Our experts are closely monitoring NYSRPA v. Bruen, the most important Second Amendment case the Supreme Court has heard in over a decade. Among other cases, we are also monitoring two lawsuits where gun lobby–backed challengers are requesting review by the Supreme Court: Ass’n of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs v. Grewal, and Young v. Hawaii. Each of these cases has the potential to yield a radical Second Amendment ruling that seriously jeopardizes future gun violence prevention progress.
The Supreme Court hears its first major Second Amendment case in over a decade.
On April 26, 2021, the Supreme Court announced it would hear NYSRPA v. Bruen, its first major Second Amendment case since Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the Court. This case (previously known as Corlett or NYSRPA II) involves a challenge to a New York state law that requires New York residents to demonstrate “proper cause” for a concealed carry license. Since the Court decided District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, the justices have largely avoided cases implicating the Second Amendment. This is the first Second Amendment case the Court has taken since the appointment of Justice Barrett, who is likely to shift the balance against gun safety laws. In Bruen, the Court is expected to address for the first time the extent to which the Second Amendment guarantees a right to carry firearms in public. Oral arguments took place on November 3, 2021. For more information on Bruen, read our press release with a statement on the case from our litigation director, Hannah Shearer, or see coverage in the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, Mother Jones, and The Hill.
The California Attorney General’s Office appealed the district court’s ruling Miller v. Bonta, seeking to protect California’s assault weapons ban.
An en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit upheld California’s large-capacity magazine ban.
On November 30, 2021, the en banc Ninth Circuit upheld California’s prohibition against large-capacity magazines in Duncan v. Becerra, joining every other federal appeals court to consider the constitutionality of magazine restrictions. This decision reversed a previous outlier ruling by a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel. Giffords Law Center filed an amicus brief defending California’s law before the three-judge panel, and later submitted another amicus brief urging the Ninth Circuit to hear the case en banc.
An en banc panel of the Sixth Circuit heard a challenge to the ATF’s rule banning bump stocks.
On December 3, 2021, the en banc Sixth Circuit affirmed a lower court ruling finding that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives had properly classified bump stocks as machine guns, reversing a three-judge panel which previously found that the challengers were likely to succeed in their challenge to ATF’s rule. The en banc court was evenly split 8-8, affirming the district court ruling by default.
An en banc panel of the Fourth Circuit vacated a prior decision challenging the constitutionality of a law restricting handgun sales from licensed dealers to individuals 21 years of age and older.
In September 2021, a Fourth Circuit panel vacated as moot a prior decision which held that laws preventing firearms dealers from selling handguns to young adults under the age of 21 are unconstitutional. Giffords Law Center filed an amicus brief in the case (Hirschfield v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms) in February 2020, supporting the constitutionality of minimum age laws with evidence showing that young adults under 21 are disproportionately involved in violent crime and are at a higher risk of attempting suicide.
GUNS & DEMOCRACY
The use of guns to intimidate and threaten voters, elected officials, and peaceful demonstrators poses a serious threat to our democracy. We’ve gathered resources on the deadly connection between guns and extremism, and how to stop it.
Challenge to Maryland Handgun Qualification Law (license-to-possess). (D. Md. No. 16-cv-03311; 4th Cir. No. 19-1469)
Case Status: On 9/10/21, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Fourth Circuit, disputing the lower court’s order granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and a previous order denying in part Plaintiffs’ motion to strike one of Defendants’ testimony. On 8/12/21, the court issued a sealed memorandum opinion and order granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denying Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. On 11/25/20, Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment. On 12/3/20, Everytown filed their amicus brief. On 1/27/21, Plaintiffs filed a motion to strike opinions of Defendants’ experts. On 1/28/21, Plaintiffs filed their cross motion for summary judgment. On 4/20/21, the court granted Defendants’ consent motion for extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs’ motion to strike Defendants’ experts. On 5/6/21, Defendants submitted their reply in support of their motion to strike. On 7/27/21, the court issued a memorandum opinion denying Plaintiff’s motion to strike and granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion to strike.
Prior Proceedings: After the district court granted summary judgment to defendants, the 4th Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded. 4th Cir. held that the district court erred in holding that appellant Atlantic Guns lacked independent standing to bring a Second Amendment claim and third-party standing to challenge the HQL requirement on behalf of potential customers. Affirmed the district court’s decision that the individual Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue a facial vagueness challenge.
People v. Brown
Challenge to Illinois FOID firearm licensing law, brought by criminal defendant. (White Cty. Cir. Ct.)
Case Status: On remand, defendant reasserts her constitutional challenge to the FOID law under Illinois S.Ct. Rule 19, and this time does not assert a statutory challenge. There was a motion hearing on the constitutional issue on 7/7/20. On 4/26/21 the Circuit Court held that FOID was unconstitutional as applied to the defendant.
