Jump to content

Links to Post NYSRPA v Bruen Court Rulings

Molly B.

By Molly B.
in Judicial Second Amendment Case Discussion

Recommended Posts

Molly B. Member

Molly B.

Posted
Posted

Illinois Federal Lawsuits:

(IL Gun Ban cases moved to own topic)

 

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals - Atkinson v Garland (Rosen) - Lifetime 2A prohibition for felony conviction remanded back to district court with orders to view ruling through the eyes of NYSRPA v Bruen. 2/14/2023, district judge set the following schedule on 8/23/2023: October 9: amended complaint due, November 13: response due, November 28: status hearing

Illinois State Lawsuits:
Third Judicial Circuit Court, Madison Co., IL - Davis v Yenchko - Judge Donald Foster ruled suspending FOID cards for persons charged but not convicted of a felony is unconstitutional. Enjoins ISP from suspending FOID cards for person charged with a felony but not convicted. 3/10/2023. appealed to IL Supreme Court.

 

Across the Nation:
 

U.S. Supreme Court - June 14, 2024, Cargill v Garland: U.S. Supreme Court rules ATF rule banning bumpstocks unconstitutional.

 

Third U.S.  Circuit Court of Appeals - Range v Lombardo -- Pennsylvania - upholds ban on firearm ownership for Bryan Range who pled guilty to making a false statement to obtain food stamps assistance more than 25 years ago, which was then a misdemeanor offense. While Mr. Range served no time in prison because of this conviction, the crime to which he pled guilty was punishable by up to five years' imprisonment. As a result, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) prohibits him from owning a weapon. Case heard en banc, Feb. 15th. En banc ruling 6/6/2023 - rules in favor of Mr. Range and 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) is declared unconstitutional for non-violent felons, in view of NYSRPA v Bruen. 12-3 decision?

 

Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Vacates, Remands Ban on Sale of Semi-Auto Rifles to Adults Under 21. California - Mitchell v Atkins The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has vacated and remanded a lower court decision in the long-running challenge by the Second Amendment Foundation and National Rifle Association of provisions in gun control Initiative 1639, passed in November 2018, that prohibits the sale of semi-auto rifles to anyone under age 21, and also prevents sales of such rifles to residents of another state.  “The district court’s judgment is vacated in its entirety, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the United States Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol a**’n, Inc. v. Bruen.”

 

Texas - Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals - U.S. v Rahimi - 18 U.S.C.§ 922(g)(8), a specific statute that prohibits the possession of  firearms by someone subject to a protective order restraining the plaintiff from  harassing, stalking, or threatening is ruled unconstitutional.  2/2/2023. Case was appealed to U.S. Supreme Court, court granted review 6/30/2023 and will hear the case in the next session.

Minnesota U.S. District Court - Worth v. Harrington struck down a state restriction limiting handgun carry permits to those over age 21, in a case brought by the Second Amendment Foundation, citing Second Amendment guidelines in last year’s Supreme Court Bruen ruling.  3/31/2023

 

Oklahoma U. S.  DISTRICT COURT -  finds 922(g)(3) unconstitutional -- ban on firearms possession by user of marijuana 2/3/2023

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.okwd.118991/gov.uscourts.okwd.118991.36.0.pdf


Texas U.S. District court strikes down 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits people subject to DVPOs from possessing guns. Last week, in United States v. Perez-Gallan, W.D. Tex. 11/10/22, a federal district court in Texas ruled that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) was unconstitutional. Applying “Bruen’s new framework,” the court looked at historical practices concerning domestic violence and gun rights. It found that in the nation’s early years, domestic violence was barely prosecuted, and even in the nineteenth century, “removing firearms from an abuser—through government intervention or otherwise—was still not a prevalent occurrence.” It rejected the Government’s analogy to other historical measures targeting dangerous people, while acknowledging that it is difficult to know how similar a historical provision must be before an analogy to a contemporary regulation is valid. Decision Appealed to U.S. Fifth Circuit Appellate Court 11/15/2022. Appellate court ruled on 8/2/2023:Accordingly, Perez-Gallan's motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 

West Virginia U.S. District court strikes down 18 U.S.C. § 922(k), which prohibits people from possessing guns with obliterated serial numbers. West Virginia -  United States v. Price, S.D.W.V. 10/12/22, found that 18 U.S.C. § 922(k) was unconstitutional. The court noted that serial numbers on firearms did not even exist in 1791 when the Second Amendment was ratified, so a prohibition against removing them is not consistent with a historical approach to the Second Amendment. Like the Perez-Gallan court, the Price court wrestled with various potential analogies, ultimately concluding that “that the only types of analogous regulations would be those that required firearm owners to keep an identifiable mark on their firearm . . . . I am not presented with evidence that any such regulation existed, nor has my research uncovered any.”

 

Texas U.S. District Court  strikes down 18 U.S.C. § 922(n), which prohibits people under felony indictment from possessing guns. Another post-Bruen opinion is United States v. Quiroz, W.D.Tex. 9/19/22, where the court “conduct[ed] its own historical inquiry” concerning restrictions on gun rights for persons charged with, but not yet convicted of, serious crimes. It found nothing directly comparable until the federal statute itself was enacted in 1939, and concluded that none of the analogies suggested by the Government were sufficiently comparable. Appealed to U.S. 5th Appellate Court, oral arguments.

 

Delaware U.S. District court - partly enjoins enforcement of law targeting “ghost guns.” In Rigby v. Jennings, D. Del. 9/23/22, a district court considered a Delaware law criminalizing the manufacture, possession, and sale of certain unserialized firearms, sometimes called “ghost guns.” The court found that the plaintiffs challenging the law were likely to prevail on their Second Amendment arguments concerning the portions of the law regarding manufacture and possession of unserialized guns. The court noted that the Attorney General “offered no evidence that these statutes are consistent with the nation’s history of firearm regulation.” Accordingly, it and issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the above-described portions of the law.

