Euler

The case has been filed at the US Supreme Court, but it is still awaiting a petition, so there isn't a (real) docket yet. 18 USC 922(g)(3) bans people who illegally use controlled substances from possessing firearms. In January 2020, Jonathan Alexander Morales-Lopez and an accomplice stole firearms from a Sportsman's Warehouse in Utah during business hours. The accomplice was the one who actually took the firearms. Morales-Lopez was the lookout. Store employees called police, who apprehended Morales-Lopez in the parking lot. When they frisked him, they found him in possession of a handgun that the accomplice had stolen from the same Sportsman's Warehouse five days earlier. [Editorial comment: So how many firearms does this Sportsman's Warehouse location lose to "shrinkage" every day/week/month? Curious minds want to know.] Officers also discovered methamphetamine (Schedule II controlled substance) in the accomplice's car. Several months later while awaiting trial for his role in the January theft, Morales-Lopez admitted during questioning to being a regular user of methamphetamine. Illegal possession of a firearm under 18 USC 922(g)(3) was added to the charges against him. The jury in his trial in the Federal District Court of Utah found Morales-Lopez guilty of violating 18 USC 922(g)(3), but he moved to have the conviction dismissed on the grounds that 18 USC 922(g)(3) was unconstitutional on its face (for vagueness) and as applied to him. The district court agreed and dismissed the conviction. The government appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which reinstated the jury verdict. Morales-Lopez is now appealing the reinstatement to the US Supreme Court. The original deadline to file the petition for certiorari was May 9, but Morales-Lopez asked for an extension. Gorsuch granted an extension to July 8. (shadow docket)

On April 11, the trial judge set May 10 as the deadline for parties to submit expert reports for discovery. On May 3, defendants asked for a 30-day extension to that deadline, because one of their experts has some undefined emergency of indeterminate duration. On May 7, the judge ruled on the extension. The 30-day extension is mostly denied. That particular expert's report will not be due on May 10. The issue of its due date will be taken up during the status hearing which has already been scheduled for May 16.

The issue is that the VA asks vets who come in for various treatments if they would like financial counseling. If the vets say they would, then the VA reports them to NICS as mentally defective (a statutory prohibitor) on the grounds that they are unable to manage their own financial affairs. Even if the vets are actually incapable of managing their own financial affairs, "mentally defective" is a term that generally means that someone has NEVER been mentally capable, typically the kind of incapacity that would have disqualified them from enlistment in the first place. Similarly if a vet sought psychological counseling, the VA would use that as evidence of mental incapacity directly for reporting to NICS. The idea behind a few proposed bills is that only a judge can adjudicate a person as mentally incompetent, not some arbitrary VA bureaucrat. My understanding is that Bost has his own such bill. Maybe he voted against this one because he wants his bill to be the only one that passes, but I can only speculate.

On May 6, Alito granted the extension.

Syllabus for free gun safety classes:Guns are bad. Guns kill children. All children deserve to feel safe, no matter where they are.Guns are bad. Children should tell people in positions of authority (teachers, doctors, police, etc.) if their parents own guns so everyone can know who owns guns.Guns are bad. People who own guns need to disassemble them into a non-functioning state so that they are not immediately usable.Guns are bad. People who own guns must lock up their (disassembled) guns so that they are not immediately accessible.Guns are bad. People who own guns must lock up their ammunition separately from their guns so they cannot load their guns.Guns are bad. People who own guns kill themselves, their children, their friends, and their relatives.Guns are bad. Children of people who own guns kill themselves with those guns.Guns are bad. LGBTQ+ friends and relatives of people who own guns kill themselves with those guns.Guns are bad. People who own guns and who try to defend themselves from a violent attack are killed with their own guns.Guns are bad. Urge your local, state, and federal government to outlaw guns so no one ever has to die.

The case has been filed at the US Supreme Court, but it is still awaiting a petition, so there isn't a (real) docket yet. Pennsylvania bans people under 21 from carrying firearms in public. Madison Lara (and others) sued the Pennsylvania State Police, in the person of its director, Christopher Paris, to enjoin the ban. The Federal District Court of Western Pennsylvania ruled for the government. Lara et al. appealed. CA3 ruled for Lara et al. Paris (PA) petitioned for an en banc rehearing, but was denied. PA is now appealing to the Supreme Court. PA's argument is the now familiar one that people under 21 aren't people, therefore they don't have constitutionally protected rights, like 2A. The deadline to file a petition is June 25, but Paris has asked Alito to extend the deadline to July 25. (shadow docket)

On March 25, defendant Foxx filed a motion to sanction plaintiffs for incomplete discovery under the rules of civil procedure. Plaintiffs failed to disclose all the historical sources that they cite to make their case. They argue that they were not required to disclose their historical sources, because the burden of historical analysis is on the government under Bruen. On May 1, the judge ruled on the motion. The burden of proof on the government does not absolve the plaintiffs of their obligation to comply with discovery. While ordinarily sanctions could mean that plaintiffs' previously undisclosed sources could be excluded from trial, the judge instead allowed defendants until May 15 to examine the sources, at the expense of the plaintiffs. On May 15, the defendants have the option of requesting another 30 days to continue their examination of the sources, which will also be at the plaintiffs' expense. If after their review, the defendants decide that they do not need to revise their responses, then the judge will proceed on the motions for summary judgment directly. I pretty much expect that Foxx will ask for another 30 days and that Foxx will revise her responses. I think plaintiffs dodged a bullet, even though it still grazed them.

On May 2, plaintiffs filed a motion in district court to remand the complaint to state court while the federal court retains jurisdiction over the issue of fees. Since the complaint doesn't depend on removal fees, I'm sure they'll get it.

From the article "Gun Dogs: The rise of firearms-sniffing K-9s."

It's kind of a twin of Kansas v US Attorney General.

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.)

The case was filed in the Federal District of Northern Texas on May 1. (docket) Other plaintiffs at this time are Gun Owners Foundation, GOA, LA, MS, UT, Tennessee Firearms Association, Virginia Citizens Defense League, and an individual plaintiff. 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.)

No they don't. Its called SUPREME court for a reason. ...[bold added by yurimodin] 100% wrong. Lawsuits are tried. The Supreme Court (and Court of Appeals) can set the precedent on which the lawsuit is decided, but the trial must still take place. Trials take place in district courts, not in the Supreme Court or courts of appeals.

To be completely analogous, we'd set up tent cities around state police ranges to prevent people from practicing or qualifying until the government caved to our demands. Yeah, that should work. IMO, the most likely outcome at the Supreme Court is that the Court grants cert, then immediately remands back to CA7 with instructions to correct the analysis that CA7 applied to the stay of the Southern District's Barnett injunction, which also upheld the Northern District's Bevis denial. The second most likely outcome is that they deny the petitions entirely. In either case, we could know by May 20. We should definitely know by May 28. Also in either case, the cases still have to go to trial, which they still haven't done.

On April 30, the district court issued two orders. 1. Regarding costs, the court ordered parties to submit motions by May 10, with responses due by May 17. 2. Regarding Crimo's motion to stay the case due to his bankruptcy, the court said: