By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New– Federal: HR4350, National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) includes military protective orders with no due process requirements and honorable discharges for service members who decline COVID-19 vaccinations; California: Gov. Gavin Newsom signed: AB173: San Diego again passes “ghost gun” prohibition. Politics: “Beto” O’Rourke, the avowed AK-47 gun grabber is contemplating running for Texas Governor in 2022; Florida Gubernatorial candidate: Nicole “Nikki” Fried; Judicial: Fahr v. San Diego, FPC files against San Diego ordinance banning plastic guns and parts.
Biden/Harris Administration
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
Proposed BATFE regulations: Comments on the “Frame or Receiver” proposed regulation have closed.
Comments on proposed regulations regarding “Stabilizing Braces”: Although comments have now closed, over 211,000 comments (most of them negative) have been received.
Politics
2022 Gubernatorial races:
Next year’s political races will not only include every member of the US House of Representatives and one-third of the US Senate, but 36 out of 50 governors’ seats will also be on the ballot. We will try and cover those races in which a pro-gun candidate is viable.
Florida: The current governor of Florida, Republican Ron DeSantis, has been a stalwart supporter of the Second Amendment and is running for re-election. It appears that there will be a free-for-all primary among Democrats seeking to take his job. At the present time the “front-runner” would be Agriculture Commissioner Nicole “Nikki” Fried, the only Democrat among the current constitutional officers. It has become obvious that Fried ran for Agriculture Commissioner as a stepping stone to a gubernatorial challenge—her twitter account is nothing but full of attacks on Gov. DeSantis. In Florida the Agriculture Commissioner’s office is responsible for the issuance of Right-to-Carry permits and during the beginning of the pandemic Fried’s office did not process the in-person fingerprinting required for the permit application. After the Jan. 6 riot at the US Capitol Fried announced that the Department of Agriculture was revoking the permits of Florida residents who were charged in that disturbance. She continues to work at cross purposes with Florida gun owners.
Texas: It appears that Robert “Beto” O’Rourke, the former Representative that ran against Senator Ted Cruz in 2018 and then ran very unsuccessfully for President in 2020 is seriously considering running for Governor in 2022. According to Friday’s Dallas Morning News, “Beto O’Rourke, edging closer to challenging Gov. Greg Abbott, on Friday defended his vow to confiscate assault-style guns during the 2020 presidential race, warning that the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol showed the danger of letting Trump-loving white supremacists own ‘weapons of war.’” Dave Workman’s article on O’Rourke’s possible candidacy can be found here.
2021 Congressional Activity
HR4350, National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that has passed the House of Representativesincludes two amendments that are related to firearms’ ownership by members of the military. The first relates to military protective orders that do not contain due process requirements. The language reads,“A military court protective order issued on an ex parte basis shall restrain a person from possessing, receiving, or otherwise accessing a firearm; and a military court protective order issued after the person to be subject to the order has received notice and opportunity to be heard on the order, shall restrain such person from possessing, receiving, or otherwise accessing a firearm in accordance with section 922 of title 18.” The second amendment was initiated by Rep. Mark Green (R-TN) that requires only honorable discharges for anyone who is separated from the military after refusing to be vaccinated. Any dishonorable discharge from the military precludes that service member from acquiring or owning a firearm. The bill passed with 135 Republicans voting aye.
The House of Representatives passed gun control legislation using two bills: HR8, a “universal background check” bill and HR1446, a bill that would allow the FBI “NICS” check to be delayed indefinitely without “proof” that the buyer is not eligible to purchase. The votes were 227-203 for HR8 and 219-210 for HR1446.
2021 State Legislation
Vermont has not adjourned, but has recessed and will be returning in October.
The following states will carry over 2021 legislation to 2022: Alaska, California, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin and West Virginia (House only)
Alaska: The following bills are still active and can be carried over into 2022: SB136, a bill to protect Second Amendment businesses during a state of emergency, passed the Senate Community and Regional Affairs Committee. HB11, allowing for defensive display of a firearms, was heard by the House Community and Regional Affairs Committee. HB179, a bill protecting Alaskans from infringement on their Second Amendment rights during a state of emergency, has been introduced.
California: On Sept. 23 Gov Newsom signed AB173, requiring the CA Department of Justice to supply state information including personal identifying information to the UC Gun Violence Research Center at UC Davis, and also allowing the DOJ to provide this same information to certain non-profits and state agencies. As many gun control lobbying groups include nonprofit entities, this could mean that they will be getting gun owner identifying information. SB264, prohibiting gun shows on state property, is still awaiting his signature.
Illinois: The legislature is in recess but committees are meeting to consider legislation. HB1092, expanding seizing firearms without due process, has passed the legislature but has not been signed by the governor. HB562 will add to the burdens of law-abiding gun owners by: expanding background checks for all gun sales, requires the state police to remove guns from persons with revoked FOID cards, creates a stolen gun database and allows electronic records of FOID and carry licenses.
