Arms and the Law

A panel of the 11th Circuit (far southeastern US) sustained the Florida law forbidding 18-21 year olds from buying rifles, and now the Circuit has voted to rehear the case en bank. I suspect such rehearings are like petitions for cert; they can go either way, but are about 2:1 more likely to reverse.

Opinion here. The law required a gun owner to pay a fee, donate to a charity (not yet named, but to be named by the city manager), and hold liability insurance. The court dismissed everything with prejudice, except the counts alleging that the payment to a named charity might violate freedom of expression and association.

The Supreme Court granted cert in this case, and it is worrisome. (1) Mr. Rahimi is quite a violent person; (2) if there is any prohibited person category that is likely to fail "text, history, and tradition" standards, it is the one for those subject to civil DV restraining orders. So this is the acid test for Bruen and its standards.

Six dead. It's part of a wave of them.

and of course the incident never makes national news. It just doesn't fit the preferred narrative.

"Senior guns down mugger who appeared to threaten him without dropping cigarette." (That is, the senior didn't drop his cigarette). This being NYC, the senior is facing prosecution.

US v. Rahimi. The Fifth Circuit struck down the ban on gun possession by persons subject to a DV restraining order. Terrible facts -- the defendant was a violent scumbag.

Dave Workman is celebrating!

I remember the oral argument.... and realizing how Kennedy would vote, which meant who would win. He asked the DC advocate, essentially, if the 2A couldn't be read as having two independent clauses, militia and arms, neither of which restricts the other.

The line for spectators stretched over two blocks, as I recall, and only those who'd been in line for 72 hours got in.

I was one of the last out, and I heard the Chief Justice say "don't worry, counsel, WE'RE still here!" I turned around and realized -- the courtroom had been absolutely packed with people, I don't know how many hundreds, and the next case up a humdrum one, so the entire room was clearing except for a Justices and maybe a dozen tourists in the back.

Let us hope David Codrea and Stephen Stamboulieh's persistence pays off.

Story here. None of the charges relate to his shooting of a robber, which the city accepts as justified. No, the charges are gun-law related. A judge set bail at $50,000.... because he felt there had been too many shootings.

Jones v. Hendrix. The petitioner was convicted in 2000 as a felon-in-possession. In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that proving that charge requires proof that the defendant knew he possessed a gun and knew of his status (i.e., that he'd been convicted of a felony).

After his 2000 conviction, he'd brought a §2255 habeas corpus petition. Now he wants to bring a second habeas petition, based on the Court's 2019 interpretation of the GCA. A majority rules he can't, due to a clause in the statute.

The Constitution says that the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of rebellion or invasion. The majority notes that at the time of the Framing, habeas relief was not available based on arguments that the court had mis-interpreted a statute, and so the statutory limit was constitutional.

(Note-- "The Solicitor General then noticed her intent to defend the Eighth Circuit's judgment but not its rationale. We appointed Morgan Ratner as amicus curiae to argue in support of the Eighth Circuit's reasoning. 597 U. S. ___ (2022). She has ably discharged her responsibilities.")

Abruquah v. State of Maryland, Maryland Supreme Court. It examines the details of linking firearms to fired bullets, and concludes that an expert may testify that bullet striations are consistent with it having been fired from a given gun, but cannot testify that the bullet came from the gun in question. There are a couple of strong dissents.

Story here. Though the real story is how easily he got off. For the tax charges, two misdemeanors. For the gun charge (possessing a gun while high on crack, certifying on the 4473 that hasn't a drug user) he got pretrial diversion--keep out of trouble for a year and it'll be dismissed.

The Third Circuit just ruled en banc on this, in Range v. Attorney General. The plaintiff had been convicted of welfare fraud, an offense designated as a misdemeanor but, since it was punishable by more than a year's imprisonment, was treated as a felony under the Gun Control Act. The court ruled, 13-2, that barring the plaintiff from owning firearms was a violation of the Second Amendment as applied.

Some other circuits, I should note, don't even allow "as applied" challenges to felon-in-possession.

The Guardian: "Wave of lawsuits against US gun makers raises hope of end to mass shootings."

But there is serious pushback.

Here's a piece I wrote on the Clinton-era push to sue gun makers, and what was secretly planned at the time.

"Democrats Vow To Close Dangerous Gun-Buying Loophole Known As 'The Second Amendment'. Yes, an oldie but a goody.

House of Reps report embedded here, with firearms portion beginning at p. 30. In the aftermath of January 6, the FBI asked Bank of America to identify all credit or debit card transactions in DC, Maryland, or Virginia on January 5-7. BoA complied, and of its own volition put firearm purchases at the top of the list.

Nevada's governor has vetoed three pieces of anti-gun legislation. His veto messages are linked to that webpage. Hurrah!

Complaint here. It's brought by MD State Rifle and Pistol Ass'n, and the daughter of a good friend.

Koons v. Platkin, District of NJ. It's 230 pages long, and I've only skimmed it, but it appears to uphold the permitting system and to strike down the "sensitive places" expansions, the "default rule" (no carrying on private property unless the owner posts his permission), and the insurance mandate. Congrats to the Second Amendment Foundation, to David Jensen, and to Dan Schmutter!