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.