SCOTUS considering Bianchi v Frosh/Duncan v Bonta the turning point for AW/magazine ban?

[LiveLife]

Update to Maryland Shall Issue v Moore (MD permit to purchase).

(This ruling comes at the heel of similar pending Oregon's permit to purchase case Arnold v Brown with ruling expected this afternoon - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-15#post-12762769)

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Strikes Maryland’s Handgun Qualification License Requirement in NRA-Backed Case - https://www.nraila.org/articles/202...cation-license-requirement-in-nra-backed-case

​

On Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals ruled that Maryland’s Handgun Qualification License (“HQL”) requirement is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.​

​

Acquiring a handgun in Maryland is a draconian process. Before one can exercise their Second Amendment right to own a handgun, they must first get an HQL. Obtaining an HQL requires taking a four-hour class with classroom and live-fire components, which costs several hundred dollars, undergoing a background check that includes submitting a complete set of fingerprints, which the individual must pay for, and then waiting up to 30 days for the state to process the application. But obtaining that license does not allow one to purchase a firearm. The individual must undergo an additional background check and another seven-business-day waiting period when acquiring a handgun, and then a NICS check must be completed when the firearm is transferred.​

​

NRA challenged this law back in 2016. The case was originally dismissed, and then reinstated by the Fourth Circuit. Despite the Fourth Circuit’s reinstatement of the case, the trial court still upheld the HQL requirement on remand. NRA appealed again, and today the court unequivocally held that the law couldn’t pass muster under the Second Amendment: “The challenged law restricts the ability of law-abiding adult citizens to possess handguns, and the state has not presented a historical analogue that justifies its restriction; indeed, it has seemingly admitted that it couldn’t find one.”​

 

[irishlad]

Update to Maryland Shall Issue v Moore (MD permit to purchase).

(This ruling comes at the heel of pending Oregon's permit to purchase case Arnold v Brown with ruling expected this afternoon - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-15#post-12762769)

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Strikes Maryland’s Handgun Qualification License Requirement in NRA-Backed Case - https://www.nraila.org/articles/202...cation-license-requirement-in-nra-backed-case

​

One Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals ruled that Maryland’s Handgun Qualification License (“HQL”) requirement is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.​

​

Acquiring a handgun in Maryland is a draconian process. Before one can exercise their Second Amendment right to own a handgun, they must first get an HQL. Obtaining an HQL requires taking a four-hour class with classroom and live-fire components, which costs several hundred dollars, undergoing a background check that includes submitting a complete set of fingerprints, which the individual must pay for, and then waiting up to 30 days for the state to process the application. But obtaining that license does not allow one to purchase a firearm. The individual must undergo an additional background check and another seven-business-day waiting period when acquiring a handgun, and then a NICS check must be completed when the firearm is transferred.​

​

NRA challenged this law back in 2016. The case was originally dismissed, and then reinstated by the Fourth Circuit. Despite the Fourth Circuit’s reinstatement of the case, the trial court still upheld the HQL requirement on remand. NRA appealed again, and today the court unequivocally held that the law couldn’t pass muster under the Second Amendment: “The challenged law restricts the ability of law-abiding adult citizens to possess handguns, and the state has not presented a historical analogue that justifies its restriction; indeed, it has seemingly admitted that it couldn’t find one.”​

Wow! Thanks for the update.

 

[LiveLife]

Update to Arnold v Brown (OR magazine ban/permit to purchase) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-15#post-12762769

judge Robert Raschio will issue his ruling today - https://www.koin.com/news/oregon/harney-county-gets-more-filings-ahead-of-measure-114-ruling/

As expected, judge Raschio ruled magazine ban and permit to purchase law unconstitutional and Measure 114 will not go into effect! (Keep in mind this case was an Oregon state case and ruling was mainly based on Constitution of Oregon). Kudos to GOA!

Harney County Judge rules Oregon gun Measure 114 unconstitutional - https://www.koin.com/news/politics/...ules-oregon-gun-measure-114-unconstitutional/

• Judge ruled voter approved Measure 114 is unconstitutional under the Oregon constitution
• Judge declared the right to bear arms under the Oregon Constitution would be impeded by Measure 114
• Judge explained Measure 114’s permit-to-purchase scheme unduly burdens Oregonians’ right to self-defense from an imminent threat of harm
• Judge determined the permit-to-purchase scheme is unconstitutional based on the measure’s 30-day-minimum delay to buy a firearm, the measure’s use of language from concealed handgun statutes, and because FBI refused to conduct criminal background checks
• Judge determined larger than 10 round capacity magazine ban is also unconstitutional under the state constitution because firearm components, such as magazines, are legally protected and magazines are a necessary part of guns
• “The court finds no proof offered demonstrated Large Capacity Magazine bans would reduce the number of causalities in the future. Any such conclusion would be mere speculation by the court which it will not engage”

