United States 2nd Amendment Legal Cases and Law Discussion

5th Circuit strikes down Federal Bump Stock Ban
    • bullethead

    bullethead

    Part-time fanfic writer
    Super Moderator
    Staff Member
    Let's get ready for a SCOTUS rumble!
    Article:
    BREAKING: Cargill v. Garland (5th Circuit): En banc Fifth Circuit strikes down the federal bump stock ban, saying it violates the Administrative Procedure Act.

    Fl0ux4CWQAAIaVy

    Fl0ux5UWQAA9607

    Fl0ux8YWQAIWHKJ

    Fl0uyDiWIAAn0kp

    Article:
    "The definition of 'machinegun' as set forth in the National Firearms Act and Gun Control Act does not apply to bump stocks. And if there were any doubt as to this conclusion, we conclude that the statutory definition is ambiguous, at the very least."

    Article:
    "The rule of lenity therefore compels us to construe the statute in Cargill's favor. Either way, we must REVERSE."
     
    • Gun Law Spreadsheets: Duncan & Rhode
    • bullethead

    bullethead

    Part-time fanfic writer
    Super Moderator
    Staff Member
    Article:
    Here we go!

    Duncan - Google Drive

    drive.google.com drive.google.com

    Rhode - Google Drive

    drive.google.com drive.google.com

    The State’s spreadsheets range from the irrelevant, e.g. laws prohibiting concealed carry (Duncan is about possession/acquisition of magazines) to the outrageous, with them citing racist laws repeatedly.


    If you just want the dunking on the anti-gun position, go to the sheets with Plantiff in the name. They contain all the smackdowns.
     
    • Illinois AWB hit with temporary restraining order
    • bullethead

    bullethead

    Part-time fanfic writer
    Super Moderator
    Staff Member
    Looks like the Illinois AWB is not going to be enforced for a while:
    Article:
    BREAKING: Accuracy Firearms v. Pritzker (IL state court): Illinois judge says the state showed "blatant disregard for Constitutional Law" when it passed the "assault weapon" and magazine ban, grants temporary restraining order as to the 866 plaintiffs.

    Fm834PYXEAEck1N
    Fm834PZXgAAckxg
    Fm834P6WQAEsW7i
    Fm834RUWAAEVX_T
     
    • California Handgun Roster hit with injunction preventing enforcement
    • bullethead

    bullethead

    Part-time fanfic writer
    Super Moderator
    Staff Member
    California takes another L:
    Article:
    BREAKING: Boland v. Bonta (C.D. CA): Judge issues preliminary injunction against the California handgun roster's chamber load indicator, magazine disconnect mechanism, and microstamping requirements.


    Frrynz2WICoCiN_

    Frryn2PXwAI2tL_

    Frryn4AWIBICb7U

    Frryn42XwAA1XKY

    Article:
    "No handgun available in the world has all three of these features."

    Frr-yrMXwAMvrZG

    Article:
    "The result of this is that when Californians today buy a handgun at a store, they are largely restricted to models from over sixteen years ago."

    Frr-7l_WIAMObjx

    Article:
    "Since these requirements were added to the UHA, only 32 semiautomatic pistols have been added to the Roster that have a CLI and MDM."

    "This number is misleadingly high, as the Roster treats handguns that are the same except for small details... as different handguns."

    Frr_XTnWAAI0ao4

    Article:
    "Although the California Department of Justice certified on May 17, 2013 that the technology used to create the imprint is available to more than one manufacturer unencumbered by any patent restrictions, the technology still was not available."

    Frr_55nX0AAoVfX

    Article:
    "Every single handgun on the Roster is a grandfathered handgun—one the California legislature now deems 'unsafe.'"

    FrsAIkWWIAEGB2a

    Article:
    "[The UHA's prohibition] does not apply to sales to law enforcement personnel, personnel from agencies including the California Highway Patrol, the Department of Justice, the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency, and the district attorney's office, or any member of the military."

    FrsAZqbWAAQjS7b

    Article:
    "The challenged UHA provisions unquestionably infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. Plaintiffs seek to purchase state-of-the-art handguns for self-defense. The UHA prevents this."

    FrsBBtcWYAEQgeq

    Article:
    "Requiring Californians to purchase only outdated handguns for self-defense without question infringes their right to keep and bear arms."

    FrsBP-yXgAMTvWm

    Article:
    "Indeed, the Constitution protects much more than the bare right to keep and bear any outdated firearm for self-defense. The Second Amendment also protects attendant rights that make the underlying right to keep and bear arms meaningful."

    FrsBeNOWIAI1hey

    FrsBfw9WcAErYcQ

    FrsBhZOWYAEIFKw

    Article:
    "Contrary to the government's assertion, the fact that Californians may purchase other firearms... does not mean that the Second Amendment does not cover their proposed conduct of purchasing state-of-the-art handguns on the primary market."

