By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—SCOTUS: BATFE rule on “definition of frame or receiver”: VanDerStok v. Garland: As of Aug. 8, SCOTUS has instituted a stay of the District court’s order and Sept. 7, is the date for US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s oral arguments;’ US v. Rahimi: Amicus briefs have been filed in record numbers in this case—primarily by the anti-2nd Amendment groups and attorneys; Wolford v. Lopez: An emergency stay has been requested by the state of Hawaii against the District Court’s Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction; Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Dean R. Donnell: Lowell District Court Judge John F. Coffey dismissed a criminal case against a New Hampshire man who was carrying a firearm in Massachusetts without a license; Corbett v. Hochul: this case has been calendared before the Second Circuit Court for October 26, 2023; Koons v. Platkin: The Second Amendment Foundation andFirearms Policy Coalition filed their response brief with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals challenging multiple aspects of New Jersey’s response to Bruen.
Supreme Court of the United States
Lawsuits challenging Federal Agencies:
Definition of Frame or Receiver
United States v. Zackey Rahimi: Attorney General Merrick Garland announced that the US Department of Justice would be seeking certiorari in this case in March. SCOTUS announced that it would grant certiorari on June 30 and by July 5 we were reporting that amicus curiae were being filed in large numbers. The numbers of amici have kept growing.
VanDerStok v. Garland: Since there are many ramifications to the confusing SCOTUS order, a stay of Judge Reed O’Connor’s order is in effect. The Fifth Circuit has scheduled oral arguments on the merits of the case for Sept. 7, and on schedule (Aug. 9) the DOJ filed their argument against the District Court’s opinion.
Federal Lawsuits challenging State Laws
Colorado: Tenth Circuit
Rocky Mountain Gun Owners v. Polis: On Aug. 21, Gov. Jared Polis filed an emergency motion to stay the District Court’s preliminary injunction pending appeal.
Background: On Aug. 7, the day before SB169 was to become effective, Judge Philip A. Brimmer granted the plaintiffs, Tate Mosgrove and Adrian S. Pineda, both of whom areolder than 18, but younger than 21, a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of SB169. Additionally, the state of Colorado is enjoined, effectively immediately, from enforcing SB169. The preliminary injunction remains in effect pending disposition of the case on its merits.
Hawaii: Ninth Circuit
Wolford v. Lopez: An emergency stay has been requested by the state of Hawaii in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit against the District Court’s Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction.
Background: On the June 23, 2023 3 individual plaintiffs and the Hawaii Firearms Coalition challenged Hawaii’s new law, based on SB1230 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 Aug. 8. On Aug. 15, the Attorney General of Hawaii has on “an emergency basis for an order staying the district court’s appealable temporary restraining order pending an appeal and for an immediate administrative stay pending the Court’s consideration of Appellant’s stay request.”
Maryland: Fourth Circuit
Willey v. Brown: This case was brought by Donald S. Willey, a veteran and land owner in Dorchester County and the Second Amendment Foundation against the Maryland red flag law, HB1302, which was passed in 2018. Susan E. Webb, one of the defendants is the Director of Planning & Zoning for Dorchester County. Ms. Webb was also the instigator of a red flag law (RFL) against Mr. Willey. The lawsuit seeks a jury trial and is requesting injunctions against the Maryland RFL, a finding that the RFL is unconstitutional, compensatory and punitive damages to Mr. Willey and attorneys’ fees and costs.
New Jersey: Third Circuit
Koons v. Reynolds and Siegle v. Platkin: On Aug. 21, the Second Amendment Foundation andFirearms Policy Coalition filed their response brief with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals challenging multiple aspects of New Jersey’s response to Bruen. On July 20 the state of New Jersey, both the legislature and the governor’s office, filed their opening briefs in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral arguments scheduled for Oct. 25 in Philadelphia.
Background: 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).
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).
New York: Second Circuit
Corbett v. Hochul: this case has been calendared before the Second Circuit Court on Oct. 26;
Background: Corbett v. Hochul (7/1//2022), challenging the requirements of New York’s 2022 CICA. The District Court denied a Motion for a preliminary injunction and then decided that the state may mandate extensive trading for gun licensee. Now the appellant, Jonathan Corbett, is challenging the training requirement of New York CICA law before the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Massachusetts: Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Dean R. Donnell: On Aug. 3, Lowell District Court Judge John F. Coffey dismissed a criminal case against a New Hampshire man who was carrying a firearm in Massachusetts without a license. Judge Coffey’s decision included, “An individual only loses a constitutional right if he commits an offense or is or has been engaged in certain behavior that is covered by 18 USC section 922. He doesn’t lose that right simply by traveling into an adjoining state whose statute mandates that residents of that state obtain a license prior to exercising their constitutional right. To hold otherwise would inexplicably treat Second Amendment rights differently than other individually held rights. Therefore, the Court finds that GL. 269, sec. (10a) is unconstitutional as applied to this particularly situated defendant and allows the motion to dismiss on that ground.”
