Gun Free Zone

Where a Hispanic Catholic, and a Computer Geek write about Gun Rights, Self Defense and whatever else we can think about.

Case Analysis

Case Analysis Legal

Lance Boland v. Rob Bonta, CA UHA (9th Cir.)

Jun 3, 2023 awa 1 comment

B.L.U.F. The 9th Circuit court is about to hear oral arguments on the California Unsafe Hand Gun act. Everybody wants to get their oar in the water, here is one such oar.

Who

Peace Officers Research Association of California, The California State Sheriffs’ Association, The California Police Chiefs Association, The California Association of Highway Patrolmen, the California Reserve Peace Officers Association, that is who is filling this Amicus Curiae brief.

More formally:

Pursuant to Rule 29(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Amici Curiae the Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC), the California State Sheriffs’ Association (CSSA), the California Police Chiefs Association (CPCA), the California Association of Highway Patrolmen (CAHP), and the California Reserve Peace Officers Association (CRPOA) respectfully submit this Amici Curiae brief, with the consent of all parties, in support of Plaintiffs/Appellees Lance Boland, Mario Santellan, Reno May, Jerome Schammel, and California Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. No counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part, and no party or party’s counsel contributed money to fund this brief. No person other than Amici Curiae made any monetary contribution to fund the preparation or submission of this brief.
—Lance Boland v. Rob Bonta, No. 23-55276, slip op. at 1 (9th Cir.)

The first three pages are introductions of the different organizations.

The Argument

Read More

Case Analysis Legal

O.F.F. v. Brown, Order denying Preliminary Injunction and Summary Judgement

Jun 1, 2023 awa 2 comments

The Judge Said What?

B.L.U.F.A District Court judge decides that it isn’t law that is being questioned but facts.

In the Beginning

Finding that this case implicates important and unsettled questions of law, this Court exercises its discretion to deny both Defendants’ and Plaintiffs’ motions. This Court additionally finds that the record contains genuine disputes of material fact, which would benefit from full development through trial. Accordingly, Defendants’ and Plaintiffs’ Motions are DENIED.
—Lance Boland v. Rob Bonta, No. 23-55276, slip op. at 1 (9th Cir.)

The key takeaway is genuine disputes of material fact. Post Bruen there is no real material fact to be determined with regard to presumptively protected conduct. This case is a challenge to Oregon’s measure 114, which contains a LCM ban.

Analysis

Read More

Case Analysis Legal

Renna v. Bonta, 9th Cir. CA Unsafe Handgun Act

May 31, 2023 awa 4 comments


B.L.U.F. A look at the state’s appeal to the Ninth Circuit court. The District Court granted a preliminary injunction blocking part of the California roster infringement.

The Question

As you read different case filings, you quickly find that the parties are supposed to respectful and polite. Much like a congressional representative says, “My friend from the other side of the aisle is concerned about a fantasy.” Rather than “She’s moon bat crazy.” When you find language that is pushing the boundaries of respect, it pops.

Whether the district court abused its discretion in granting Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction against enforcement of public safety requirements that new semiautomatic pistols must satisfy to be available for retail sale—a chamber load indicator, magazine disconnect mechanism, and microstamping capability— and against enforcement of the Roster removal requirement that aims to reduce the proportion of semiautomatic pistols on the Roster that lack these features.
—Lana Renna v. Rob Bonta, No. 23-55367, Doc. 13 (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit), at 15

It is showing a level of disrespect to the District court to say they “abused its discretion”. I’ve seen this phrased, more politely, as “the district court errored”. This is not a good look in a court filing.

State’s Justification for the Roster

Read More

Case Analysis Legal

Oregon Firearms Federation, Inc. v. Brown

May 24, 2023 awa 1 comment


B.L.U.F.

