Kansas v US Attorney General - Private sales

[Euler]

The case was filed in the Federal District of Eastern Arkansas on May 1. (docket) It's kind of a twin of Texas v ATF.

Other plaintiffs at this time are AL, AK, AR, GA, ID, IN, IA, KY, MO, MN, NE, NH, ND, OK, SC, SD, TN, VA, WV, WY, Chisholm Trail Antique Gun Association, and three individual plaintiffs.

At issue is the ATF "final rule" which requires private individuals to possess a Federal Firearm License if they sell firearms which are not part of a personal collection. Firearms owned for self-defense are prohibited from being classified as being part of a personal collection. (i.e., Selling firearms owned for self-defense thus requires a license.)

Complaint said:

...
... This would put innocent firearms sales between law-abiding friends and family members within the reach of federal regulation. Such innocent sales between friends and family would constitute a felony if the seller did not in fact obtain a federal firearms license and perform a background check.

Defendants' claim of authority to implement this scheme dramatically upends both our constitutional traditions and the federal firearms licensing regime Congress designed. Not only does the Final Rule go beyond the Defendants' statutory authority, but it also contradicts the applicable statutory language. The Final Rule is therefore unlawful and this Court should set it aside.
...

[Euler]

On May 6, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction.

On May 9, the plaintiffs filed a motion to expedite the briefing schedule for the preliminary injunction.

On May 10, the judge set a hearing for May 17 for arguments on the preliminary injunction.

Edited May 11, 2024 at 06:05 AM by Euler

[Euler]

On May 17, the judge took the motion for a preliminary injunction under advisement.

[Euler]

On May 23, AR withdrew as a plaintiff, and the case was transferred from the Federal District of Eastern Arkansas to the Federal District of Kansas. (docket)

[Euler]

On May 29, the judge ordered a conference on May 30 to schedule whatever events are required to resolve the outstanding motions for a TRO and preliminary injunction.

[Euler]

On May 30, the judge set the following schedule:

Jun 7: Motion briefs due
Jun 14: Response briefs due
Jun 21: Reply briefs due
Jul 1: Motion hearing

[Euler]

On July 10, the judge denied motions for a TRO and preliminary injunction.

[Euler]

On July 19, the plaintiffs filed a notice of interlocutory appeal to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeal on the denial of the motions for a TRO and preliminary injunction. They also filed in the district court for an emergency injunction pending the appeals.

[Euler]

On July 22, CA10 docketed the appeal as 24-3101 Kansas v Garland

[Euler]

Also on July 22, the district judge denied the motion for an emergency injunction pending appeal. [No surprise, given he denied the TRO and preliminary injunction.]

[Euler]

On July 24, the plaintiffs filed a motion for an injunction pending appeal to the circuit court.

[Euler]

On July 29, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss in district court.

On August 12, the plaintiffs filed a motion to extend the deadline to reply to the motion to dismiss. The judge granted it the same day. The deadline to respond is now August 26.

[Euler]

Defendants are asserting in their motion to dismiss that the US District Court of Kansas does not have jurisdiction.

On August 26, the plaintiffs responded.

[Euler]

On September 5, the government moved to extend its time to reply for the motion to dismiss. The judge granted an extension to September 18.

[Euler]

On September 18, the government met the deadline to file the reply.

[Euler]

On October 7, the government asked to extend its time to respond to the appeal (for a preliminary injunction) to November 20.

On October 8, the court granted the extension.

[Euler]

On October 28, a 3-judge panel denied Kansas an injunction pending appeal.

On November 20, the federal government filed its response brief, citing an incorrect district case number.

On November 21, the court accepted the brief, but asked the feds to correct the case number.

On December 2, Kansas asked to extend the deadline to file its reply brief. The court granted the extension to December 18.

On December 18, Kansas filed its reply brief.

[Euler]

On January 16, New Jersey filed a motion to intercede as a defendant in the district trial.

In other words, New Jersey wants to help the federal government prohibit private sales.

Edited January 18, 2025 at 03:32 AM by Euler

[Euler]

On January 13, the appellate court set oral arguments for a preliminary injunction for March 18.

[TomKoz]

Requiring a .gov license to sell a lawfully owned personal possession ? 
purple on / Yeah, that’s real Freedom right there !!  purple off.

These people are simply mentally ill !

[Euler]

The New Jersey motion filed in district court on January 16 includes Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

On January 29, ATF asked for an extension to file a response to the motion to intervene.

[Euler]

Just an observation, but the states are not asking to intervene on the appellate case for a preliminary injunction.

[mauserme]

On 1/17/2025 at 9:29 PM, Euler said:

On January 16, New Jersey filed a motion to intercede as a defendant in the district trial.

In other words, New Jersey wants to help the federal government prohibit private sales.
 

 

If New Jersey's request is granted, and if the incoming Attorney General decided to no longer defend the case, would the states be able to carry on without them?

 

 

[Euler]

Yes, if the states are accepted as defendants, then the federal government withdraws, the states are still left as defendants.

I'm having trouble finding it now, but there's a case where a judge has allowed one/more of the anti-2A lobby groups to join as defendants.

[Euler]

On February 20, the ATF/DOJ filed a motion to stay the case in district court. The court ordered the plaintiffs to file a response by February 26.

On February 26, the plaintiffs filed their response.

On February 27, the ATF/DOJ filed notice with the court that it intends not to enforce the contested rule if the court issues a stay.

[Euler]

On February 28, the district court stayed the case until June 2. Defendants are ordered to file a status report by April 29.

Presumably NJ's motion to intervene as a defendant is also stayed.

[Euler]

On February 18, the ATF/DOJ filed a motion to put the appellate case in abeyance.

On February 20, the appellate court put the case in abeyance. The oral arguments scheduled for March 18 are to be rescheduled for the week of September 8. ATF/DOJ is to file a status report by April 21.

[Euler]

On April 21, given that the appellate court stayed the case, the district court ordered parties to file an additional status report on June 20.

Edited May 2, 2025 at 11:55 PM by Euler

[Euler]

On April 29, the ATF/DOJ filed the previously scheduled status report, recommending to keep the case in abeyance and noting that the abeyance is set to expire on June 2 (unless extended).

[Euler]

On June 3, the ATF/DOJ filed to extend the stay on the case.