MERRY CHRISTMAS
By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—SCOTUS Denies temporary injunctions in both—Bevis & NAGR v. Naperville and Caulkins v. Pritzker; California: May v. Bonta: The hearing on this case challenging SB2 will be held today; New Jersey: AG Platkin sues two firearms businesses under the NJ firearms nuisance statute.
SCOTUS
Illinois: Bevis & National Association for Gun Rights v. Naperville: On Dec. 14, SCOTUS did not issue a temporary injunction against the Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA).
Background:On Nov. 27, NAGR submitted an application for a writ of injunction to Justice Amy Coney Barrett, to which she replied by issuing an order that directed the defendants in this case, including the state of Illinois, to submit an argument or a brief explaining why an injunction should not be entered that would shut down Illinois’s assault weapon ban law. On Dec. 4 the defendants filed their brief. On the next day the appellants responded with their arguments which include:
“The State admits that the Act bans certain semi-automatic handguns. Resp. 30. This is fatal to the State’s case because D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 629 (2008), held that handgun bans are unconstitutional. The State argues its handgun ban should nevertheless survive because “Heller did not say anything about semiautomatic handguns in particular.” Resp. 30.2. But “[t]he vast majority of handguns today are semi-automatic.” Heller v. D.C., 670 F.3d 1244, 1286 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting). And it would be truly astonishing if Heller’s holding that handgun bans are unconstitutional does not apply to the vast majority of handguns. Nothing in Heller even hints that its holding should be cabined in the way the State suggests.”
For more background on this case please check out the Judicial Report of two weeks ago.
Illinois: Caulkins v. Pritzker: AnApplication (23A527) for writ of injunction, submitted to Justice Barrett on Dec. 6, and Denied by Justice Barrett on Dec. 13, 2023.
Background: Macon County, IL a group of law-abiding gun owners led by Dan Caulkins sued Gov. Pritzker in the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Macon County, IL. After the passage of Gov. Pritzker’s omnibus gun bill, Public Act 102-1116, on Jan. 17, 2023, a group of citizens in Macon County, IL requested a hearing on a restraining order against the new law. Additionally another group of citizens in Effingham County filed a similar motion on the same day. Judge Joshua Morrison held a hearing on Jan. 18 and both the plaintiffs and the defendants filed motions concerning the passage of Public Act 102-1116. On Feb 2 Judge Morrison issued his temporary restraining order against the State of Illinois from “enforcing or attempting to enforce any and all provisions of Public Act 102-111.” Now the state of Illinois is appealing to the Supreme Court of Illinois and have asked for a schedule that includes holding oral arguments during the second week of May 2023.
The Supreme Court of Illinois ruled“the judgment of the circuit court of Macon County is reversed”on August 11, 2023. The Plaintiffs then appealed to SCOTUS for a writ of certiorari on Nov. 8, that was docketed on Nov. 14.
District Courts
May v. Bonta: Court hearing scheduled today, Dec. 20.
Background: After the passage of SB2, a Bruen-response bill creating “sensitive places” where firearms are not allowed, this lawsuit was initiated on September 12, 2023. Plaintiffs include CRPA, GOA, SAF and others..
“In stark contrast to SB 2, Bruen recognized a general right to be armed in public places, subject only to limited, historically valid exceptions. In defiance of that holding, California has made the right a rare exception in most public places.”
On Sept. 28, Judge Cormac J. Carney issued an order with the following schedule: Plaintiffs’ memorandum to be filed by Sept. 29, Defendants opposition by Nov. 3, Plaintiffs reply by Nov. 30, with a court hearing scheduled for Dec. 4. The Plaintiffs’ brief has been filed. On Oct. 3, court hearing rescheduled for December 20, 2023. On Nov. 21 CRPA Attorney Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas on X (formerly known as Twitter) ) informed his followers that a reply brief had been filed. He goes on to write,“We’ve also submitted a rebuttal expert declaration which includes an appendix pointing out how California took several historical laws out of context, or otherwise mischaracterized them in their opposition brief.”
State Enforcement Activity: New Jersey
New Jersey: Anti-firearms advocate Attorney General Matthew Platkin is going after several gun companies using New Jersey’s new statute allowing the AG to sue members of the firearms industry because these businesses “contribute to a public nuisance.” Several other states have similar statutes that were copied from the New York law that was passed as SB7196 and signed by former Governor Cuomo in 2021. A press release at the time of the signing was issued by NY Attorney General Letitia James and Cuomo.
Platkin has filed two lawsuits. The first is Platkin v. FSS Armory alleging that FSS Armory’s substandard storage and security practices violated New Jersey law.The second complaint is Platkin v. Patriot Enterprises. The complaint specifies that Patriot Enterprises also does business as Eagle Shows and JSD Supply. The NJ complaint charges JSD with selling gun frames, gun kits and other parts to New Jersey residents in contravention of the NJ statute of defacing a serial number.
Both of these lawsuits have been filed in the Superior Courts of New Jersey but in different counties. After the passage of SB7196 NSSF, the association for the firearms’ industry, filed a lawsuit against the New Jersey law that was successful at the District court level. Judge Zahid N. Quaraishi ruled, “This is in direct conflict with the PLCAA’s purpose. Accordingly, the Court finds that NSSF is likely to succeed on the merits that A1765 does not fall within the predicate exception of the PLCAA and is therefore preempted by the PLCAA.”
However AG Platkin appealed the ruling to the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, where the decision was overturned by a 3-judge panel based on standing. According to The Reload, an online magazine, states that now that New Jersey has actually sued firearms businesses, issues over standing will no longer be available as a shield to avoid deeper legal scrutiny of its viability under the PLCAA.