Measure 114

Measure 114 turns the right to bear arms protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution on its head. Measure 114 abolishes Oregonian’s constitutionally protected right to purchase firearms and own them for self-defense, turning it into a privilege, subject to the whims of government bureaucrats, that may be bestowed on Oregonians at a time when it is convenient for the government.
—Third Amended Complaint.Oregon Firearms Federation, Inc. v. Brown, No. 2:22-cv-01815, Doc. 158 (District Court, D. Oregon), ¶8
Measure 114 made up the term “large capacity magazine” for magazine capable of carry more than 10 rounds. There is not firearms industry term for magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, nor is it an accurate descriptive term for what is really standard equipment. Indeed, the law’s definition of “large capacity magazine” is deliberately misleading. Many people buy a firearm for the purpose of self-defense. Such consumers are inherently interested in maximizing the number of rounds available in a small package because it maximizes the effectiveness of their defensive tool. Characterizing standard capacity magazines as large capacity is a psychological trick designed to deceive the public.
— Id. ¶70</cite

The gist is that Measure 114 creates a permitting scheme that doesn’t work. It bans magazines and semi-automatic weapons and is another Bruen response spam bill.

State of Play

The case was opened on Nov 18, 2022. Shortly thereafter, the filed for an Emergency Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. A hearing for a Temporary Restraining Order was held on December 2nd. On December 6th, the motion for a TRO was denied.
Read More

Case Analysis Legal

Koons v. Platkin — Part II

May 20, 2023 awa 0 comments

B.L.U.F. More on District Judge Renee Marie Bumb’s opinion on NJ’s Bruen spasm legislation, Chapter 131. The case is currently being appealed to the Third Circuit court as Ronald Koons v. Attorney General New Jersey, 23-1900, (3rd Cir.)

Her Historical Analysis

The first 50 pages or so of the opinion covered Judge Bumb’s analysis of the text, history and tradition of gun control regulations. When all was said, she found that regulations from as early as the 1328 and as late as the 1890s all support a history and tradition of disarming dangerous people.

She doesn’t cover the Statute of Northampton, from 1328. Different people read it in different ways in regard to how it limits the ownership of arms. She really digs in with regulations dating from 1860.

What most of these regulations have in common is that they set the punishment for the common-law offense” of going armed to terrify the people—KOONS v. PLATKIN, No. 1:22-cv-07464, Doc. 124 (D.N.J.).

Those that were not about going armed to terrify the people were about disarming disfavored groups. Slaves, Negros, Indians, Catholics, and people that were unhappy with the Government or unhappy with the people unhappy with the government were all groups that regulations disarmed.

While Bruen specifically mentions “regulations” in the context of historical analogies, Judge Bumb extends that to include discussions about regulations.

Consider a debate in the legislature regarding the adoption of the new Constitution. It is clear that they want some changes, amendments, to the Constitution. There are three different versions presented:

  1. The right to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed!
  2. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
  3. The right of the people loyal to the state to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

All three of those codify the right to keep and bear arms. The first group pushes hard. They argue that the simple command should be more than enough to protect the right. The second group pushes back. They argue that by explaining the reason why it is so important to protect the right to keep and bear arms, they make the protections stronger.

The third group is concerned about the federal government usurping the citizen militia. They fear that citizens of the state will be tempted by the federal government to take up arms against the states. The wish to have the power to disarm those that are openly agitating against the state government, in favor of the federal government.

After much heated debate, the third version is off the table. The delegates fell that giving the government any say in who keeps and bears arms to be too dangerous. Some more debate and the second version wins.

At this point, we see that The People, via their representatives, have done a means-end or interest balancing tests and determined which version they want.

Judge Bumb feels that the third group’s arguments should be given as much weight in the discussion of the tradition of firearm regulation as the actual regulation adopted. I feel it is the opposite. The fact that they were tested and found wanting means that it was a loosing argument then and is still a loosing argument today.

Her use of surety laws is just as weak.

The Second Amendment only applies to the “Virtuous Citizen”

Read More

Case Analysis Legal

Koons v Platkin — Bruen Spasm Response

May 17, 2023 awa 4 comments


B.L.U.F. A District Judge in New Jersey issues her order and opinion on a motion for a Preliminary Injunction. She is not happy with the state. She does an okay read of Bruen, finds in part for the plaintiffs (good guys) and in part for the defendants (bad guys/state).

