By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New— State/Local legislation: Hawaii: Honolulu County held a hearing Oct. 4, while Hawaii County is working on definition of “sensitive places”; New Jersey: more anti-2nd Amendment laws introduced; New York—Jefferson County: County pro-gun resolution passes unanimously Oct. 4; Wayne County Sheriff Robert Milby will ignore the CICA restrictions as to sensitive spaces; Virginia—Surrey County: proposed ban on firearms in public buildings scheduled for Nov. 3 meeting of County Council; Judicial: SCOTUS denied both Aposhian v. Garland and GOA v. Garland: Michigan petitions for certiorari: SCOTUS also granted a writ of certiorari for Morin, Alfred v. Lyver, William, et al and then vacated and remanded it back to the First Circuit Court of Appeals; US District Court for the Northern District of New York: Antonym v. Hochul: Judge Glenn T. Suddaby grants TRO against major parts of the CCIA.
2022 Congressional Activity/Biden Administration
US Fish and Wildlife Service: The USFWS opened 18 national wildlife refuges for fishing and hunting but banned the use of any lead ammunition and fishing tackle on these refuges. Lawrence G. Keane, Sr. VP and General Counsel of NSSF commented, “The Biden administration is capitulating to pressure from radical environmentalists and anti-hunting groups. This ban will price out hunters from accessing public lands since the cost of alternative ammunition is significantly greater than that of traditional ammunition.”
H.R. 8460: A bill to allow BATFE to create a national firearms registry has been introduced. The bill would allow the government to keep background check information indefinitely.
Credit card Merchant Code activity:
After the letter sent by 24 State Attorney Generals sent to credit card companies opposing the new Merchant Activity Code, Florida Chief Financial Officer Jimmy Patronis suggested that he would work with the legislature “to pass a law penalizing businesses who are targeting the right to bear arms.”
2022 Politics
Early voting already underway in Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming and Vermont.
With the exception of Alabama, Connecticut, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire and Oregon all the states will have early voting in October. Check your local registrar to find the dates.
NSSF, the Firearm Industry Trade Association, has issued a Congressional Report Card.
Statewide Referenda on the ballot November 8
Iowa: On April 12, 2021 Gov. Kim Reynolds signed the constitutional carry bill making Iowa the 19th state to pass this law. This Nov. 8 there will be a ballot measure that will give Iowa citizens the ability add a “Second Amendment” to their constitution. The proposed amendment states, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The sovereign state of Iowa affirms and recognizes this right to be a fundamental individual right. Any and all restrictions of this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.”
Oregon: Initiative Petition 18 became Ballot Measure 114 (BM114), Changes to Firearms Ownership and Purchase Requirements Initiative. We reported earlier this year how this ballot measure came about. BM114 would enact a law requiring a permit to purchase a firearm, a government registry of gun owners’ personal information and firearms, an indefinite delay on background checks and bans any magazines over 10 rounds.
State Legislatures/Local communities
The following states are still in session: Massachusetts, Michigan, Illinois, New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania
California: On Sept. 20 the CRPA issued its final warning by sending a letter to Sheriffs in the state to stop their “foot-dragging” and expedite the CCW application process within the next 45 days or lawsuits will be coming.
California—Los Angeles — carry permits: According to the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA) the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department are charging outrageous fees for a Right-to-Carry permit. Although neither department is currently issuing permits the fees are $268 by LAPD and $150 by the Sheriff’s department. Konstadinos T. Moros, an attorney for CRPA, “We are looking at more that a $500 effective price tag to exercise a constitutional right if you are getting a permit from LAPD.”
Hawaii: A public hearing in Honolulu County to set new rules for carry licenses was held on October 4. It appears that Mayor Rick Blangiardi submitted a gun bill to the Honolulu City Council that resembles the NY CICA. Additionally, Hawai’i County, known as the Big Island, a similar proposal was introduced but council members have deferred the bill to keep working on the definition of “sensitive places.”
Maryland: Montgomery County—Council President Gabe Abornoz introduced an ordinance, County Bill 21-22 to ban permit holders from carrying in “a place of public assembly, “The County Council was on recess in August but no information concerning this bill is available as of October 7, 2022. However, it should be noted that this bill has 8 co-sponsors out of a total of 9 Council members.
New Jersey: Introduced bills: A4557 will be upgrading the crime ofmanufacturing firearms from second to first degree. A4717, has no text but requires psychological evaluation and in-home inspection prior to firearms’ purchase. S3003/A4502, expands sensitive places and S2847/A4369 prohibits possession of body armor.