Ex FPC attorney discuss Arnold ruling

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6GmJODXPwo

 

[LiveLife]

Repost from another thread due to pertinence - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/or-114-struck-down.925155/#post-12763282

State will appeal

it will probably end up in the State Supreme court

And state Supreme Court may rule against state against according to state constitution - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-12#post-12549700

• When state requested Oregon Supreme Court reverse the circuit court's TRO, Oregon Supreme Court denied the request - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-10#post-12484678
• State made a second appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court to reverse the preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order rulings by circuit court
• Oregon Supreme Court denied state's request for the second time stating, "... We recognize that the legal status of Measure 114 is of significant concern to many Oregonians. Of course, it is the role of the judicial branch of government to resolve disputes such as challenges to laws enacted by the legislative branch, which includes the people exercising their initiative power. That resolution is underway in the trial court; our only determination today is that now is not an appropriate time to exercise our authority in mandamus in connection with the trial court’s temporary and preliminary rulings ... The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied without prejudice" - https://silentmajorityfoundation.substack.com/p/oregon-measure-114-update

 

[LiveLife]

Update to National Association for Gun Rights v City of Naperville (IL AW/magazine ban) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-12#post-12622272

This may be the first AW/magazine ban case to reach the Supreme Court post Bruen ruling. After 7th Circuit ruled in favor of Illinois AW and magazine ban, National Association for Gun Rights filed an Emergency Application for Injunction with the Supreme Court - https://nationalgunrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Injunction-Request.pdf

Supreme Court Justice Barrett Considering NAGR Case to Overturn Illinois’ Gun Ban - https://nationalgunrights.org/resou...ering-nagr-case-to-overturn-illinois-gun-ban/

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett is considering granting an emergency injunction filed by the National Association for Gun Rights, to stop enforcement of a ban on AR-15s and standard-capacity magazines.

This follows the 7th Circuit’s 3-judge panel ruling that AR-15s are not “arms” as far as the Second Amendment is concerned.

“The 7th Circuit just said that ARs are not guns entitled to Second Amendment protection. It doesn’t get much more outrageous than that – and Justice Amy Coney Barrett appears to agree. She just sent a huge signal that lower-court defiance of Bruen and Heller will not be tolerated,” said Hannah Hill Executive Director of the National Foundation for Gun Rights (legal arm of the National Association for Gun Rights).

Illinois and Naperville have until Wednesday, December 6, to submit their best arguments for why the Supreme Court should not step in and block their gun bans.

The application for injunction references 2022’s Bruen decision, “Bruen rejected means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context, reiterated Heller’s text, history and tradition framework, and called on lower courts to stop treating the right to keep and bear arms as a ‘second-class right.'”

The Emergency Application for Injunction Pending Appeal may be found here.​

​

“Justice Barrett has been watching this case closely, and last time we asked her for an emergency appeal the 7th Circuit only dodged a SCOTUS smackdown by expediting the case. Well, the 7th Circuit has ruled now – and they got it wrong, big time,” said Dudley Brown, President of the National Association for Gun Rights.

“We look forward to reading Illinois’ attempts to explain why gun bans are consistent with the Second Amendment, and we are confident that this unconstitutional law won’t fly with Justice Barrett."​

​

Ex FPC attorney discuss NAGR's filing of emergency application with the Supreme Court.

BREAKING!!! Supreme Court Emergency Order To End "Assault Weapon" & Magazine Ban Requested!

In this video I discuss a major Second Amendment case up for emergency Supreme Court review involving rifle & magazine bans!American Hartford: https://offers...

www.youtube.com

 

[Wolfshead]

I wish the SCOTUS would decide to move in NY against HoeGhoul.
Haven't heard anything recently about what’s happening here

 

[LiveLife]

Update to Doe v Columbus (Columbus, OH magazine ban).

Judge shoots down Columbus gun control laws (again) - https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/judge-shoots-down-columbus-gun-control-laws-again

• Delaware County Common Pleas Judge David M. Gormley on 4/25/23 issued a ruling city of Columbus ordinances that outlaw certain firearm magazines and gun-storage restrictions were unlawful
• Ruling was appealed and the city has been enforcing their restrictions against the residents of Columbus
• Buckeye Institute asked for the appeal to be dismissed and for the preliminary injunction to be reinstated and on 11/30/23, Ohio's Fifth District Court of Appeals did just that
• "The Fifth District's ruling is a victory for The Buckeye Institute and its clients, and all residents of Columbus who want to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms," said David Tryon, director of litigation at The Buckeye Institute. "The ruling means Judge Gormley's preliminary injunction barring the city from enforcing its unlawful gun magazine ban stands and that our clients will have their day in court."
• "This is unlikely to be the end of this case," said Dean Rieck, Executive Director of Buckeye Firearms Association. "Columbus will almost certainly appeal yet again. They won't give up until this case goes all the way to the Ohio Supreme Court, which by the way has already ruled on two separate occasions that cities cannot pass their own gun laws in Ohio. However, this ruling should be welcome news to residents of Columbus. And it's a step in the right direction to unravel the mess created by Mayor Ginther, City Attorney Zack Klein, and Columbus City Council when they passed laws they knew for a fact were illegal and unconstitutional in Ohio."

