengths to ensure that Bruen does not allow private citizens the Right-to-Carry guns by passing the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA). Four cases listed below to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit will be the subject of “expedited appeals” that “will be held in tandem on March 20, 2023.”Three of the cases are appeals from Judges Sinatra and Suddaby’s orders for restraining order, stays and preliminary injunctions. The fourth case, Gazzola v. Hochul, is an appeal from Judge Sannes’ denial of a TRO or PI.
- Antonyuk, et al v. Hochul:. This lawsuit challenges “various provisions of New York’s newly minted by ineptly named “Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA)”.Itwas filed on Sept. 20 and Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on Nov. 6 issued a restraining order against major parts of the CCIA and denied the state’s request for a stay. The state of NY then appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, requesting a stay and the stay was granted on Dec. 7. On Jan. 9 the plaintiffs filed their response to the Stay issued in Dec. In mid-January a group of 16 Democrat Attorney Generals filed an amicus curia for the State of NY in this case that was published by the Hawaii Attorney General.
- Hardaway v. Nigrelli: AfterNY Judge John L. Sinatra, Jr. ruled on Oct. 10 that the section of NY’s new CICA making it a felony to possess a firearm at “any place of worship or religious observation” was unconstitutional, he granted a preliminary injunction stopping the enforcement of this part of the CICA.
- Christian v. Nigrelli:, Although “A preliminary injunction, effective immediately from enforcing N.Y. Pen.L. § 265.01-d with respect to private property open to the public” was issued by Judge John L. Sinatra on Nov. 22, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a stay on Dec. 12, 2022. This case filed in the US District Court for the Western District of New York challenges the enactment of S51001. Briefing schedule ordered ordered for US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: Dec. 13, 2022—Defendants (Nigrelli) opening brief due Jan. 22, 2023; Plaintiffs (Christian) opposition brief March 6, 2023, any reply brief by March 22, 2023.
- Gazzola v. Hochul: This case filed on Nov. 1, 2022 challenges most all parts of New York State gun laws enacted between May 30 and July 1, 2022. The lawsuit includes 125 complaints against these laws. On Dec. 7, Judge Brenda K. Sannes denied plantiffs’ motion for a TRO or a Preliminary Injunction (PI) and subsequently plaintiffs appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Other current New York cases in the Second Circuit: Another case that addresses guns in places of worship is Goldstein v. Hochul that was brought by a congregant and the Congregation of Bnei Matisyahu in Brooklyn, NY.
Corbett v. Hochul (7/1//2022), challenging the required disclosure of social media accounts. Motion for a preliminary injunction DENIED.
NYSR&PA II v. Bruen: The next iteration of the SCOTUS case—challenging the 2022 firearms laws.
National Shooting Sports Foundation v. Letitia James: This case deals with the enactment of a NY law to hold the gun industry civilly liable for “public nuisances.” NSSF filed this case on December 16, 2021 and then in May 2022 Judge Mae D’Agostino ruled in favor of the defendant. NSSF has now appealed this ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Attorneys for the Appeal are Clement & Murphy.
California: Ninth Circuit:
California: SCI v. Bonta: A lawsuit against AB2571 and its amendments. Judge Dale A. Drozd denied plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction on Jan. 12.
South Bay Rod & Gun Club v. Bonta: This case challenges the 2022 law passed as SB1327, allowing individuals to file civil suits against anyone who is involved in selling banned firearms or firearm parts. Judge Roger T. Benitez did not allow the state’s challenge to succeed and the case continues.
Rhode v. Bonta: This case began in 2016 as Rhode v. Becerra: The plaintiff is Kim Rhode, an American OLYMPIC medalist that very few of her fellow citizens have ever heard about. The issue is the 2016 California law passed by voters as Proposition 63. U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez declared that the ammunition background check requirement for purchases violates the Second Amendment and declared it unconstitutional. However, hours after that decision The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted a temporary stay on the preliminary injunction by Judge Benitez and then that court vacated and remanded the case back to the District Court for the Southern District of California to be revisited based on the Bruen case. All restrictions on purchasing ammunition in California that have been in effect for almost five years still remain in effect.