Pennsylvania: The legislature is planning to reconvene by the end of September. The following pro-gun bills are awaiting action–SB565, the Senate constitutional carry bill, was sent to the full Senate in June by the Senate Judiciary Committee, while the companion bill, HB659, made it out of House Judiciary Committee before the recess. HB979, a pro-gun preemption bill, that was originally HB1066, has passed the House and is before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The House Judiciary Committee to consider HB659, constitutional carry legislation. The following anti-gun bills are still in the House Judiciary Committee: HB361, a bill to undo the firearms pre-emption statute, HB364, destroying confiscated firearms; and HB393, state firearms dealer licensing.
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)
New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn (NYSR&PA) v. Bruen: As of Sept, 21 over 75 different amicus briefs have been filed in this case. The list of such filings can be found here. This case that will be argued on November 3 and decided in the 2021-2022 US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) term. This case concerns the carrying of firearms outside the home. According to the Supreme Court orders: “The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the State’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.” As a split exists in the Circuit Court decisions regarding this premise, SCOTUS will attempt to resolve the issue. It has taken more than a decade to get the Supreme Court to take up another Second Amendment case after Second Amendment victories in Heller and McDonald.
Aposhian v. Garland: On August 2, 2021 W. Clark Aposhian filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. This case was filed originally filed in 2019 seeking a preliminary injunction against the BATFE’s reclassification of “bump stocks” as “machine-guns”. The district court upheld the BATFE interpretation, as did a panel majority of the Tenth Circuit. The Tenth Circuit then granted a petition for review en banc. Then the Tenth Circuit vacated its prior order and reinstated the panel opinion. This case is now before SCOTUS asking for a writ of certiorari to the Tenth Circuit to rehear the case en banc. The following have filed amici briefs: Gun Owners of America, Inc., Virginia Citizens Defense League, Tennessee Firearms Association, Grass Roots North Carolina, Oregon Firearms Federation, Arizona Citizens Defense League, Gun Owners Foundation, Heller Foundation, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, NRA, American Cornerstone Institute, State of West Virginia, Firearms Policy Foundation, Madison Society Foundation, Inc., Florida Carry, Inc., Due Process Institute and several individuals. This case is similar to GOA v. Garland listed below.
Non-SCOTUS Federal cases
Fahr v. San Diego: Immediately after the San Diego mayor Todd Gloria signed Ordinance O-2022-7, banning so-called “ghost guns” Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a lawsuit and a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to block enforcement of the law in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.
Todd Yukutake, et al., v. Clare E. Conners: Two state of Hawaii firearms laws, requiring an individual to purchase a firearm within 10 days of obtaining a permit to acquire and requiring a gun owner to physically bring a firearm to the police department for inspection within 5 days of acquiring it, were overturned by Judge J. Michael Seabright of the US District Court for the District of Hawaii on August 16, 2021.
William Drummond, Second Amendment Foundation v. Robinson Township: The Robinson Township amended the current rules for shooting ranges by limiting shooting to rimfire rifles not high power rifles, the owner of the range sued. The suit was dismissed by a lower court, but the Third Circuit Court vacated the dismissal and the suit can proceed.
Francisco v. Cooke: Federal litigation brought by the plaintiffs in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey challenging the NJ carry ban. Brought by Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) challenging the New Jersey law that “makes it a crime for law-abiding individuals to carry a loaded handgun outside of the home unless they have been issued a permit to carry a handgun, thus denying them their right to bear arms. State law requires permit applicants to demonstrate a “justifiable need,” among other requirements.”
GOA v. Garland: A case brought against BATFE’s rule that “bump stocks”, a non-mechanical accessory, transform firearms into a machine gun. The US District Court for the Western District of Michigan ruled against a preliminary injunction, thus the case was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, where a three-judge panel vacated (reversed) that ruling. The U.S. Department of Justice appealed for a rehearing en bank putting the case back on the docket for oral arguments. I8 states filed an amicus brief in opposition to the bump stock ban.
Defense Distributed v. Bruck: This case was originally named Defense Distributed v. Grewal. Grewal was the former New Jersey Attorney General, but became Director of SEC enforcement in June and the New Jersey Attorney General is Andrew Bruck. Both Dave Workman and I have written about this case. Workman’s summary is here and mine is here. After the Fifth Circuit ruled that this case was to be decided in the Fifth Circuit Court, which is in Texas, the former attorney General of New Jersey Gurbir Grewal, appealed to SCOTUS unsuccessfully in March 2021. Now the plaintiffs, Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation are in court to restore the case back to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for a decision. Arguments are scheduled for August 3, 2021.