 

[Tinman357]

If it's proven they knew the proposed law was unconstitutional, then they need to be removed from office and charged with violating their oath of office, and personally sued for the amount of tax money wasted on this law.

 

[LiveLife]

If it's proven they knew the proposed law was unconstitutional, then they need to be removed from office and charged with violating their oath of office, and personally sued for the amount of tax money wasted on this law.

Not likely. Here's why ...

Keep in mind that during the founding of this nation, not every "subject" of the British monarchy was supportive of rogue breakaway independence ... They simply wanted to remain royal "subjects" with representation, like others in England; but had issues with "no representation" hence taxation without representation (To pay for a war they did not start) that "subjects" in England were not taxed touched off things finally on top of double/multiple taxation of colonials (Tax on imported items from England then tax on sale of already taxed imported items then tax on usage of item already double taxed, etc.). So in affect, American colonial "subjects" became second class "subjects" and that becoming second class WITHOUT REPRESENTATION was the real issue/concern as remaining first class royal "subject" with representation was not.

And even after a new nation was founded with "royal subjects" now having become "citizens", some of the "citizens" tried to do the same to other minority citizens during the framing of the government.

How?

Well, "citizens" of larger coastal cities wanted to use majority mob rule (Which is "pure democracy" based on popular vote) to impose on the rights of "citizens" of smaller rural towns by overruling their votes by greater number of votes. Of course, founders had issue/concern with this as if the nation was to be ruled by majority mob rule/pure democracy based on population, minority "citizens" in smaller rural states would indeed become "second class citizens" as pure democracy/mob rule would impose on their liberties/freedom. So the founders framed the government as Constitutional Republic so the core rights of minority "citizens" had equal protection regardless what the majority mob rule/pure democracy wanted. And after the Constitution was finalized, decision was made that Bill of Rights had to be added to ensure majority mob rule/pure democracy would not strip away core rights of minority "citizens" by changing the Constitution.

But did the majority mob rule/pure democracy "citizens" stop?

No. And we had situations where slavery was allowed and minority women couldn't vote. Thankfully, "We the People" saw the injustice and amended the Constitution/Bill of Rights to protect minority rights from majority mob rule/pure democracy.

Then some "citizens" wanted to impose on other minority "citizens" and started writing bills and passing laws that violated First Amendment rights. Even after SCOTUS kept ruling these laws unconstitutional, law makers in some states continued until SCOTUS rulings attained permanent enforcement by the way of federal/state laws, as dictated by "We the People" (You see, Constitutional Republic operated by electoral college/equal representation Senate and NOT popular vote/unequal representation by House worked just as the founders framed because they knew the majority mob rule/pure democracy would ultimately impose on the minority rights) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...eme_Court_cases_involving_the_First_Amendment

So in 2023, have "citizens" of majority mob rule/pure democracy somehow changed to stop writing unconstitutional bills to pass them as laws? Of course not (I found during my short 57 years of life that people really don't change over time ... They just get more cranky).

Therefore, "citizens" in cities/counties/states where majority mob rule/pure democracy exists, will continue to write and pass unconstitutional bills into laws and the minority "citizens" shouldn't be surprised as this has been going on the entire history of this young nation ... Of course, as founders framed, until the highest court of the land, the Supreme Court rules these laws unconstitutional.

I believe that's why justice Thomas mentioned "Second Amendment is not a second class right" in Bruen to make this clear point ... Without Bill of Rights and the Supreme Court, majority mob rule/pure democracy will impose on the rights of the minority as already demonstrated for the First Amendment. And since Supreme Court ruled and "We the People" applied permanent enforcement by federal/state laws, same should be done for the Second Amendment.

Yes, just as in 1700s, majority mob rule/pure democracy made a lot of noise and just as for First Amendment, law makers in majority mob rule states wrote and passed many unconstitutional laws. And in 2023, majority mob rule/pure democracy is once again making a lot of noise and writing/passing many unconstitutional laws and keeping the Supreme Court busy; but in time, just as it happened for the First Amendment, Supreme Court will keep ruling for the Second Amendment and eventually, permanent enforcement will come the way of federal/state laws.

Long live the Republic.

 

[LiveLife]

Update from Washington DC on latest AW/magazine ban attempt.