New York—Wayne County Sheriff Robert Milby will ignore the CICA restrictions as to sensitive spaces; Jefferson County Board of Legislators unanimously approved Resolution 270, reaffirming Second Amendment rights and opposing the new CCIA law. Other NY County Sheriffs—those in Fulton County, Greene County, Erie County Montgomery and Niagara County are not going to be looking for citizens to charge. According to The NY Times “the NY State Sheriffs’ Association has called the new law a ‘thoughtless, reactionary action’ that aims to ‘restrain and punish law-abiding citizens.’”
Pennsylvania: HB2775, that would mandate a firearms eligibility license with mandatory training and added fees has been introduced. HB1929, that passed the House 202-1 in April 2022, has now unanimously passed the Senate Judiciary Committee. HB1929 removes knives and switchblade knives from the list of prohibited weapons. It should now go to the Senate floor for a vote.
Virginia: Surrey County—The Board of Supervisors did consider county ordinance 20-67, a ban on firearms in certain public spaces and more, at their October 6 meeting. After a mostly anti-ordinance list of speakers, they voted 3-2 to vote on the measure at their Nov. 3 meeting.
Judicial
Cases are grouped by court venue. New cases are added as they develop and some of these cases will be removed from this report if there is inactivity for a period of time. We will try and follow those cases that are active and impact the most gun owners.
US Supreme Court (SCOTUS)
On October 3, 2022 SCOTUS denied writs of certiorari for both “bump stock” related cases: Aposhian v. Garland and GOA v. Merrick Garland. It also granted a writ of certiorari in the case of Morin, Alfred v. Lyver, William, et al and then vacated and remanded it to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Non-SCOTUS Federal cases
Cases being re-litigated as a response to the NYSR&P v. Bruen
New York: the legislature has gone to great lengths to ensure that Bruen does not allow civilians the Right-to-Carry guns. Cases are being filed against the 2022 firearms laws that were passed in July 2022.
Antonyuk, et al v. Hochul: This is a challenge against “various provisions of New York’s newly minted by ineptly named “Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA)”. It is a refiling of the previous case, Antonyuk v. Bruen, also with Judge Suddaby presiding, which was dismissed for lake of standing. Antonyuk v. Hochul was filed on Sept. 20 and Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on October 6 issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) against major parts of the CCIA. The TRO was stayed for three business days to allow defendants to seek emergency relief in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and the defendants did that on October 6. Dave Workman reports on the Suddaby decision.
Vanchof v. James: challenging New York’s “assault weapons” ban, was filed in July 2022 and now all the defendants are writing letters about the plaintiffs’ standing and asking for a conference.
Paladino v. Bruen (7/11/22), challenging Section 5 of the law that “unconstitutionally presumptively prohibits Handgun Carry Licensees from carrying a concealed handgun on all private property in the State.”
Corbett v. Hochul (7/1//2022), challenging the required disclosure of social media accounts. NY requests more pages and more time to file.
NYSR&PA II v. Bruen: The next iteration of the SCOTUS case—challenging the 2022 firearms laws.
Boron v. Bruen: This case filed on September 13 in the US District Court for the Western District of New York challenges the enactment of S51001. The suit states the State of New York “replaced on unconstitutional licensing scheme with another.” The case is being supported by the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc. and two private citizens.
California: Ninth Circuit
Nichols v. Newsom: The Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded this lawsuit challenging California’s open carry ban. It returns to the Central District of California court.
Miller v. Bonta: The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has VACATED and REMANDED this case back to the District Court and briefs have been ordered to be produced.
Massachusetts: 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 has gone to both the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts and been appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, both of which ruled in favor of the state. Now the Appeals court has been ordered to review this case in light of the Bruen decision.
Other Cases
Oakland Tactical Supply, LLC v. Howell Township, Michigan: A challenge to the Howell Township zoning restrictions that prohibit shooting ranges for long guns has been successful on appeal. Originally In the U S District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division, the original case was decided in favor of Howell Township. The plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, who vacated and remanded the case back to the District Court to be decided in light of the Supreme Court Bruen decision. “The district court should decide, in the first instance, whether Oakland Tactical’s proposed course of conduct is covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment. See, e.g., id. at 2134-35 (concluding that the Second Amendment plainly covers a right to bear arms in public for self-defense). If the district court concludes that Oakland Tactical’s proposed course of conduct is covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment, it should then determine whether historical evidence—to be produced by the Township in the first instance—demonstrates that the Ordinance’s shooting-range regulations are consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
Rigby v. Jennings: A challenge to Delaware bill HB 125, that became law in 2021, criminalized the possession, manufacture, and distribution of unserialized firearms, 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.
Massachusetts: Granata v. Healey: This case was brought in 2021 challenging the handgun regulatory scheme of the state. On May 19, 2022 Judge Rya W. Zobel in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts found that “the challenged regulations therefore pass intermediate scrutiny.” In June an appeal was initiated to the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Earlier this month the plaintiffs filed a Motion in the US District Court for Vacatur and Remand as a result of the Bruen decision. The defendants have filed opposition to this motion, and the plaintiffs have responded.
