Ronald Koons v. Attorney General New Jersey, 23-1900, (3rd Cir.): the state has requested a stay on the injunction issued against the New Jersey Bruen response legislation. All filings were in by May 30th. We are now waiting to see if the Circuit Court grants cert. If they do, then oral arguments will be scheduled. This is just against the preliminary injunction.

Scott Hardin v. ATF, 20-6380 (6th Cir. 2023): The 6th Circuit Court has reversed and remanded the case back to the inferior court. The original District Court judgement was that ATF gets to define bump stocks as machine guns. The Circuit court says that the District Court got it wrong. IANAL, I don’t think the district court does anything, but the state can appeal to the Supreme Court.

Robert Bevis v. City of Naperville, 23-1353, (7th Cir.): This is part of the IL AW/LCM bans. Oral arguments will be held on June 29th. It will be a couple of months after that before we hear anything back. This is a case where the Supreme court told the inferior courts that they are keeping an eye on things.

When the oral arguments are published, I’ll try using my magic speech to text software and get us a pseudo transcript.

Antonyuk v. Hochul, 22-2972, (2d Cir.): Oral arguments were heard on March 20, 2023. We are expecting an opinion at anytime. This is likely the next movement towards the Supreme Court we see.

Lance Boland v. Rob Bonta, 23-55276, (9th Cir.): The 9th Cir is stretching this one out as much as possible. While the 2nd and 7th moved rapidly, the 9th has told the parties to pick a date in August 2023. I don’t expect much movement before then. This is a challenge to California’s UHA.

Lana Renna v. Rob Bonta, 23-55367, (9th Cir.): This is another UHA challenge. They are going to schedule it sometime in August or later.

Dominic Bianchi v. Brian Frosh, 21-1255, (4th Cir.): Oral arguments were heard December 6, 2022. We are waiting for the Circuit Court to issue their opinion. This is a domino case.

This case was GVR’ed after Bruen. The case was originally decided on September 17, 2021, based on an earlier decision in Kolbe. Kolbe has been mentioned many times. It is cited by the infringers because it is a perfect example of means-end. The District and then the Circuit’s three judge panel and finally the 4th Cir. en banc, all used interest balancing to find Maryland’s AWB constitutional.

The state would like Kolbe to remain good law. If it is good law, then it allows them some sort of balancing. If, on the other hand, Kolbe is found to no longer be controlling, then many other cases that depend, at some level, on case law decided before Bruen will start to fall.

Granata v. Campbell, 22-1478, (1st Cir.): This is a challenge to the Massachusetts handgun regulatory scheme. In May 2022, the District Court used means-end to find for the state. They first played the game of “we assume the conduct is within the scope of the Second Amendment, but do not affirm that it is.” After they agree to play the game, they decide that the handgun roster is just a modest burden on the core Second Amendment right—Granata v. Healey, No. 1:21-cv-10960, slip op. at 10 (Mass. Dist. Ct.)

From there, the District court decided to use “intermediate scrutiny”. I.e. the state is going to win.

This case was heard by the First Circuit, April 4, 2023. In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), the district court’s judgment is vacated, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings. In remanding this matter, we take no position on the outcome previously reached by the district court, and we do not retain jurisdiction. Rather, in the event that any party contests the district court’s decision, a timely new notice of appeal should be filed. No costs are awarded.—Granata v. Healey, No. 1:21-cv-10960 (Mass. Dist. Ct.)

This is seriously messed up. The circuit court should have reversed the inferior court’s judgement. Instead, the said that the parties need a “do over”. This case is on a slow burn for the foreseeable future.

Ocean State Tactical, LLC v. State of Rhode Island, 23-1072, (1st Cir.): This is an LCM ban challenge. The inferior court found that it was unlikely that the plaintiffs (good guys) would win on the merits, that the plaintiffs weren’t being irreparably harmed by the infringement, so refused to grant a TRO or a preliminary injunction.

The plaintiffs appealed January 18, 2023. Oral arguments are still not scheduled. Full briefings do not seem to have been filed yet. This is an in limbo case.

This is another case where it was started long before Bruen. It goes to show just how much legal work was being done, and not noticed.

United States v. Rahimi, 21-11001, (5th Cir.): This was a challenge to 18 U.S.C. §922(g) regarding a person losing their Second Amendment protected rights because there is a TRO issued against them. The gist of the argument is that most TROs are boilerplate. This means that even if the person requesting doesn’t ask for it, the judge will add the wording to yank rights from the accused.

It has been appealed to the Supreme Court by the state after the Fifth Circuit court found that there is no history or tradition of stripping rights from a person without a real trial.

National Rifle Association v. Commissioner, Florida Dept. of Law Enforcement, 21-12314, (11th Cir.): This is the case where the three judge panel found that it was constitutional to ban young adults from purchasing firearms. One or more other judges on the 11th Circuit then blocked that ruling. The case is now moving to an en banc hearing.

Those are the cases that are at the appeals level. There are a couple of decisions that should drop soon.

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:

The first three pages are introductions of the different organizations.

The Argument

Read More

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

In the Beginning

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

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.

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

B.L.U.F.

Measure 114

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

Our system of law is based on the concept of “Common Law”. What this means, in short, is that the law is the same everywhere it applies. A federal law applies the same way in all parts of the US. A state law applies the same way throughout that state.

It also means that how the law applies does not change from court to court, judge to judge, and party to party.

It is what takes us to “No one is above the law.”

Consider a law that was written in the late 1800s that says, “No man shall go armed within 100 feet of the ballot box”.

At the time it was written, everybody “knew” what it meant. It meant, “leave your guns at home when you go to vote.”

By the exact words, though, a woman voting could go armed to vote. Some might argue that “man” meant both man and woman. Others will argue that it actually did mean just “man” because women don’t vote.

That has changed. Women do indeed vote, today.

Here is where “case law” becomes important in the idea of “common law”.
Read More

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