US Senate Republicans block assault-style weapons ban - https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us...e-weapons-ban-mass-shootings-rise-2023-12-06/

• US Senate Republicans blocked Democrat backed AW/magazine ban bill
• Bill would have reauthorized the Assault Weapons Ban, which first passed in 1994 and expired 10 years later
• Ban covers certain semi-automatic firearms and large capacity ammunition magazines
• Republican Senator John Barasso blocked Schumer's attempt to reauthorize the ban by unanimous consent. "Americans have a Constitutional right to own a firearm," argued that the bill was about "trying to label responsible gun owners as criminals."

 

[LiveLife]

Update to Duncan v Bonta (CA magazine ban) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-15#post-12740578

Multiple amicus briefs filed - https://michellawyers.com/duncan-v-becerra/

• Gun Owners of America, Inc., Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of California, Inc., Heller Foundation, Virginia Citizens Defense League, Tennessee Firearms Association, America’s Future, Inc., U.S. Constitutional Rights Legal Defense Fund, and Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees
• Montana, Idaho, and 23 Other States in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees
• Second Amendment Foundation in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees
• Firearm Policy Coalition, Inc. in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees
• National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees
• FPC Action Foundation, California Gun Rights Foundation, and Center for Human Liberty in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees

9th Circuit schedule - https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/en-banc/

​

Duncan v. Bonta, Nos. 23-55805​

​

Three-Judge Panel Opinion: Not applicable​

Order Taking Case En Banc: 83 F.4th 803 (9th Cir. 2023)​

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc: October 10, 2023​

​

Status: To be calendared week of March 18, 2024, in San Francisco, California. On October 10, 2023, the en banc court granted the California Attorney General’s emergency motion for a partial stay pending appeal and accepted this appeal as a comeback case.​

​

Members of En Banc Court: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and S.R. THOMAS, GRABER, WARDLAW, PAEZ, BERZON, IKUTA, HURWITZ, R. NELSON, BUMATAY and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges​

​

Subject Matter: Appeal from the district court’s order declaring unconstitutional and enjoining enforcement of California Penal Code section 32310(a), which bans large capacity magazines, defined as “any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.”​

 

[LiveLife]

Update to Arnold v Brown (OR magazine ban/permit to purchase) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-16#post-12763205

NOTE: Keep in mind this case was an Oregon state case and ruling was mainly based on Constitution of Oregon

Oregon state court (Harney County Circuit Court) issues permanent injunction against Measure 114 that ban larger than 10 round capacity magazine and required permit to purchase firearms - https://www.kdrv.com/news/local/ore...cle_d59e8c3e-a9a4-11ee-8590-c3bca9fcf2d5.html

• Harney County Circuit Court Judge Robert Raschio ... Measure 114 is unconstitutional by Oregon's Constitution
• Judge Raschio ordered the parties in Joseph Arnold, Cliff Asmussen, Gun Owners of America, Inc., Gun Owners Foundation vs Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, Oregon Governor Tina Kotek and Oregon State Police Administrator Casey Codding to draft and review his ruling for filing with the case's court record based on his conclusion that Measure 114 is unconstitutional for Oregon
• "The Harney County Circuit Court is issuing a Permanent Injunction under Oregon Revised Statute 28.020 declaring 2022 Ballot Measure 114 unconstitutional thereby permanently enjoining its implementation. The court finds the plaintiffs have shown their rights to bear arms under Article l, § 27 of the Oregon Constitution would be unconstitutionally impaired if Ballot Measure 114 is allowed to be implemented. Dovle v. City of Medford, 356 Or. 336 (2014). Based upon a facial constitutional evaluation of Ballot Measure 114, the measure unduly burdens the plaintiffs' right to bear arms. State v. Christian, 354 Or. 22 (2013)."
• "Pursuant to ORS 28.010, et. al., the court, using its equitable power, DECLARES and ADJUDGES Ballot Measure 114 facially unconstitutional in all of its applications under Oregon Constitution, Article l, § 27. The court makes this declaration to settle and to afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to the right to bear arms in Oregon. ORS 28.120. Ballot Measure 114 is permanently enjoined from implementation."

Ex FPC attorney discuss permanent injunction

BREAKING!!! Magazine Ban Permanently Struck Down & Ruled Unconstitutional! Objections Denied!

In this video I breakdown a huge win. Measure 114's permit requirement & magazine ban have been struck down despite the states efforts to reverse the decisio...

www.youtube.com

 

[LiveLife]

Update to Bianchi v Frosh, now Brown (MD AW ban) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...r-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-8#post-12374752

After more than a year of post Bruen ruling silence, we have activity with oral arguments tentatively scheduled for 3/20/24 - https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...1/2024.01.12_076_En_Banc_ORDER.pdf?1705099281

ORDER​

​

A majority of judges in regular active service and not disqualified having voted in a requested poll of the court to grant rehearing en banc,​

​

IT IS ORDERED that rehearing en banc is granted.The parties and amicus curiae shall file 16 additional paper copies of their briefs and appendices previously filed in this case within 10 days.This case is tentatively calendared for oral argument during the next available argument session.​