Prior Proceedings: A different (now retired) trial court judge previously held FOID law violated Second Amendment as-applied to defendant who “possessed a gun, in her house, for the purpose of self-defense.” Also held it is impossible to comply with statutory requirement to have FOID card on person. Case was appealed and on 4/2/20, the Illinois S. Ct. held the trial court should not have reached the Second Amendment question in light of alternate holding and remanded for further proceedings.
Guns Save Life, Inc. v. Raoul
NRA-backed challenge to Illinois FOID firearm licensing law. (Ill. state court—Sangamon Cnty. Cir. Ct. No. 2019 CH 000180)
Case Status: Docket available here. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss granted with prejudice. The stay was lifted on 4/30/20. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on 5/29/20; Plaintiffs filed their response and a motion for summary judgment on 7/15/20. Hearing was on 9/22/20. On 11/17/20, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On 12/1/20, Plaintiff filed a motion to continue motion for summary judgement. On 12/29/20, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgement. On 2/19/21, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On 4/7/21, Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to Defendant’s motion. On 4/23/21, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. On 5/5/21, Defendant filed a notice of hearing. On 5/19/21, Plaintiff filed a subpoena for deposition. On 6/22/21, the court granted the joint motion for entry of a stay and amended case managemen
Basset v. Slatery
Challenge to Tennessee’s permitless carry law brought by individuals between the age of eighteen and twenty. (E.D. Tenn. No. 21-CV-00152)
Case Status: Complaint filed on 4/22/21. Defendants have until 8/16/21 to answer the complaint. On 8/16/21, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. On 8/25/21, Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for extension of time to file their response, which the Court granted on 8/27/21.
Gun Owners of America v. Philadelphia
Challenge to Philadelphia law prohibiting the creation of 3D printed firearms and components without a federal license. (Philadelphia County filed May 11, 2021; E.D. Pa. No. 21-cv-2630)
Case Status: Complaint filed 5/11/21. Removal to Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Case no. 21-cv-2630) filed 6/10/21; motion for remand filed 6/16/21. On 6/17/21, Defendant answered the complaint. On 6/30/21, Defendant filed a response in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion to remand. On 7/7/21, Plaintiffs filed their reply.
Our pro bono partners generously volunteer their time and legal expertise, helping us fight the gun lobby in court and defend lifesaving gun laws. Visit our pro bono partner page to find out more about how to get involved.
Lower Court Outcome: The 2d Cir. affirmed the District Court ruling which dismissed the plaintiffs Section 1983 action alleging that NY’s proper cause requirement for concealed carry was unconstitutional. Mandate issued on 9/16/20. District court granted motion to dismiss.
Young v. Hawaii (Cert Stage)
Challenge to Hawaii open carry law. (S. Ct. No. 20-1639; 9th Cir. No. 12-17808)
Lower Court Outcome:Affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a challenge to Hawaii’s open carry licensing scheme on 3/24/21. Dissents by Judges O’Scannlain and R. Nelson. Mandate issued on 4/15/21. En banc oral argument was heard on 9/24/20 before Judges Thomas, O’Scannlain, McKeown, Wardlaw, W. Fletcher, Clifton, Bybee, Callahan, Ikuta, Friedland, and R. Nelson. Panel invalidated law; en banc court vacated panel decision.
Call, et al. v. Jones III, et al. (Held in Abeyance Pending NYSRPA v. Bruen)
Second Amendment challenge to Maryland concealed carry permit law and “good and substantial reason” requirement. (4th Cir. No. 21-1334; D. Md. No. 20-cv-03304)
Case Status: On 3/26/21, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Fourth Circuit in response to the order dismissing their complaint. On 5/10/21, the court ordered the case be held in abeyance pending Bruen.
Lower Court Outcome: Complaint filed 11/13/20. On 12/7/20, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On 3/19/21, the court denied Everytown and Giffords Law Center’s motions for leave to file amicus briefs.
Bennett v. Davis (Held in Abeyance Pending NYSRPA v. Bruen)
Second Amendment challenge to New Jersey good-cause concealed carry permit law. (D. N.J. No. 20-cv-15406)
Case Status: Complaint filed 11/2/20. On 5/12/21, the court administratively terminated the case pending Bruen.
