Kansas v US Attorney General - Private sales

[Euler]

On June 4, the district magistrate granted the extension to the stay and ordered a status report on August 8.

[Euler]

On June 20, the US filed a motion to abate (stay) the case in appellate court.

[Euler]

On January 17, 2025 at 09:29 PM CST, 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.

On June 27, the district judge denied the motion.

FWIW, the McCoy and Brown cases in WV about Under-21 handgun purchases are the cases where (bizarrely IMO) IL, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, DC, HI, MD, MA, MI, MN, NV, NJ, NY, NC, OR, PA, RI, VT, and WA (led by Giffords and Brady) somehow convinced the court to let them be defendants (not just amici) defending the federal handgun ban.

[Euler]

On June 25 in appellate court, meanwhile, the court continued the stay. The court ordered that parties update it at 60-day intervals regarding whether to continue the stay.

[Euler]

On June 30 in district court, the judge denied the motion to dismiss the case (filed by the DOJ on July 29, 2024) and the motion to reconsider the dismissal of the State of AR as a plaintiff (filed by plaintiff State of KS on May 28, 2024). The motions are denied without prejudice, so they may be refiled after the stay is lifted.

[Euler]

On August 8 in district court, the DOJ filed a status report and asked the court to continue the stay.

Edited August 30, 2025 at 12:32 AM by Euler

[Euler]

On August 22 in appellate court, the DOJ filed a status report, probably asking the court to continue the stay. (I haven't read it.)

[JMF248392]

Crazy

[Euler]

On October 2, the court ordered the case into abeyance for the duration of the shutdown.

[Euler]

On November 24 in district court, with the shutdown being over, the court ordered parties to submit position statements by December 5 and a status hearing on December 9.

[Euler]

On December 8 in district court, the court ordered the case stayed until June 5, 2026. Parties are to submit a joint status report by May 29, 2026.

[Euler]

On December 22 in appellate court, the DOJ filed a status report, asking that the court continue to abey this case. It continues to say that the ATF plans to "revisit" the "engaged in a business" rule. It just hasn't gotten around to it yet.

[Euler]

On April 21 in appellate court, the DOJ filed a status report asking that the court continue to abey this case. It continues to say that the ATF plans to "revisit" the "engaged in a business" rule. ATF concluded its review of the current rule on March 30, so a proposed replacement rule should happen Real Soon Now.

[Euler]

On May 8 in district court, the DOJ filed a status report. (I haven't read it. Meanwhile, in other news, the ATF announced with much fanfare the repeal of several Biden-era ATF rules, including the "engaged in the business" rule, but still has not yet announced most of the replacement rules.)

On May 29 in appellate court, the DOJ filed a status report. (I haven't read it, but probably pretty much the same as in district court.)

Edited May 31, 2026 at 08:11 AM by Euler

[Euler]

On June 1 in district court, the judge continued the stay. Parties are to file a joint status report by December 1.