    FrsB6RbWIAAasgE

    FrsB7zQWYAEXD6K

    Article:
    "The government proffers two historical analogues to the UHA's CLI and MDM requirements: 'proving' laws and gunpowder storage laws. Neither is sufficiently analogous."

    FrsChEhXsAA_H2f

    Article:
    "Put simply, requiring each model of handgun to contain additional features to potentially help a user safely operate the handgun is completely different from ensuring that each firearm's basic features were adequately manufactured for safe operation."

    FrsCpWnXwAAAyJl

    FrsCtWSWAAMVNCc

    FrsCvtjWYAM4xNj

    Article:
    "The main goal of the gunpowder storage laws was to prevent fire... In contrast, the CLI and MDM requirements are meant to prevent inadvertent discharge or firing of the firearm."

    FrsDTGJXgAEaqf5

    FrsDhhSXoAE8jvr

    Article:
    "Next, the government argues that... 'historical analogues sufficient to support the federal law prohibiting the possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number are sufficient to support the microstamping requirement'... The Court is not persuaded."

    FrsD0Z3WAAArhjR

    FrsERtGWAAIU9Oc

    Article:
    "Without a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the UHA's CLI, MDM, and microstamping provisions, Plaintiffs will continue to suffer harm because the government will continue infringing their Second Amendment rights."

    FrsEhiSWwAQX_Gd

    Article:
    Article:
    "The government cannot credibly argue that handguns without CLI, MDM, and microstamping features pose unacceptable public safety risks when virtually all of the handguns available on the Roster and sold in California today lack those features."

    FrsEvhOWAAQcJ0R

    Article:
    "Similarly, if Off-Roster firearms were truly unsafe, California would not allow law enforcement to use them in the line of duty, when the stakes are highest."

    FrsE-LSWcAMuT9Q

    Article:
    "The likelihood that a person will purchase a handgun with a CLI and MDM and that those features will prevent accidental shootings, injuries, or deaths is entirely speculative."

    FrsFXgSWYAAnvkg

    Article:
    "[Californians] should not be forced to settle for decade-old models of handguns to ensure that they remain safe inside or outside the home. But unfortunately, the UHA's CLI, MDM, and microstamping requirements do exactly that."

    FrsFq28WYAI03na
     
    • Fifth Circuit rules against Pistol Brace Ban
    • bullethead

    bullethead

    Part-time fanfic writer
    Super Moderator
    Staff Member
    Article:
    FPC WIN: The Fifth Circuit has ruled that we are likely to win on the merits of our APA claim against the ATF's pistol brace rule, and has remanded the case to the district court with instructions to reconsider our motion for preliminary injunction: https://firearmspolicy.org/mock

    F2eF261X0AAui0t

    F2eF267XEAAPDVN

    F2eF27gaAAE9-ZM
    Article:
    Judge Willett concurs, saying that the pistol brace rule likely also violates the Second Amendment. Stay tuned for more info!

    F2eGQZ6WoAAEEUT

    F2eGQavaIAAyL3m
    Article:
    heh

    F2eLrQNbEAANmlZ

    Article:
    "Plaintiffs observe that ATF Director Steve Dettelbach provided inaccurate testimony to the House Judiciary Committee on the operation of this portion of the Final Rule..."

    F2eMWuEaAAEp_S6
    Article:
    "If the government is correct, and the rule is only interpretive, millions of Americans were committing a felony the entire time they owned a braced pistol."
    Source: "If the government is correct, and the rule is only interpretive, millions of Americans were committing a felony the entire time they owned a braced pistol."

    F2eNJUcaAAELEZD

    F2eNLUiaAAMLuCw
    Article:
    "The ATF’s main rebuttal is that 'were an individual to be charged with unlawful possession, a court would determine whether the statute—not the Rule—covered the conduct.' That is too clever by half."

    F2eNWd1WgAA5e2H
    Article:
    "Under the Final Rule, it is nigh impossible for a regular citizen to determine what constitutes a braced pistol..."

    F2eN2WraUAA_k1a

    F2eN4dMa8AAFEKF
    Article:
    They have to remand. The appeal was interlocutory. Now we can work quickly. But don’t be surprised if they ask SCOTUS for relief like they did in our frame or receiver case.
     
    • California Magazine Ban Ruled Unconstitutional
    • bullethead

    bullethead

    Part-time fanfic writer
    Super Moderator
    Staff Member
    Saint Benitez delivers once again:
    Article:
    LEGAL ALERT:

    A Federal Court has determined California's Standard Capacity Magazine Ban is unconstitutional & ordered enforcement to be halted.

    However, the Court delayed enforcement of the order for ten days to allow the State time to file an appeal with the Ninth Circuit.