Colorado: 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. 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 both towns banned so-called assault weapons. In two 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. On Sept.16 Federal judge Raymond P. Moore declined to combine four lawsuits that have been initiated in Boulder County and its towns into one. He commented,”if anyone thinks the district court is going to have the last say on this, they’re kidding themselves, Come on.”
The City of Bloomfield is reported to be considering an ordinance at its Sept. 20 City Council Meeting.
Nguyễn v. Bonta: A case filed by SAF and FPC in Sept. 2020 after the passage of California’s one-gun-a-month law. As a result of the SCOTUS Bruen decision, a brief, focused on “text and history”, was filed by the plaintiffs on Sept.16 at the request of District Court Judge William Hayes.
Nichols v. Newsom: Junior Sports Magazine, et. al v. Bonta: An emergency motion for a writ of mandamus has been filed. The Second Amendment Foundation, CRPA, Gun Owners of California, California Youth Shooting Sports Association and others are suing the state of California for the passage of AB2571 that was signed into law on June 30.“Plaintiffs bring this suit to challenge the constitutionality of California Business & Professions Code section 22949.80, which makes it unlawful for any “firearm industry member” to “advertise, market, or arrange for placement of an advertising or marketing communication concerning any firearm-related product in a manner that is designed, intended, or reasonably appears to be attractive to minors.”
VanDerStok v. Garland: Sept. 2 Judge Reed O’Connor stated that the “definition of a firearm in the Gun Control Act does not cover all firearms parts” and granted a preliminary injunction to plaintiff Tactical Machining, but not to its customers and requested further briefing. Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a lawsuit on 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.
Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island has converted their Temporary Restraining Motion to a Motion for a Temporary injunction against the 10-round magazine law that recently passed the legislature.
B&L Productions v. Newsom: B&L Productions (Crossroads of the West), California Rifle & Pistol Association, Second Amendment Foundation, Asian Pacific American Gun Owners Association, and others filed a lawsuit in federal court that challenges state Senator Min’s legislation, SB 264, banning gun shows by prohibiting the sale of firearms, firearms parts and ammunition at the Orange County Fairgrounds.
SoCal Top Guns v. Bonta: A coalition of groups that offer and promote youth-firearm safety, youth-shooting sports, and youth-hunting and hunter-education programs filed a lawsuit challenging a newly passed California statute that prohibits them from promoting those programs. An article in thereload.com demonstrates how California’s AB2571 is affecting the careers of Olympic shooters.
Morehouse Enterprises v. ATF: Seeking a preliminary injunctions against the “ATF from enforcing various parts of an omnibus rule scheduled to take effect Aug. 24.”That rule regulated unfinished, nonfunctioning firearm components identically to finished and operational firearms.This case has been joined by 17 states attorneys general.
Michelle Flanagan v. Rob Bonta: The County Counsel sent a letter to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit asking for the case to be dismissed as the case is now moot.The letter states “the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department is no longer requiring a showing of “good cause” in issuing licenses to carry a concealed weapon in public. This appeal now moot…”
Rocky Mountain Gun Owners v. Louisville: RMGO has agreed to withdraw their motion for a TRO as Louisville will stay enforcement of its magazine and so-called assault weapons ban.
Cheeseman v. Platkin: A challenge to New Jersey’s “assault weapons ban” in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey.
National Shooting Sports Foundation v. Letitia James: This case deals with the enactment of a law to hold the gun industry civilly liable for “public nuisances.” NSSF filed this case on December 16, 2021.
Ban on firearms for citizens ages 18-21 in federal court
Andrews v. McCraw: On Sept. 20 the Texas Department of Public Safety appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court. A decision was announced on August 24, 2022 based on the SCOTUS Bruen decision. This case was initiated in 2021 against the Texas law prohibiting citizens who are between the ages of 18 to 21 “from fully exercising the right to keep and bear arms.” Judge Mark T. Pittman wrote that the Texas law that “prohibits law-abiding 18-to-20-year-olds from carrying handguns for self-defense outside the home based solely on their age, this statutory scheme violates the Second Amendment, as incorporated against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment.”
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 supplemental briefing from the plaintiff is due by September 30 with a response due by October 17.
NRA v. Swearingen: On appeal to the US District Court in Tallahassee, FL oral arguments were held on March 24. The opening brief by the NRA was filed on August 17, 2021 before the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. This is a case that deals with the age of majority. U.S. District Judge for the Northern District Mark E. Walker wrote a strange opinion in which he stated, “for better or worse” he was precluded from ruling any way other than upholding the law.