Good News

In conclusion, the Second Amendment’s “right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not a ‘second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.’” Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2156 (quoting McDonald, 561 U.S. at 780). That does not mean, however, that the right is “unlimited.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 626. The Constitution leaves the States “some measures” to combat handgun violence. Id. at 636. But what the Second Amendment prohibits the States from doing, and what the State of New Jersey has done here with much of Chapter 131, is to “prevent[] law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.” Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2156. That is plainly unconstitutional.
— KOONS v. PLATKIN, No. 1:22-cv-07464, Doc. 124 at 234 (District Court, D. New Jersey, May 29, 2023)

The short answer, here, is that the Judge gets it. Chief Judge Renee Marie Bumb has written a 235-page opinion that is extensive. While the final outcome is not a 100% win for the Second Amendment, it is still a devastating take-down of the state.

History

In Bruen’s wake, New Jersey’s Legislature sprang into action, amending the State’s firearm laws in many ways. First, the Legislature dropped the State’s firearm law requiring a person to show “justifiable need” to carry a handgun in public for self-defense—a requirement that Bruen explicitly struck down. Second, the Legislature created a list of 25 “sensitive places” where firearms are banned under threat of criminal prosecution. These places range from government-owned buildings, libraries, entertainment facilities, and restaurants that serve alcohol to all private property unless prior consent to carry is given. In enacting the sensitive places law, the Legislature purported to abide by Bruen by declaring the Nation’s “history and tradition” supported banning firearms at these identified locations. 2022 N.J. Laws, ch. 131, § 1(g).
— Id. at 7

A pretty good start. sprang into action has that sort of dig against the state the Courts do when they are telling the state they understand the nefarious motives of the state.
Read More

Case Analysis Legal

Antonyuk v. Hochul, 22-2972, (2d Cir.)

May 13, 2023 awa 1 comment

Brief update on the cases before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

There are a number of Second Amendment Cases that are before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. While other circuits will consolidate cases, it looks like the Second Circuit did not. This means that there are four or five different cases to track. I am only tracking one, right now.

On March 20th, 2023, the three judge panel heard oral arguments. Each case was given a limited amount of time, half for the good guys, half for the bad guys.

If more than one party on each side wanted to speak, then those parties would have to agree on how much time each got.

Over in the Seventh Circuit Court, they consolidated multiple cases, then gave each side 45 minutes to present their oral arguments. This feels like it isn’t exactly reasonable, but I do not know.

Back at the Second, there are hundreds of documents filed. Some of the these documents are short and not significant. Antonyuk v. Hochul, 22-2972, (2d Cir. Feb 16, 2023) ECF No. 269 is a two-page form letter to a lawyer on the case who used the wrong login ID when submitting a different two-page document telling the court that they would be appearing as additional counsel.

Figure that there are likely around 2000–3000 pages of documents filed in this one case. Just reading all of that takes time.

Just one document references 30 different opinions. I’ve learned that just because a lawyer or judge cites an opinion, it doesn’t mean that they have represented that opinion honestly. So figure another 2000 plus pages of reference cases to read. In some cases, they reference entire websites.

Regardless, on March 20th, the case was heard.

I’ve listened to parts of the audio. It isn’t too bad, not great, but not bad. At least one of the Judges is anti-gun.

In 2017, the 2nd circuit court had a median interval from argument to opinion of less than a month. All circuit courts had a median of 2.2 months. 2018 was 0.7, 2019 was 0.8, 2020 was 0.8, 2021 was 0.5, and in 2022 it was 0.2 months.

The second circuit court has the lowest median time to opinion of the circuit courts.

Having said that, we should expect something from them in the June time frame. I suspect that the plaintiffs (good guys) will open a new appeal to the Supreme Court in July if an opinion is not issued before then.