Post Bruen Legal Landscape

1
Because I had to know what firearms cases are in the pipeline. Sorry to youz outside of CA9, this is a California-centric post. If interested in other Circuit Court activities, there is a very good case tracker here, also includes links to all cases listed below: https://airtable.com/embed/shrcrC5FsedZ ... 876GOWN0dN

Held at SCOTUS (assuming these will be CVR cases--sent back to the circuit court to reassess under Bruen's guidance):
ANJRPC v. Platkin, New Jersey magazine case
Young v. Hawaii, carry case, CA9 determined no right to carry conveyed in the 2A. Oops.
Bianchi v. Frosh, Maryland AWB case
Duncan v. Bonta, California magazine case

We should have an answer on magazines and AWBs in the shortish term (months to a year or so).

On hold at CA9 pending the release of Bruen:

Rupp v. Bonta, California AWB, on hold
Miller v. Bonta, California AWB, on hold
Rhode v. Bonta, California ammo, on hold
Flanagan v. Bonta, California carry, on hold
Nichols v. Newsom, California carry, on hold
Mitchell v. Atkins, California under 21, on hold

Unfortunately, I don't see a roster case.

Re: Post Bruen Legal Landscape

2
New York, California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts and New Jersey are directly impacted by this ruling and in an extended way Connecticut, Delaware and Rhode Island are also affected by Bruen.

The Supreme Court ruling does not immediately nullify or revise these state laws; it just makes clear that they are unconstitutional, effectively forcing state officials to revamp them.
Exactly how much harder or easier it will become to get a concealed-carry permit in these states will be determined only by the legislative responses, said Darrell Miller, a law professor at Duke University and a co-director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law. “What is clear is that these states will have to change their laws in a way where the licensing authority has less discretion to deny a permit,” Mr. Miller said. The ruling will generate challenges to much more than concealed-carry permit laws, because it explicitly rejects a legal standard — nicknamed the “two-step test” — that federal courts have used to evaluate Second Amendment challenges since a major Supreme Court ruling on gun rights in 2008.

Instead, the court has now ruled that a “history and tradition” standard should be used to evaluate these questions. This standard will require courts to evaluate if a contemporary gun law is in some way analogous to regulations that existed around the time when the Second Amendment was adopted in the late 18th century.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/24/us/s ... rmits.html

Since the "two step test" has been used in all gun cases, from the CA Roster to the CA microstamping requirement, they could all be challenged again in state and federal courts.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Post Bruen Legal Landscape

3
Q: What does this mean as a practical matter for people where the laws are similar?

A: The Court's decision today has a few important implications for people in "may-issue" states: 1) The Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right of peaceable people to carry firearms in public for self-defense; 2) Government licensing authorities throughout the nation cannot require any kind of "special need" to be articulated by carry license applicants; and 3) When analyzing Second Amendment claims, lower courts cannot use a "two-step" approach or apply weak "tiered" scrutiny. Instead, the courts will have to perform a historical analysis and determine if the conduct or instrument is protected. If it is protected, and the person is not prohibited under constitutional standards, the challenger should win. This test applies beyond carry cases, and will be important in our lawsuits challenging bans on so-called "assault weapons," handgun "rosters" and microstamping, and other cases seeking to enjoin unconstitutional restrictions on protected firearms and conduct.
https://www.firearmspolicy.org/bruen-faq
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Post Bruen Legal Landscape

6
The 9th Circuit has been stacking gun related cases, opinions on cases on the top of the pile won't be released until opinions on cases lower in the stack have been released. That doesn't seem quite legal, but AFAIK no one has challenged it. Last I checked there were 27 judges on the 9th Circuit between active and senior judges and it moves like a snail.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Post Bruen Legal Landscape

7
Northern wrote: Sun Jun 26, 2022 9:21 am Has the Supreme Court granted cert to any of the cases listed in the OP as “held by Supreme Court”? I didn’t know the CA magazine case was at the SC.
I don't believe so. They are all just sort of sitting there. Waiting. Sort of like the pile of gun cases being held at CA9. Some of those have been held for a couple of years, if memory serves.
highdesert wrote: There is a roster case, Renna v Bonta in the Southern District, San Diego overseen by the chief judge.
https://www.firearmspolicy.org/renna
Thanks for this. I'd love the roster to go away. Talk about dumb and creating a special class.