    F6p1W7CXwAErm14

    F6p1YMiXAAA64g6

    F6p1Yt6WcAAugZ_
    Article:
    This means the ban is officially ruled unconstitutional by a Federal Court, but enforcement of the ban has yet to be stopped.

    California will appeal and request the Ninth Circuit extend the 10-day delay to leave the ban in place during their appeal.

    Article:
    You can read the Court's decision here:



    Article:
    Alright, a highlights thread of Benitez's ruling in Duncan.

    He comes out swinging against the Newsoms of the world, correctly noting his job is to enforce the law, not to fear public criticism.

    F6pwqkOa4AAtqKF
    Article:
    This was one of the point we raised in our arguments when California kept trying to set 10 as some magical line. Different states set different limits, for what is a fundamental right applicable to all states.

    F6pxGgEaAAAzvYO
    Article:
    Benitez notes that California would almost assuredly reduce the ten round limit anyway. It is arbitrary.

    F6pxgI5aAAAAqfk
    Article:
    As we've argued repeatedly, the States defending such laws are just trying to smuggle interest balancing back into the analysis under the pretense of it being a "plain text" analysis.

    F6pxua5aAAM6jaG
    Article:
    Sadly, Judge Benitez does not read @TheReloadSite
    apparently. @StephenGutowski

    F6pyWJ3aAAAeckT
    Article:
    Gonna need to update the law review article to include Judge Benitez in the section on modern judicial commentary.

    F6py8y0aAAAJD-S
    Article:
    And yes, obviously magazines are "Arms".

    F6p0Kl_aAAEB_Ui
    Article:
    This argument was indeed a hilarious one the state made. It doesn't magically become a protected arm if it has ten rounds instead of eleven lol.

    F6p0aBCaoAA2_6T
    Article:
    I am SO glad he included this. Newsom's lawyers in the 1327 litigation took over for Bonta when he refused to defend that law, and we successfully baited them into taking this position. They didn't know they were supposed to gaslight.

    F6p1ABIaAAIbDBs
    Article:
    Pointing out more contradictions in the state's position, given current CA law makes a magazine literally necessary to fire a modern handgun for it to be sold here.

    F6p3ahmaAAASOiL
    Article:
    Benitez takes apart the argument states like California are making regarding an arm only being protected if it is frequently actually used for self-defense.

    F6p4KbqaAAAP4YR
    Article:
    Benitez takes apart the tired "weapon of war" argument.

    F6p6VWgboAEYovd
    Article:
    Benitez goes through an excellent historical analysis that is more thorough than the superficial one we've seen other courts apply (on purpose, so they could uphold the laws).

    F6p7oG5boAA88ke
    Article:
    Benitez tells the state its discriminatory laws are no good here.

    F6p8Xp_boAAHkhP
    Article:
    He zeroes in on the state's reliance on regulations of concealed carry of weapons which were mostly note firearms.

    F6p88iDboAMXdmC
    Article:
    A point we emphasized in our briefing was that bans on possession of common arms just did not exist until the 20th century. Benitez got the message.

    F6p9fybakAA-taY
    Article:
    I can see the Duke Law Blog article already.

    F6p-1chagAAOKB7
    Article:
    Benitez notes that while territory laws are of little value under Bruen, even if they were, the territories didn't ban any guns in the 19th century.

    F6p_1VCbMAAK0kJ
    Article:
    This one seems to just be in there as a historical fun fact lol.

    F6qAap8a8AAQopr
    Article:
    As I've long maintained, the lack of regulation of revolvers and repeating rifles decides this issue.

    F6qE5eOaAAAQ92H
    Article:
    I was actually shocked that the State argued that gunpowder storage was their best analogue, as that is clearly dissimilar because the reasons for it had nothing to do with stopping gun-related crime.

    F6qFXSJbwAAahD5
    Article:
    Yep. The "militia right only!" people are weirdly wary of citing actual laws about citizen militias, because they destroy the "weapon of war" arguments.

    F6qG6apacAALx1i
    Article:
    What a banger of an opinion. Great read, and excited to help defend it in the 9th circuit.

    F6qHiWGbIAAFosm
     
    • California Sensitive Places Carry Ban ruled unconstitutional
    • bullethead

    bullethead

    Part-time fanfic writer
    Super Moderator
    Staff Member
    Reno May et al vs Bonta:


    TL;DW:
    -California's "sensitive places" gun-free zones declared unconstitutional under 2nd Amendment
    -Couldn't have guns even with a CCW in those areas
    -Preliminary injunction granted
    -List of sensitive places was basically everywhere besides places that specifically allowed carry
    -Cannot be enforced by the state
    -Judge literally starts out with "We live in dangerous times... The right to self-defense and to defend one's family is fundamental and essential..."
    -No bans on carry in a lot of places because of no analogies to 1790s laws
    -Private actor laws are not applicable, because they're not state actors
    -California's law was so broad that being in ANY place that served alcohol, even if you did not drink, was prohibited
    -In the times of the Founding, people were ENCOURAGED to bring guns to sensitive areas that might be attacked
    -Schools at the time of the Founding were NOT gun free zones, sometimes banned students from bringing guns
    -Full ruling: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.898535/gov.uscourts.cacd.898535.45.0.pdf
     
    • Pennsylvania's Young Adult Carry Ban During States of Emergency Ruled Unconstitutional
    • bullethead

    bullethead

    Part-time fanfic writer
    Super Moderator
    Staff Member
    • New Mexico public carry ban on hold
    • bullethead

    bullethead

    Part-time fanfic writer
    Super Moderator
    Staff Member
    New Mexico's governor keeps taking Ls:




    Article:
    LEGAL ALERT: A New Mexico federal judge has denied the governor's motion to stay the preliminary injunction against her public park carry ban, which means the ban cannot be enforced while her appeal continues at the Tenth Circuit.

    GEe6SZUWoAEQdq3

    GEe6UbFXUAAPWQe

    GEe6ZriX0AA-0lA


    Article:
    "Defendants assert or imply that by referencing the months of September and October in his declaration, Plaintiff was asserting he only attends parks in September and October, and no other time. The Court disagrees."

    GEe9pbVWoAEhY2a


    Article:
    "Defendants' arguments are contradictory. They cite to three shootings which occurred in Albuquerque parks before the public health order's ban on firearms in Albuquerque parks, as proof that a ban is necessary. However, those shootings occurred during what Defendants allege was a separate firearm ban imposed by the City of Albuquerque."

    GEe90DUWoAAb-WU
     
    • FBI/NICS Update 2024 - ATF Town Hall
    • bullethead

    bullethead

    Part-time fanfic writer
    Super Moderator
    Staff Member
    FBI/ATF statements from a Shot Show Presentation on NICS:

    Article:
    I’ll be live tweeting the “FBI/NICS Update - ATF Town Hall” at SHOT in 20 minutes. @FBI
    @ATFHQ

    Article:
    NY has processed 13k background checks since they went to point of contact state.

    Article:
    GEpLTWqbMAAL0bq

    Article:
    GEpLmlOakAAZTpb

    Article:
    GEpL-IXbgAEoLaB

    Article:
    GEpMmQaaQAAbzsC

    Article:
    GEpNK25asAA-sFZ

    Article:
    NFA appeals process “mirrors” the regular firearms appeals process through NICS.

    Article:
    FBI is proposing two NPRMs on under 21 background checks and some type of employment background check. Did not say what the proposed rules would do.

    Article:
    Ammo checks are not a permissible use of NICS database.

    Article:
    They are doing some Q&A that isn’t that interesting.

    Article:
    Someone asked why does politics influence “4473 noncompliance”. FBI lady said she doesn’t think politics influences NICS job.

    Article:
    Someone asked about eforms. She said firearms transactions are prioritized over NFA backgrounds checks because there is a requirement under fed law and not a requirement for timeliness for NFA.
     
    • New Mexico "Gas Operated Semi-Auto" Ban Bill Analysis
    • bullethead

    bullethead

    Part-time fanfic writer
    Super Moderator
    Staff Member
    Update on New Mexico bill to ban semi-auto guns that use gas in their operating system:


    Article:
    A legislative analysis for the New Mexico bill to ban "gas-operated semiauto firearms" anticipates that it will cost over $450,000 to defend in court, while the public defender's office says it's concerned about "potential widespread noncompliance should [it] be enacted":
    GEs8-2vXsAAKiTP

    GEs8-2uWoAA29et

    GEs8-20W4AA_5Nd

    GEs8-2vW8AI0KH6

    Commentary on said bill:





    Article:
    The silver lining of New Mexico going all the way with a semiauto ban is the government lawyers can no longer gaslight judges by arguing this is just about "weapons of war", or hide behind it "only prohibiting certain features".

    Instead, this wipes out most modern and popular firearms, and sets up for a precedent declaring such a move unconstitutional.

    Article:
    If this is expected to pass, I hope someone has a lawsuit and TRO ready the day it is signed.

    Article:
    And even if you get the worst judge ever, and then the worst appellate panel ever, a semiauto ban is huge SCOTUS bait. Especially if they are too timid to take an "assault weapons" case due to the controversy, but want to establish a hardware baseline in a less controversial case.

    Article:
    Under this moronic governor, New Mexico is intent on setting up the new "floor" of gun rights. They did it with "sensitive places" already, where SCOTUS said you can't just ban carry in an entire city, and Grisham tried it anyway (via a unilateral order, no less). Unsurprisingly, it was promptly struck down.

    So going for a full semiauto ban is in character. Let's do it, and set up a baseline precedent to build on. ;-)
     
    • You must log in or register to reply here.
    Top