Miller v. Bonta: The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has REMANDED and VACATED this case back to the District Court and a hearing on the motion for a Preliminary injunction was held on 11/28/22. On Dec. 1, Judge Roget T. Benitez issued a written order stating that the lawsuit is NOT MOOT and it will continue.
Boland v. Bonta: Judge Cormac J. Carney held a Jan. 23 evidentiary hearing for the Preliminary Injunction sought by the plaintiffs. According to @MorosKosta “Judge wants support briefing before ruling.” Briefings are due in February and March.
Jones v. Bonta: Originally Jones v. Becerra. The US District Court for the Southern District of California “held that California’s ban was a severe burden on the core Second Amendment right of self- defense in the home.” After California appealed to an “en banc” panel of the Ninth District Court of Appeals, the Ninth Circuit granted the request and then vacated and remanded the case “consistent with the US Supreme Court’s decision in NYSR&PA v. Bruen. The court again denied the Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction as MOOT. A re-briefing schedule has been set for 2023.
CRPA v. Glendale: New case brought by CRPA challenging city ordinance banning guns on city property. Judge Blumenfeld ruled against a preliminary injunction and asked plaintiffs to seek “a more narrowly focused motion” and meet with defendants about areas that CRPA members are “precluded from carrying firearms.”
Junior Sports Magazine, et. al v. Bonta: The request for an emergency motion for a writ of mandamus was denied by Judge Christine A. Snyder of the US District Court for the Central District of California. As a result, the plaintiffs, The Second Amendment Foundation, CRPA, Gun Owners of California, California Youth Shooting Sports Association et al. have filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court.
Colorado: Tenth Circuit
Two different judges have issued Temporary Restraining orders to halt the bans on the sale, possession and transfer of commonly owned semi-automatic rifles in the towns of Boulder and Superior. After the legislature repealed the Colorado firearms preemption statute in 2021 both towns banned so-called assault weapons. In both cases, RMGO v. The town of Superior and RMGO v. The town of Boulder, judges have granted temporary restraining orders (TRO) citing the Bruen case. In late August the city of Boulder announced it is not enforcing its “assault weapons” ban until it can “legally coordinate” with its neighboring jurisdictions. Federal Judge Raymond P. Moore declined to combine four lawsuits that have been initiated in Boulder County and its towns into one. The city of Longmont has postponed consideration of an “assault weapons” ban until June 2023.
Delaware: Third Circuit
Rigby v. Jennings: A challenge to Delaware billHB 125, that became law in 2021, criminalized the possession, manufacture, and distribution of unserialized firearms, and untraceable and unfinished firearm components. Judge Maryellen Noreika granted a preliminary injunction to prohibit the enforcement of most of this law pending the resolution of the lawsuit. Judge Noreika stated that the plaintiffs “are likely to succeed in their argument’ that the law violates the Second Amendment.
Florida: Eleventh Circuit
City of Weston v. State of Florida & Nikki Fried v. State of Florida: These two lawsuits were challenging Florida’s firearms law preemption statutes.The Circuit Court that originally heard this lawsuit in 2019 upheld the preemption statutes. As did the First District Court to which the ruling was appealed. In 2022 the plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court of Florida, which on January 19 ruled in favor of Florida’s preemption statutes thereby upholding both the Circuit Court and District Court’s opinions.
Hawaii: Ninth Circuit
NAGR v. Shikada: A challenge to Hawaii’s Pistol Statutes was initiated on Nov. 18, 2022 in the US District Court for the District of Hawaii.
Teter v. Shikada: On appeal from the US District Court for the District of Hawaii this case concerning HI ban of butterfly knives is scheduled of oral arguments on Feb. 14.
Yukutake v. Shikada: On appeal from the US District Court for the District of Hawaii this case concerning HI registration laws is scheduled of oral arguments also on Feb. 14.
Illinois: Seventh Circuit
Langley v. Kelly: This case was filed on Jan. 24, 2023 in the Illinois Circuit Court system (state court) and on Jan. 23 it was moved to the US federal court system by the Office of the Attorney General. On Jan. 24 a motion for a Preliminary Injunction was filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
Accuracy Firearms, LLC et al v. Pritzker: This case was filed on Jan. 17 in the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit Effingham County, Illinois by Thomas DeVore, a former candidate for Illinois Attorney General. On Jan. 20, Judge Joshua Morrison issued a temporary restraining order (TRO). However, this TRO only applies to the 860+/ plaintiffs not the entire County or the state of Illinois.