Re: Post Bruen Legal Landscape

10
highdesert wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 11:09 am Paul Clement of Kirkland & Ellis had good luck arguing NYSRPA vs Bruen, I hope he has similar good luck getting cert and arguing Duncan vs Bonta before SCOTUS.
I'm not sure if it's better to go that way or if it gets kicked back down (GVR) to CA9 with a "see Bruen" directive. Suppose SCOTUS could also direct them to affirm the correctly written, then overturned, Benitez ruling. Don't know which would take the least amount of time. It will probably be years, though. :thumbsdown:

Re: Post Bruen Legal Landscape

11
featureless wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 11:47 am
highdesert wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 11:09 am Paul Clement of Kirkland & Ellis had good luck arguing NYSRPA vs Bruen, I hope he has similar good luck getting cert and arguing Duncan vs Bonta before SCOTUS.
I'm not sure if it's better to go that way or if it gets kicked back down (GVR) to CA9 with a "see Bruen" directive. Suppose SCOTUS could also direct them to affirm the correctly written, then overturned, Benitez ruling. Don't know which would take the least amount of time. It will probably be years, though. :thumbsdown:
Now that Bruen has been decided, I think they need an opinion on what are acceptable firearms restrictions, Duncan vs Bonta might not be the right case. We should be hearing in August or September what cases they've selected for oral arguments.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Post Bruen Legal Landscape

13
featureless wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 9:53 am Because I had to know what firearms cases are in the pipeline. Sorry to youz outside of CA9, this is a California-centric post. If interested in other Circuit Court activities, there is a very good case tracker here, also includes links to all cases listed below: https://airtable.com/embed/shrcrC5FsedZ ... 876GOWN0dN

Held at SCOTUS (assuming these will be CVR cases--sent back to the circuit court to reassess under Bruen's guidance):
ANJRPC v. Platkin, New Jersey magazine case
Young v. Hawaii, carry case, CA9 determined no right to carry conveyed in the 2A. Oops.
Bianchi v. Frosh, Maryland AWB case
Duncan v. Bonta, California magazine case

We should have an answer on magazines and AWBs in the shortish term (months to a year or so).

On hold at CA9 pending the release of Bruen:

Rupp v. Bonta, California AWB, on hold
Miller v. Bonta, California AWB, on hold
Rhode v. Bonta, California ammo, on hold
Flanagan v. Bonta, California carry, on hold
Nichols v. Newsom, California carry, on hold
Mitchell v. Atkins, California under 21, on hold

Unfortunately, I don't see a roster case.
Today the FPC filed a motion asking the 9th Circuit to lift the stay in Miller v. Bonta challenging the California "assault weapons" ban, to allow the judgment striking down the ban to go into effect.
https://www.firearmspolicy.org/miller

Re: Post Bruen Legal Landscape

15
The Los Angeles Police Department has stopped enforcing California’s state law banning “high capacity” magazines, according to an internal LAPD email obtained by the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project. The email was sent Wednesday morning to all LAPD personnel by Commander Ernest Eskridge, assistant commanding officer of the department’s Detective Bureau. Eskridge noted that on June 23, the “United States Supreme Court vacated the ruling in Duncan v. Bonta and remanded the case back to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal for further consideration in light of its recent decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.”

Because of this ruling, Eskridge said in the email, all sworn LAPD personnel shall not “investigate, detain or arrest” anyone for possessing a magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds, unless they are already legally barred from possession ammunition in the state.
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/break ... azine-ban/

That's from the largest city police force in CA with roughly 10,000 sworn officers.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron