By Tanya Metaksa
In Part 1 of the 2023 Grassroots Judicial Wrap Up 2023, I discussed the various cases that dealt and are dealing with federal mandated regulations.
The remaining cases are being litigated at the state level to combat anti-Second Amendment state laws. In 2023, the courts were inundated with cases that were started prior to Bruen as well as litigation over state laws that were passed in 2023. Most of these cases are in states such as California, Hawaii, Illinois, New York, and Massachusetts, where the legislatures are controlled by anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment Democrats.
California – Ninth Circuit
Cases begun prior to Bruen
Although the California legislature was busy during 2023 passing more and more restrictive gun laws, the courts in California were still dealing with laws that had been enacted prior to Bruen. Miller v. Bonta and South Bay Rod & Gun Club, Inc v. Bonta were settled in March 2023 and the June 2023 settlement agreement for both cases cost the state of California a total of $556,957.66.
On Nov. 15, 2023, a status conference was held with District Judge Roger Benitez on Rhode v. Bonta, an eight year old case challenging California’s ammunition law, that began in 2016 as Rhode v. Becerra. On Dec. 13, 2023, omnibus briefs were filed.
Jones v. Bonta, a vacated and remanded case from the Ninth Circuit en banc panel regarding18 to 20 year old plaintiffs that began as Jones v. Becerra, is now Chavez v. Bonta. On December 8, 2023, US District Court Judge for the Southern District of California, M James Lorenz, Denied injunctive relief stating that “in light of avenues to lawfully access firearms, does not outweigh the public safety interests.”
Nguyễn v. Bonta, a case filed in 2020 challenging California’s One Gun per Month law (OGM), has been subject to several judge transfers in its three-year litigation history. On Dec. 6, a Motion hearing was held before Judge William Q. Hayes.
Cases challenging California’s ban on “large capacity” magazines are currently held in abeyance expecting a decision by US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the Duncan v. Bonta case.
Cases initiated after Bruen
Judge John W. Holcomb ordered a preliminary injunction and enjoined the state of California from enforcing the ban on gun shows in the Orange County fairgrounds in B&L Productions, Inc. v. Gavin Newsom on October 30, 2023. On December 28, an appeal was filed with the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit with a stipulation for a stay.
May v. Bonta was filed on Sept. 12, 2023. The complaint states: “California’s newly passed Senate Bill 2 (hereafter “SB 2”) turns the Bruen decision on its head, making nearly every public place in California a “sensitive place.” Carralero v. Bonta was filed on Sept. 9, 2023. On Dec. 20 Judge Cormac J. Carney in both cases granted the plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction. AG Bonta immediately appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and asked for an emergency motion to stay Judge Carney’s injunction. On Dec. 27, the appellees responded with an opposition brief to the state’s emergency motion. The three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit stayed Judge Carney’s injunction on Dec. 30, and then sent it to a “merits” panel for further adjudication. Thus SB2 which prohibits those with carry permits from carrying in “specific sensitive place” took effect on Jan. 1. There are very few places in the state that are NOT specific sensitive places.
Hawaii: Ninth Circuit
Teter v. Lopez: A multistate coalition of 17 attorneys general are supporting Hawaii’s request to the Ninth Circuit to rehear an appeal defending Hawaii’s ban on butterfly knives. The petition seeks a full en ban review of a panel opinion issued on Aug. 7, 2023.
Wolford v. Lopez: Hawaii filed its opening brief with the Ninth Circuit on Oct. 5, 2023. They allege that “concealed carry permit holders have been responsible for thousands of deaths nationwide.”
Background: On the June 23, 2023 three individual plaintiffs and the Hawaii Firearms Coalition challenged Hawaii’s new law, based onSB1230, 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 August 8, 2023. 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.”
Illinois: Seventh Circuit
Harrel v, Raoul, Federal Firearms Licenses of Illinois v. Pritzker, Caleb Barnet v. Raoul, and Langley v. Kelly: now known as Langley v. Kelley: An appeal for an en banc review was denied, meaning the case goes on at the District level. This lawsuit began as a complaint against the new Illinois gun law. Judge Kendall of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois eastern division denied the plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction. On May 1, 2023 the case was appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and the plaintiffs filed a motion for an injunction pending appeal. On April 18, the Court of Appeals denied the motion.The state of Illinois appealed to Seventh Circuit. In an interlocutory appeal a three-judge panel ruled in a 2-1 (with Judges Easterbrook and Wood) ruling the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit vacated the District Judges Preliminary Injunction. Judge Brennan, the third judge on the panel, wrote a 44 page dissent.
New Jersey: Third Circuit
Defense Distributed v. Platkin: Federal District Court Judge Michael A. Shipp ruled in this case, which is at least a decade old, that computer files are not covered by the First Amendment. I covered the case in 2020 in this article. The Plaintiffs say they will appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and hope that the Third Circuit sends it back to the Fifth Circuit. The case is the result of an injunction that was granted in the state of Washington stopping Defense Distributed from posting CAD and other files on their website.
Cheeseman v. Platkin: A challenge to New Jersey’s “assault weapons ban” in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey. On Oct. 6 Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgement. This is a consolidated action that includes the Cheeseman case, Ellman v. Platkin and ANJRPAC v. Platkin.
New York: Second Circuit
The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Dec. 8, 2023 issued an opinion in a ruling that encompassed four different cases challenging various sections of New York’s 2022 Bruen response law (CCIA). These cases had been heard in tandem on March 20, 2023. The four cases are: Antonyuk v. Chiumento, Hardaway v. Chiumento, Christian v. Chiumento and Spencer v. Chiumento.
According to the opinion:
“In Antonyuk, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York (Suddaby, J.) enjoined enforcement of more than a dozen such provisions. In Hardaway, Christian, and Spencer, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York (Sinatra, J.) separately enjoined a subset of the laws previously enjoined in Antonyuk, though based on slightly different reasoning. We stayed the various injunctions pending appeal, expedited the appeals, and in light of the substantial overlap among the cases, heard argument”in tandem on March 20, 2023.
These cases challenged several parts of the NY CCIA law which was passed immediately following the SCOTUS decision in June 2022 in the NYSRPA v. Bruen. Gov. Hochul and the NY legislature attempted to making the State of New York a gun-free zone including private property and decided to try and make the issuance of carry permits as difficult as possible.
The three-judge panel did rule in favor of Second Amendment rights on several questions: 1.) it struck down the requirement that applicants for a concealed carry permit must disclose their social media accounts; 2.) it invalidated the provision that required private property to be posted if it allowed firearms; and 3.) it stopped the ban on gun possession in places of worship for the plaintiffs.
It looks as if 2024 will be another year of Second Amendment cases being considered in our courts. There is a long line of plaintiffs waiting to sue both the federal government and the state governments. Unfortunately, we may see some of the more recalcitrant Appeals Courts dragging their feet, taking more time than the plaintiffs desire in the hope that the composition of SCOTUS changes.