NAGR v. City of Naperville, IL: A challenge to Naperville’s assault weapons ban.
Maryland: Fourth Circuit
Maryland Shall Issue v. Hogan: The current case which is before the Fourth Circuit deals with the Second Amendment challenge to the Handgun Qualification License (HQL). Arguments before the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit are tentatively scheduled during the March 7-10 session. This case was originally brought by Maryland Shall Issue in 2016 after the Maryland legislature passed a law requiring a HQL. The suit alleges that the HQL requirements, both as set forth in the statute, and as implemented by the Maryland State Police, violate the Second Amendment by placing unjustifiable and overwhelming burdens on the right of law-abiding citizens to purchase a handgun for the home.
Bianchi v. Frosh: 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 in the U.S. 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 Aug. 1 and oral arguments were held on Dec. 6. On Oct. 31, 2022 the plaintiffs filed a supplemental reply brief arguing that the case should be decided based on the Bruen decision rather than remanded to a lower court.
MSI v. Montgomery County: Pre-motion conference allows the Plaintiffs to file a motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and a Preliminary Injunction. Since the pre-motion conference, defendant has filed a motion to remand to state court and opposition to emergency motion for TRO. In January Everytown has filed a motion to support defendants (the state of Maryland) with an amicus curiae brief.
Massachusetts: First Circuit
Morin, Alfred v. Lyver, William, et al was granted a writ of certiorariand then vacated and remanded it to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. This case challenges state law that denies anyone convicted of non-violent misdemeanors from purchasing firearms. Dr. Alfred Morin was convicted of a non-violent misdemeanor for carrying a gun in Washington, DC in 2004. At the time he was licensed by the state of Massachusetts to carry a gun. As a result of this conviction for which he did not serve any jail time, the state now bars him from obtaining a permit to purchase a handgun. Dr. Morin’s case was appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in favor of the state. Now the Appeals court has been ordered to review this case in light of the Bruen decision.
Granata v. Healey: This case was brought in 2021 challenging the handgun regulatory scheme of the state. Last May 19, Judge Rya W. Zobel in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts found “the challenged regulations therefore pass intermediate scrutiny.” In June an appeal was initiated to the U.S. Court of Appeals the First Circuit. The plaintiffs filed a Motion in the Court of Appeals as a result of the Bruen decision. On October 11, the Court denied the motion and the briefing schedule remains in effect.
Oregon: Ninth Circuit
Oregon-Measure 114: There are now five lawsuits in progress against Measure 114, including foru federal actions and one state-level case.
InArnold v. Brown, initiated by Gun Owners of America in a state court with Judge Robert S. Raschio presiding, the court has blocked implementation of the law. The state attorney general’s office has asked the state Supreme Court to intervene and override Judge Raschio.
Rhode Island: First Circuit
Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island: the plaintiffs have converted their request for a Temporary Restraining Motion to a Motion for a Temporary injunction against the 10-round magazine law that recently passed the legislature.
Tennessee: Sixth Circuit
Beeler v. Long: This case was brought against a 2021 TN law denying adults between the ages of 18-21 from carrying a handgun. The litigation began in 2021 and as a result ofBruen decision the plaintiffs and the State of Tennessee came to an agreement that was finalized on January 23, 2023.
Plaintiffs contend the challenged scheme regulating the possession and carrying of handguns that restricts individuals aged 18 to 20 years old from carrying handguns or obtaining permits to carry handguns on the basis of age alone violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Washington: Ninth Circuit
Miller v. Atkins: The case was decided in 2020 byJudge Ronald B. Leighton of the US District Court for the Western District of Washington in favor of the Washington referendum I-1639 and against the plaintiffs. It was then appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, then on June 6, 2021 held in abeyance until last month. The Court of Appeals vacated and remanded the case back to the District Court as a result of the SCOTUS Bruen decision.