N.J. and A.L. v. Sonnabend and Kaminski: A case where student speech, where students in 2 different Wisconsin schools were denied their 1st Amendment rights when they wore clothing depicting firearm(s) to school. The District Court ruled on May 3, 2021 that the 1st Amendment does not protect students’ rights to wear clothing that depicts firearms in a non-violent, non-threatening manner. On July 9, 2021 this case was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Seventh Circuit.
Miller v. Bonta: The state of CA has filed an emergency order to stay enforcement of Judge Benitez’s June 4, 2021 ruling and the Ninth Circuit Court granted the emergency stay. Judge Roget T. Benitez ruled that California’s “assault weapons” ban is unconstitutional. The judge stayed the ruling for 30 days to allow the state of California time to appeal. For a complete description of the unprecedented ruling see Dave Workman’s article.
Duncan v. Bonta: (formerly Duncan v. Becerra) It was almost a year ago, Aug. 28, 2020, when the office of the Attorney General filed a petition for an en banc hearing on this case after the case had been won at the district court and at a 3-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit, that held that the California law banning magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds is unconstitutional. On June 22, 2021 the arguments were heard before an 11-judge en-banc panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. CRPA has an extensive analysis of this decision. Additionally the California DOJ posted a notice saying the prohibition ”remains in place until the appellate process is final.” This case appears to becoming the basis for how the Ninth Circuit will rule on all firearms’ cases before it. This case in addition to Rupp v. Becerra, which has been appealed to the Ninth Circuit, and Villaneuva v. Becerra, attacking the California DOJ’s regulations on “assault weapons” that was filed on September 7. 2017 are part of a three-prong attack on the California laws regarding bans on assault weapons and “large capacity” magazines that began early in 2017 by the CRPA and the NRA.
Ban on firearms for citizens ages 18-21 in federal court
Hirschfeld v. ATF: A case in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on the Second Amendment rights of adults ages 18-21. On July 13, this Court “Vacated, reversed, and remanded” the lower court decision stating “Despite the weighty interest in reducing crime and violence, we refuse to relegate either the Second Amendment or 18- to 20-year-olds to a second-class status.”
NRA v. Swearingen: The opening brief by the NRA was filed on August 17, before the US Court of Appeal 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.In 2018 after the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School massacre the Florida legislature passed a gun law that prevented people under the age of 21 from buying any firearms, except if they had parents or relatives to assist them. Before the passage of that law people under 21 were prohibited under federal law from buying handguns but were able to purchase rifles and shotguns.
Meyer v. Raoul: The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), the Illinois State Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc. and three citizens ages 18-21 years of age are challenging the Illinois ban on allowing concealed carry for anyone not 21 years of age. In filing the lawsuit Alan M. Gottlieb, SAF founder notes, “Citizens in this age group enjoy nearly all of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution except when it comes to the Second Amendment. This cannot be allowed to stand.”
Lara v. Evanchick: The Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) have initiated a case challenging Pennsylvania law that denies young adults under 21 the freedom to carry a loaded firearm for self-defense outside their home. On April 16, Judge William S. Stickman IV of the US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania ruled against the plaintiffs. On June 23, an appeal was lodged in the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
State cases
Goldstein v. Earnest: This case has been brought by the Brady United Group on behalf of the Chabad of Poway Synagogue victims against the manufacturer and seller of the firearms used in the attack against the Chabad of Poway parishioners. A second amended complaint has just been filed. They are using the concept of deceptive advertising by the firearms manufacturer similar to the Soto v. Bushmaster case in Connecticut. The United States of America has intervened and filed a brief on June 8, 2021 “to present argument on the constitutional challenges to Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Complaint.” The brief is entitled, “A Brief of United States in support of the constitutionality of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.”
Massachusetts v. Holmes: This case was originally brought in 2018 in a Massachusetts court. 14 cities and towns, police officers and a gun store have been sued under the Massachusetts False Claims Act for improperly disposing of firearms surrendered under state law. The Court ruled on June 30 that the suit could proceed but that the cities and towns could not be sued but the officers did not have qualified immunity and could be sued in their individual capacity. The judge wrote, “Furthermore, no reasonable officer would have understood that their conduct as alleged in the complaint—disposing of plaintiff’s guns and other items without notice, opportunity to be heard, or adequate state-law remedies—would come close to satisfying due-process requirements.”
Franklin Armory v. California DOJ: Franklin Armory developed a long gun firearm named Title One that did not fit into any of the California designated firearm categories that are listed in the CA Department of Justice’s online form. Franklin Armory has communicated with the CA-DOJ about this problem since 2012. The case was brought in May 2020 and on June 3, 2021 the judge ruled on the CA-DOJ demurrer. A demurrer is a legal method to allow the defendant to have a case ruled irrelevant. On June 3, 2021 the court ruled “Respondents’ demurrer to the SAC is overruled. Respondents have 20 days to answer only.” The case can continue to trial.