Update to Lane v Rocah (NY AW ban) - https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66692907/lane-v-james/

Judge allows challenge to NY assault weapons ban to proceed - https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...allenge-to-ny-assault-weapons-ban-to-proceed/

• District court judge Kenneth Karas denied motion by state to dismiss the lawsuit arguing court did not have jurisdiction to address plaintiffs’ claims and plaintiffs “fail to establish that any injury-in-fact is traceable to the assault weapons ban” because they do not say they hold a license required to buy a semiautomatic rifle
• Judge Karas wrote “While there may be serious questions about Plaintiffs’ exemption argument, the Court need not address that question here because Plaintiffs adequately allege standing under Defendants’ interpretation of the statute,” ... “Put simply, Defendants have failed to explain how invalidating the Assault Weapons Ban would have no effect on the ability to obtain licenses for those same weapons,”
• State argued for dismissal because plaintiffs did not “suffered an injury-in-fact” but judge Karas wrote individuals “have also demonstrated that they face a credible threat of enforcement if they follow through with attempting to acquire assault weapons.”

From the ruling - https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...99/2024.01.14_057_ORDER_on_MTD.pdf?1704731499

This case arises out of relatively simple facts. Plaintiffs claim that they intend to purchase specific models of assault weapons, but New York has long prohibited their possession. Plaintiffs believe that law is unconstitutional given the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen ...​

​

New York has long criminalized the possession of “assault weapons.” ... Plaintiffs are two Westchester residents who claim they intend to keep and bear assault weapons for various purposes, including home defense and target shooting ... Plaintiffs allege that AR-15 style weapons are in common use throughout the country, citing various surveys and gun-sale statistics, and similarly allege that they are appropriate for self-defense and hunting ... would immediately acquire their desired AR-15-model firearms were it not for New York’s enforcement of the Assault Weapons Ban and the associated threat of prosecution ...​

​

New York law prohibits an individual from purchasing or possessing a “semiautomatic rifle” without a license ... New York’s “shall-issue” licensing provision, in turn, directs the state to issue a “license for a semiautomatic rifle, other than an assault weapon or disguised gun,” if applicants meet certain criteria ... Defendants argue that two results flow from these provisions:​

​

(a) Plaintiffs cannot obtain any semiautomatic weapon without a license, and​

(b) it is impossible to obtain a license for an assault weapon because they are excluded from the provision authorizing licenses for semiautomatic weapons generally ...​

​

First, Plaintiffs’ desire to possess assault weapons involves a course of conduct affected with a constitutional interest. The Supreme Court has held that the Second Amendment protects“the sorts of weapons” that are “in common use” for “lawful purposes like self defense.”District of Columbia v. Heller ...​

​

Second, the weapons Plaintiffs seek to purchase are “squarely proscribed” by the Assault Weapons Ban. The statute defines “[a]ssault weapon” as,among other things, semiautomatic rifles, with detachable magazines and certain military-stylef eatures, including “a flash suppressor, muzzle break, [or] muzzle compressor.” N.Y. Penal Law§ 265.00(22)(a) ...​

​

Third, Plaintiffs have also demonstrated that they face a credible threat of enforcement if they follow through with attempting to acquire assault weapons ...​

​

Conclusion​

​

For the aforementioned reasons, Defendants’ Motions are denied. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the pending Motions. (Dkt. Nos. 37, 40.)​

​

Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, which the Court previously held in abeyance pending this Opinion, (see Memo Endorsement (Dkt. No. 28)), is due by no later than February 9, 2024. Defendants shall file responses by no later than March 11, 2024, and Plaintiffs shall reply by no later than March 25, 2024.​

​

SO ORDERED.​

 

[LiveLife]

Update to Miller v Bonta (CA AW ban) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-15#post-12754582

Court intends to schedule oral argument during the week of January 22, 2024 in Pasadena, California ... 2 PM [PST]

23-2979 Miller, et al. v. Bonta, et al.

An appeal from the district court's permanent injunction, entered following a bench trial, enjoining the California Assault Weapons Control Act's restriction...

www.youtube.com

 

[LiveLife]

Update to Miller v Bonta (CA AW ban) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-16#post-12816632

Not surprisingly, 9th Circuit three judge panel decided to put Miller on hold pending outcome of Duncan and stay remains - https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...4.01.26_061_ORDER_Staying_Case.pdf?1706314902

BERZON, NGUYEN, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. This case shall be held in abeyance and submission is withdrawn pending resolution of Duncan v. Bonta,​

​

The stay entered on October 28,2023 shall remain in effect pending further order of the court.See Duncan v. Bonta, (en banc).​

​

Current status of Duncan v Bonta (CA magazine ban) is no sales/importation/manufacture of larger than 10 round capacity magazines but CA is not enforcing possession of larger than 10 round capacity magazines and 9th Circuit en banc hearing is calendared for the week of March 18, 2024, in San Francisco - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-16#post-12793451

Ex FPC attorney discuss updates to Duncan v Bonta

BREAKING!!! Supreme Court Ruling & Remand Order Used To Shatter Magazine Ban Defiance!

In this video I break down what is going on in the CA magazine and where they go from here!🇺🇸 Support the Channel🇺🇸Join USCCA http://usccapartners.com/ar...

www.youtube.com

 

[LiveLife]

Update to Lane v Rocah (NY AW ban) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-16#post-12816071

Order denying motion to stay - https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...4_ORDER_Denying_Motion_to_Stay.pdf?1706295180

The Court will not impose a stay. Defendants are to explain, in a letter due by 1/30/24, what discovery they need and how long they need to obtain it. Plaintiffs are to respond by 2/2/24.​

​

So Ordered.​

 

[LiveLife]

Update to Bianchi v Frosh, now Brown (MD AW ban) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-16#post-12816071

After more than a year of post Bruen ruling silence, we have activity with oral arguments tentatively scheduled for 3/20/24 -

​

IT IS ORDERED that rehearing en banc is granted. The parties and amicus curiae shall file 16 additional paper copies of their briefs and appendices previously filed in this case within 10 days. This case is tentatively calendared for oral argument during the next available argument session.​

FPC Asks Supreme Court to Hear Lawsuit Challenging Maryland “Assault Weapon” Ban - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-...wsuit-challenging-maryland-assault-weapon-ban

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court in Bianchi v. Brown, its lawsuit challenging Maryland’s ban on so-called “assault weapons.” The Petition asks the Supreme Court to grant review in the case and to agree to hear the merits of FPC’s challenge. The petition can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.​

​

“Nearly sixteen years after Heller, the time is ripe for this Court to establish what should have been clear the day that decision was released: bans on firearms commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens are simply ‘off the table,’” argues the Petition. “The application of that principle to this case is plain. Modern semiautomatic rifles such as the AR-15 ‘traditionally have been widely accepted as lawful possessions,’ and today are owned in the tens of millions by law-abiding Americans for self-defense and other lawful purposes. Such arms simply cannot be banned.”​

​

“When justice is delayed, justice is denied–this is precisely the issue with what is happening in FPC’s challenge to Maryland’s ban on so-called ‘assault weapons,’” said Cody J. Wisniewski, FPC Action Foundation’s Vice President and General Counsel, and counsel for FPC. “After sitting on this case for over a year, the Fourth Circuit took the extraordinary step of pushing this case to the full Circuit without any party asking it to do so. Worse, the Circuit took this step after the case was already argued before a three-judge panel but before that panel could issue an opinion. This extraordinary action further delaying justice demonstrates that now–not later–is the time for the Supreme Court to step in.”​

​

FPC is joined in the litigation by three FPC members, a Maryland firearm retailer, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.​

SAF/CCRKBA ask Supreme Court to review Maryland semi-auto ban - https://saf.org/saf-ccrkba-ask-scotus-to-review-maryland-semi-auto-ban/

The Second Amendment Foundation and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms have once again petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to grant certiorari in their continuing challenge of Maryland’s ban on so-called “assault weapons.”​

​

SAF and CCRKBA are joined in this petition by the Firearms Policy Coalition, Field Traders, LLC, and three private citizens, David Snope, Micah Schaefer and Dominic Bianchi, for whom the case is titled. The case is known as Bianchi v. Frosh. The Supreme Court in late June 2022 granted certiorari in the case, and vacated the earlier ruling by a lower federal court and then remanded the case back to the Fourth Circuit for further action based on guidelines established in the 2022 Bruen ruling.​

​

Since being remanded, the case was fully briefed and argued before a three-judge panel for the Fourth Circuit. Inexplicably, over a year after argument was held and with no panel opinion issued, the Fourth Circuit sua sponte elected to hear the case en banc, further delaying the exercise of a fundamental right and seemingly to prevent publication of an opinion that favors the plaintiffs. Seeking certiorari before judgment is an extraordinary remedy reserved for cases of imperative public importance.​

​

“It is clear to us this case must be decided by the Supreme Court,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The type of modern semiautomatic rifle banned in Maryland is in common use across the country, and is the most popular rifle in America. Yet, the Fourth Circuit and other courts of appeals have strained credulity to uphold such bans in the wake of the high court’s ruling in Bruen. This issue must be resolved.”​

​

“The Fourth Circuit’s decision to hear this case en banc, over a year after it was argued before a panel and with no published opinion, seems to imply the court desired to take this case from a panel with which it disagreed,” noted SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The unconstitutionality of Maryland’s Assault Weapons Ban has been apparent since it was passed into law, as Heller already provided the proper analysis, which the Fourth Circuit previously ignored to shield the law from a swift death. Intervention from the Supreme Court is necessary to restore order and force the lower courts to properly address this issue in a timely manner, as each day the Plaintiffs rights are being infringed upon.”​

​

Ex FPC attorney discuss the filing to Supreme Court

BREAKING!!! Supreme Court Decision To End All "Assault Weapon" Bans Put In Motion!

