Euler

Jeremy Kellogg (a member of the Army National Guard who regularly carries a firearm in his service) and Jonathan Harmon (a licensed security guard) are residents of Columbia County, NY, where they applied for concealed carry licenses in 2022. In NY, carry licensing is handled county by county. In 55 of 62 counties, including Columbia County, state statute assigns the position of carry licensing officer to a county judge. In this case, that Columbia County judge is Jonathan Nichols. (In the other 7 counties, all in and around NYC, the licensing officer is the county sheriff or applicable county or municipal police commissioner.) The licensing procedure requires license applicants to meet with the licensing officer in person to determine if they are "of good moral character." Kellogg and Harmon both have clean criminal records and are not otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms under federal or state law. Kellogg has two sealed arrests, although no convictions, which he did not disclose on his application. Harmon has a sealed juvenile adjudication, which he did not disclose on his application. Because they did not disclose their sealed records, Nichols found them not to be "of good moral character." (At least, that was the reason given.) Kellogg and Harmon sued Nichols, acting as licensing officer, in federal court under 42 USC 1983 for denying them their 2A liberties. Both the district court and 2nd Circuit appellate court conflated the positions of licensing officer and judge and dismissed the suit, ruling that judges have absolute immunity. Kellogg and Harmon now petition the US Supreme Court for certiorari that they may sue Nichols in his capacity as a county licensing officer rather than in his capacity as a county judge. (docket) A judge acting in an executive branch capacity also strikes me as a conflict of interest against the separation of powers.

Petition denied.

Petition denied.

On October 5, the Supreme Court created the docket. Of course, there's no such thing as a "semi-automatic assault rifle." An "assault rifle" is a full-automatic, switch-selectable rifle. The politically invented term "assault weapon" attempts to blur the distinction between full-auto and semi-auto. Hopefully the justices won't get sucked into the intended confusion. The petition uses the term "assault weapon" extensively throughout its remainder. The petition itself is 10 pages. The NJAG appends its 3rd Circuit appeal, which is another (approximately) 300 pages. As noted above, the Court doesn't have to GVR this case after it decides Viramontes. It can just deny this case.

Petition denied. UPDATE: Just to clarify the denial, the US was petitioning to reinstate Hembree's conviction. Thus the denial means that Hembree, as a nonviolent felon, is not guilty of illegal firearm possession. It doesn't mean that other nonviolent felons can possess firearms. That case would be Johnson v US, if cert is granted.

In 2015, Joseph Frederick Johnson was convicted in NM state court for growing marijuana, which is a felony. He would like his 2A rights back, but it is 10th Circuit precedent that as-applied challenges to 18 USC 922(g)(1) are categorically denied. On August 27, he petitioned the US Supreme Court for certiorari. (docket) On September 18, the US waived its right to respond.

In a petition captioned Davenport v ANJRPC and dated October 1, NJ is seeking Supreme Court review of the injunctions on both the rifle ban and the mag ban. The Supreme Court hasn't created a docket for it yet.

I just noticed ... On July 31, Prince petitioned the US Supreme Court for certiorari. (docket) On August 13, the US waived its right to respond. The CA7 opinion referred to Rahimi. Despite Easterbrook writing it, the opinion is correct that Prince is a violent felon. His arrest in this case related to firearm he allegedly used in an armed robbery he committed on a CTA platform. (The arrest was prompted by smoking on another CTA platform. If they didn't smoke on CTA platforms, I wonder if felons would ever get arrested in Chicago.)

The attorney (other than Stamboulieh) on record for the plaintiffs is: Oliver M. Krawczyk (717) 525-5822 Ambler Law Offices, LLC 115 S Hanover St Ste 100 Carlisle, PA 17013 oliver@amblerlawoffices.com Interestingly, Stamboulieh has not filed notice that he has withdrawn from the case. But he has updated his email address. stephen.stamboulieh@usdoj.gov Presumably he'll file notice once the case has docket activity. The last activity was May. The case is currently in discovery.

On September 15 in appellate court, plaintiffs asked to extend the time to file their opening brief. On September 16, the court set the following schedule: 10/21: plaintiffs' brief due 11/20: defendants' brief due 12/11: plaintiffs' reply, if any, due

On September 29 in appellate court, the court heard oral arguments.

On September 28 in appellate court, the US filed its status report.

On September 14 in appellate court, Cherry asked again to extend the deadline to respond. On September 15, the court set the following schedule: 10/19: Cherry's brief due 11/09: government's reply brief, if any, due

On September 17, the magistrate canceled the September 24 status hearing and ordered a written status report, instead. On September 24, Chicago filed a joint status report.

On September 30, the judge canceled the scheduling conference set for October 2 and set the following schedule, instead: 2027 10/01: plaintiff's motion for class certification due 11/01: defendant's opposition to class certification due 2028 06/15: final pretrial conference 06/26: jury trial