Greco v. City of New York
Second Amendment challenge to NYC implementation of New York good-cause concealed carry permit law. (S.D.N.Y. No. 20-cv-09265)
Case Status: Complaint filed 11/4/2020. On 12/15/2020, the summons were issued to Defendants. On 1/5/21, Plaintiffs submitted their amended complaint with a jury demand, and on 2/19/21, Defendants answered the amended complaint. On 6/3/21, the court granted Defendants’ proposed protective order. On 6/28/21, the court granted an extension of time to complete discovery; fact discovery due 7/26/21; expert discovery due 9/8/21; status conference set for 9/24/21. On 8/4/21, the court granted parties’ joint letter motion to stay the case pending Bruen. The court directed parties to inform the court whether the stay should be lifted within two weeks of the decision in Bruen.
Mo. ex rel Schmitt v. Choi & Curators of Univ. of Mo.
Missouri statutory and constitutional challenges to Univ. of Missouri campus gun ban. (Mo. SC98992; Mo. Ct. App. Western Dist. No. WD83427)
Case Status: Docket available here.Affirmed and reversed in part. On 3/15/21, Plaintiff filed a notice to appeal/transfer to the SC. On 3/29/21, the SC issued an order allowing leave to file suggestions in support of application for transfer for Appellants. Freedom Center of Missouri’s suggestions in support of application for transfer filed as amicus curiae. On 4/27/21, Respondents filed suggestions in opposition to the AG’s application for transfer. On 8/31/21, Respondents’ application for transfer to the Missouri Supreme Court was denied.
Lower Court Outcome: Appeals court found that the university rule survived strict scrutiny as required by the Missouri Constitution to the extent that the Rule was not preempted. The court reversed the portion of the trial court’s ruling that found the Rule was not preempted. Trial court upheld university rule after bench trial.
Wade v. University of Michigan
Second Amendment challenge to Univ. of Michigan campus gun ban. Docket available here.(Mich. S. Ct. No. 156150)
Case Status: State supreme court review granted 11/6/20 in this order. On 1/4/21, Appellant submitted their brief. On 1/27/21, an amicus brief was filed by Gun Owners of America, Inc and Gun Owners Foundation. Amicus briefs have been filed by Gun Owners of America, Inc, Gun Owners Foundation, Giffords Law Center, Brady, Team ENOUGH, and American Association of University Professors, Everytown , MFOL, Second Amendment professors, and the Firearms Policy Coalition and Firearms Policy Foundation. Oral argument scheduled for October 2021. On 8/23/21, the court granted Defendant-Appellee’s motion to adjourn the case from the October 2021 oral argument session.
Lower Court Outcome: University rule upheld against preemption, Second Amendment challenge.
Flanagan v. Becerra and Nichols v. Newsom (Stayed Pending Young v. Hawaii—En Banc Case)
Challenges to California open carry law. (Flanagan v. Becerra: 9th Cir. No. 18-55717. Nichols v. Newsom: 9th Cir. No. 14-55873.)
Case Status: Flanagan and Nichols are stayed pending resolution of Young.
Lower Court Outcomes: Both challenges rejected below.
Livingston v. Ballard (Stayed Pending Young v. Hawaii—En Banc Case)
Challenge to Hawaii’s open/concealed carry permitting laws. (D. Haw. No. 19-cv-157)
Case Status: Stayed pending resolution of Young. On 3/25/21, Defendants filed a notice of significant developments given the 9th Cir. decision in Young and that Plaintiff-Appellant from Young announced they intend to seek Supreme Court review. On 4/12/21, the court recognized the en banc opinion in Young, and the case remains stayed and administratively closed pending the mandate in Young.
Yukutake v. Connors (Stayed Pending Young v. Hawaii—En Banc Case)
Second Amendment challenge to Hawaii registration and permitting laws. (D. Hawaii No. 19-cv-578)
Case Status: On 8/16/21, the court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and denied Defendants’ countermotion for summary judgment. The court held a telephonic status conference at Defendant’s request on 8/30/21 to discuss Defendant’s plan to file an appeal, request a stay from the court pending appeal, and seek amendment of the subject statutes in the Hawaii Legislature. On 8/30/21, the court extended the stay on entry of judgment until 9/22/21. On 8/31/21, Defendant filed a motion to stay pending appeal. Plaintiffs’ response is due on 9/13/21.
Previously stayed pending resolution of Young. On 3/25/21, the district court lifted the stay in the case and administratively reopened the case. Status conference was held on 4/6/21. On 4/12/21, Defendants filed their answer to the amended complaint. On 4/28/21, Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment and the hearing is scheduled for 6/28/21 at 10am. On 5/20/21, the court held a telephone conference and continued the jury trial from 7/13/21 to 2/23/22 at 8:30am. On 5/28/21, Defendant filed a counter motion for summary judgment. On 6/7/21, Plaintiffs filed a reply and opposition to Defendants’ counter motion for summary judgment. On 6/15/21, Everytown’s motion for leave to file an amicus brief was granted. Hearing held on 6/28/21 for Plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion and Defendants’ counter motion for summary judgment. On 7/13/21, Plaintiffs filed a notice of supplemental authorities, notifying the court of the Fourth Circuit’s ruling in Hirschfield. On 8/4/21, the Court finished its hearing on parties’ pending summary judgment motions. The court intends to issue a written order granting Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in whole and denying Defendant’s motion for summary judgment in whole. On 8/9/21, Defendant submitted a stipulation requesting the court to delay entry of its judgment for thirty days.