In this video I break down a huge rifle ban case now up for Supreme Court review!🇺🇸 Support the Channel🇺🇸Join USCCA http://usccapartners.com/armedscholar...

www.youtube.com

 

[LiveLife]

Update to Arnold v Brown (OR magazine ban/permit to purchase) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-16#post-12798152

NOTE: Keep in mind this case was an Oregon state case and ruling was mainly based on Constitution of Oregon

After Harney County Circuit Court Judge Robert Raschio ruled Measure 114 unconstitutional under Oregon's Constitution and issued permanent injunction while denying request for stay and issued judgement to close out the case, state of Oregon is appealing the decision to state of Oregon court of appeal.

• Oregon is asking the state court of appeal to stay judge Raschio's rulings on permanent injunction and judgement
• There were motions by the plaintiff to disqualify two of the judges but those motions were denied after one of the judges recused herself from the case

Ex FPC attorney discuss status of case:

BREAKING!!! Magazine Ban Permanently Struck Down & Ruled Unconstitutional! Now What?

In this video I breakdown a huge win. Oregon measure 114's permit requirement & magazine ban have been struck down but the state is not giving up!Kershaw: Us...

www.youtube.com

 

[LiveLife]

Update to Duncan v Bonta (CA magazine ban) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-16#post-12818552

9th Circuit en banc hearing is calendared for the week of March 18, 2024, in San Francisco

En Banc (Entire bench) hearing is scheduled for 3/19/2024 at 9:30 AM in San Francisco - https://michellawyers.com/duncan-v-becerra/

Ex FPC attorney recaps the Duncan case and discuss unusual attempt by the 9th En Banc to take the case away from the 3 judge panel as a "comeback case" likely to not risk 3 judge panel ending up with majority pro 2A judges to control the outcome of the gvr'd (Grant, Vacate and Remand) case back to the 9th from the Supreme Court.

It will be interesting to see how the 9th Circuit work around the Bruen mandate of text, history and tradition approach that eliminated the two-step approach which used interest balancing. And post Bruen ruling, burden now shifts to the state to provide historical evidence and for judge Benitez at the district court level, CA attorneys were unable to provide compelling historical evidence - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-11#post-12528071

Supreme Court 6-3 Decision & Remand Orders Demanding Elimination of Magazine Bans Defied!!!

In this video I break down an important update in the Duncan California mag case being reviewed in the 9th Circuit.1stPhorm: www.1stPhorm.com/armedscholar🎥 ...

www.youtube.com

 

[LiveLife]

Update to Bianchi v Frosh, now Brown (MD AW ban) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-16#post-12828794

After more than a year of post Bruen ruling silence, we have activity with oral arguments tentatively scheduled for 3/20/24

The 4th Circuit just made an interesting request for the upcoming oral arguments scheduled for 3/20/24 - https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...Reguesting_Supplemental_Briefs.pdf?1709675354

​

ORDER​

​

This case is scheduled for oral argument on March 20, 2024.​

​

The parties are directed to file supplemental briefs specifically addressing the following issue:​

​

Whether the inquiry into a weapon’s “common use” occurs at the first step or second step of the framework articulated in New York State Rifle& Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022). In answering that question, the parties are to address who has the burden of establishing a weapon’s “common use.”​

​

The parties may submit simultaneous briefs, not exceeding ten pages, on or before Tuesday, March 12, 2024.​

​

Bruen shifts the burden of historic evidence to the state if "Text, history ... and tradition" along with "common use" requirement is met under Heller. And the requirement for satisfying "common use" was outlined in Caetano (About 120,000 arms) so plaintiff should have an easy time arguing "common use" for magazine fed semi-auto rifles and then burden shifts to the state to disprove by providing historic evidence (Which they won't be able to find, as already done for Duncan case requested by judge Benitez).

Constitutional attorney Mark Smith from The Four Boxes Diner discuss order from 4th Circuit

BREAKING 2A NEWS: STRANGE COURT ORDER JUST ISSUED BY FEDERAL APPEALS COURT IN AR-15 BAN CASE

US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an odd order before the en banc oral argument in the Bianchi v. Brown cases involving Maryland's AR-15 ban....

youtu.be

 

[LiveLife]

Update to Gray v Jennings (DE AW ban) and Graham v Jennings (DE Magazine ban)

Cases were consolidated on 3/6/23 - https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...678127614/DSSA_v_DSHS_52_Order.pdf?1678127614

Oral arguments started for consolidated Delaware assault weapon/magazine ban cases appealed to the 3rd Circuit (Jump to 43:35 minute of video)

Delaware Assault weapons/Mag Ban Oral Arguments

Streaming oral Arguments today from the 3rd circuit in DE Assault Weapons and Mag ban cases

www.onenewspage.com

 

[J-Bar]

LiveLife:

Thank you again for continuing these updates.