 

New York U.S. District court enjoins enforcement of law banning guns in certain locations. In Antonyuk v. Hochul, NDNY 10/6/22, a federal district court issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting enforcement of a New York law that sought to bar concealed carry in a number of locations, including on public transit, at public event venues, at medical facilities, in parks and playgrounds, and in Times Square. The court found inadequate historical support for these limitations, though it did find support for a smaller number of premises limitations, including schools, polling places, and places of religious worship.

 

Texas - U.S. District Court - Andrews v. McCraw - order strikes down  ban on handgun carry by young adults 18-20.
 

Virginia - U.S. District Court - A federal judge Robert Payne has struck down a law barring the sale of handguns to adults under the age of 21 as unconstitutional. - John Corey Fraser, 20, along with several other plaintiffs, challenged the constitutionality of the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the associated regulations from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. . . .5/10/2023

  • Molly B. pinned this topic
Molly B. Member

Molly B.

Posted
  • Author
Posted
On 12/14/2022 at 9:29 AM, Tvandermyde said:

right after New York, the Court GVRd 4 gun cases I know Bianchi v frosh and Duncan what were the other two cases and does anyone have a copy of the order?



The cases were Hawaii may issue, Maryland weapon ban, cal and NJ mag bans

New Jersey:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-1507.html

 

 

Hawaii

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-1639.html

 

 

Euler Member

Euler

Posted
Posted
On 12/20/2022 at 6:13 PM, steveTA84 said:

Texas withdrew appeal. federal court ruling that banning 10-20 year olds from carrying is unconstitutional stands

...

 

If a 10-yr-old can vote and drive a car, he can carry a gun....

Euler Member

Euler

Posted
Posted
On 2/2/2023 at 3:59 PM, John Q Public said:

That's a sweet ruling, so much for the red flag, TRO to take away guns. 

 

Technically not. 922(g)(8) regards a restraining order for which the subject was provided notice and had an opportunity to defend himself. Subjects of red flag orders don't get notice and don't get an opportunity to defend themselves, at least the way red flags are implemented everywhere currently. However, the argument should be easy to make that, if people who get notice don't lose their rights, then people who don't get notice shouldn't lose them, either, but that's going to have to be a separate argument.

Flynn Member

Flynn

Posted
Posted
On 2/2/2023 at 2:44 PM, steveTA84 said:

Another blow to gun control and the Bruen decision in action 

 

That one is pretty darn big at the end of the day, I have always felt the mere accusations of a domestic incident as a cause to deny the 2nd was wrong along with the lifetime ban of the 2nd over a domestic issue was also improper, this is a start to errode those laws.

steveTA84 Member

steveTA84

Posted
Posted
On 2/2/2023 at 3:53 PM, Flynn said:

 

That one is pretty darn big at the end of the day, I have always felt the mere accusations of a domestic incident as a cause to deny the 2nd was wrong along with the lifetime ban of the 2nd over a domestic issue was also improper, this is a start to errode those laws.

This one blows the door wide open to kill red flag laws 

John Q Public Member

John Q Public

Posted
Posted
On 2/2/2023 at 3:27 PM, Euler said:

 

Technically not. 922(g)(8) regards a restraining order for which the subject was provided notice and had an opportunity to defend himself. Subjects of red flag orders don't get notice and don't get an opportunity to defend themselves, at least the way red flags are implemented everywhere currently. However, the argument should be easy to make that, if people who get notice don't lose their rights, then people who don't get notice shouldn't lose them, either, but that's going to have to be a separate argument.

 

In Illinois, you get notice after the fact, and have no chance to defend until they go to court some time later, in the mean time your FOID and CCL invalid. Even if they vacate, it will still take months to get it back. Also, the way I read the new bill, even a temp would invalidate for 2 years, but I only glanced at it and NAL.

 

Yes the federal law was, you had to be there, but this seems like further ammo to use for what Illinois does.

 

Edit to correct federal vs Illinois

 

cybermgk Member

cybermgk

Posted
Posted

This just in , our side wond big in US vs Rahimi.  Appelate Decision could mean the end of Red Flag laws as they exist.  Ruling makes, imho, removal of rights before person is proven to be an actual danger, i.e. before complete due process, Unconstitutional.

 

 

mab22 Member

mab22

Posted
Posted

 

https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/zdpxdnqykpx/02032023harrison.pdf

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs JARED MICHAEL HARRISON
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

Case No. CR-22-00328-PRW
 

Quote

Conclusion
None of this is to say that the government cannot play a role in protecting the public from dangerous persons possessing firearms. It can, and it should. For example, if the State of Texas thought that Harrison’s alleged involvement in a shooting demonstrated that Harrison was a danger to the public, it could have demonstrated to a Texas judge—in an individualized proceeding of which Harrison would have been given notice and the opportunity to be heard—that Harrison ought to be jailed while awaiting trial for that shooting. The Constitution, after all, permits pre-trial detention, and such detention would be a highly effective means of furthering the government’s interest in protecting the public from a gun-toting Harrison. But that didn’t happen; Harrison was released pending trial in Texas. And so here we are, with the federal government now arguing that Harrison’s mere status as a user of marijuana justifies stripping him of his fundamental right to possess a firearm. For all the reasons given above, this is not a constitutionally permissible means of disarming Harrison.
Because the Court concludes that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) violates Harrison’s Second Amendment right to possess a firearm, the Court declines to reach Harrison’s vagueness claim. The Motion to Dismiss the Indictment is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Indictment is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of February 2023.

 

  • 1 month later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...