 

[LiveLife]

Update to Lane v Rocah (NY AW ban) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-16#post-12823078

FPC and SAF file motion for summary judgement - https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi....15_072_P's_(FPC)_Memo_ISO_MSJ.pdf?1710539570

 

[LiveLife]

LiveLife:

Thank you again for continuing these updates.

You are very welcome.

In 2024, we are living in very historic, interesting and exciting time for Second Amendment as we are witnessing founding fathers' intent of separation of powers at play as legislative/executive branches write/pass unconstitutional bills into laws and judicial branch, ultimately the Supreme Court, having the final say over lower courts and legislative/executive branches (Just as it's already been done for the First Amendment with permanent enforcement)

Just as in 1776, founders rejected majority mob rule of larger coastal cities/states to protect rights of smaller rural cities/states; in 2024, we are witnessing the majority mob rule of larger coastal states imposing on the rights of minority gun owners challenged as unconstitutional in violation of the Second Amendment.

And just as the Supreme Court time after time ruled various states' laws that violated First Amendment unconstitutional with eventual permanent enforcement by federal/state laws, I am watching with a big bag of popcorn in anticipation of same being done for Second Amendment because the Second Amendment is not a "second class right" as stated by justice Thomas - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...eme_Court_cases_involving_the_First_Amendment

 

[LiveLife]

Update to Duncan v Bonta (CA magazine ban) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-16#post-12849940

En Banc (Entire bench) hearing is scheduled for 3/19/2024 at 9:30 AM in San Francisco - https://michellawyers.com/duncan-v-becerra/

• Arguments for 9th Circuit En Banc (Entire bench) "come back" case started after the Supreme Court GVR'd (Grant, vacate and remand) the case back down to 9th Circuit after Bruen ruling
• Then 9th Circuit remanded the case back down to District Court but judge Benitez ruled AGAIN that CA magazine ban is unconstitutional - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-14#post-12721871
• There were procedural arguments and judges were bickering with each other whether the En Banc could even hear the case as it is violating the rules
• Judge Nelson argued why the case is being heard at all by En Banc and was told by other judges "We do this all the time" and responded, "No, we don't do this all the time ... Other circuit courts don't do this all the time ... We are doing this because we don't like the Second Amendment"
• Typically, "En Banc" involves all the circuit judges but because the 9th Circuit is so large, 10 random judges are selected with 1 judge selected as Chief judge.
• Another issue that was raised was the original 11 En Banc judges decided to hear the case as "come back" case instead of new 10 random judges and chief judge as some of the 10 judges from previous En Banc are now senior judges and not active and whether procedure rules would allow them to hear the "come back" case. < What a mess ... It's really 9th Circus >
• One possible option is to have ALL the 9th Circuit judges hear the "come back" case but that has NEVER happened and unprecedented; but since this is such a significant case, many judges expressed that's what should happen.
• Attorney for the plaintiff was agreeable to all the judges hearing the case
• One downside of all the judges hearing the case is further delay of the case
• Another consideration is putting the case on hold pending Rahimi case but that would further delay the case
• And there's always the option of allowing three judge panel to hear the case (As that was what was supposed to happen in the first place) but once again, that would further delay the case < And Miller and other magazine ban cases in OR/WA are on hold pending Duncan decision by the 9th Circuit >
• Likely, current 11 judge En Banc may end up hearing the case as having all the judges hear the case has never been done and unprecedented
• After much procedural "bickering", actual arguments were presented and validity of "in common use" of larger than 10 round capacity magazines (LCM) was presented
• While plaintiff lawyers argued the LCM were clearly "in common use", CA lawyers argued "in common use" determination cannot be made just by ownership numbers
• Liberal judges asked about "Dangerous and unusual" standard but specified "Dangerous OR Unusual" instead of AND used by Heller and the Supreme Court has already stated several times the test is "Dangerous AND Unusual".
• Interestingly, CA AG Bonta states "Obviously we cannot ban all semi-auto rifles" meaning under Miller (AW ban) case which is pending Duncan ruling but that's what exactly happened with the "Assault Weapon" ban < Hmmmm ... Why would he say that at Duncan hearing? >
• What is anticipated to happen is 9th Circuit holding Duncan case until Supreme Court rules on Rahimi case then moving on Duncan case but plaintiff can do an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court claiming deliberate act to defy Heller and Bruen mandates

Ex FPC attorney discuss today's hearing

Supreme Court 6-3 Decision & Remand Orders Demanding Elimination of Magazine Bans Defied!!!

In this video I break down the California magazine ban arguments in the Duncan v. Bonta case which took place in the 9th Circuit!BlackoutCoffee: https://www....

www.youtube.com