Worth, et al. v. Harrington, et al.
Facial and As-Applied Challenge to Minnesota’s Minimum Age and Public Carry Law. (D. Minn. No. 19-cv-578)
Case Status: Complaint filed on 6/7/21. On 8/13/21, Defendant submitted its answer.
Explore our work defending lifesaving gun laws in the courts and fighting to debunk the gun lobby’s dangerous arguments about the Second Amendment.
Lower Court Outcome: The 3rd Cir. affirmed the District Court’s decision granting the State’s motion for summary judgement. On 9/15/20, appellants filed an en banc petition, supported by numerous amicus briefs. On 10/30/20, Appellants submitted their response to the petition for rehearing. On 11/25/20, the petition for rehearing en banc was denied. Judges Jordan, Hardiman, Bibas, Porter, Matey, and Phipps would have granted the petition. Mandate was issued on 12/3/20. District court denied plaintiff’s PI motion and 3d Circuit affirmed. District court then granted State’s motion for summary judgment and denied Plaintiff’s cross-motion to stay pending resolution of NYSRPA.
Maryland Shall Issue v. Hogan (Cert Stage)
Takings Clause, due process and statutory challenge to Maryland trigger activator ban. (S Ct. No. 20-855; 4th Cir. No. 18-2474)
Second Amendment, Takings Clause challenge to California LCM ban. (9th Cir. No. 19-55376, S.D. Cal. No. 17-01017)
Case Status: On 2/25/21, the case was ordered to be reheard en banc, and the panel opinion was vacated. Judges Owens and Bress did not participate in the deliberations or vote on the case. The 9th Cir. affirmed the district court’s decision finding California’s LCM ban unconstitutional on 8/14/20. On 8/28/20, appellant filed a petition for rehearing en banc, and appellees filed their response on 9/18/20. Numerous amicus briefs have been filed. On 3/22/21, the court granted Defendant-Appellant’s request for supplemental briefing due by 5/14/21; reply briefs due by 6/1/21. Amicus briefs have been filed by Gun Owners of America, National Shooting Sports Foundation (resubmitted after struck for being too long), the Firearms Policy Coalition, and the State of Arizona joined by 21 other states. Oral argument is scheduled for 6/22/21 at 9:30 a.m. PST. On 5/7/21, Appellees filed a letter notifying the court about Bruen and suggesting the court may want to hold Duncan in abeyance. Both parties have filed supplemental briefs. Oral argument heard on 6/22/21 before Judges Thomas, Graber, Paez, Berzon, Ikuta, Murguia, Watford, Hurwitz, R. Nelson, Bumatay, and Vandyke. On 7/12/21, Appellees notified the court of supplemental authorities: Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, for the proposition that the LCM ban does not survive heightened scrutiny, and Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, for the proposition that California’s LCM ban constitutes a taking and that “nuisance law may be invoked to take property without paying compensation only when something was declared a nuisance before the property was acquired.” On 7/27/21, Appellant disputed Appellees’ reliance on Americans for Prosperity Foundation and Cedar Point Nursery in their notice of supplemental authorities.
Lower Court Outcome: District court granted permanent injunction, finding LCM regs unconstitutional in entirety; a week later he stayed part of ruling but possession ban remains enjoined. 9th Cir. previously affirmed PI order applying only to possession ban, by a 2–1 vote.
Rupp v. Becerra (Held in Abeyance Pending Duncan v. Becerra—En Banc Case)
Second Amendment, other challenges to California assault weapon restrictions and registration. (9th Cir. No. 19-56004)
Case Status: The appeal is held in abeyance pending the resolution of the en banc proceedings in Duncan. The case is vacated until further order of the case. Judge Bumatay dissented from the order. Oral argument heard on 10/8/20 before Judge Hurwitz, Bress, and Bumatay.
Lower Court Outcome: District court granted State’s motion for summary judgment and upheld the assault weapon restrictions.
Gun Owners of Amer. v. Garland
APA challenge to ATF rule banning bump stocks. (6th. Cir. No. 19-1298)
Case Status: Reversed and remanded. On 5/11/21, Appellees filed a petition for rehearing en banc. On 6/7/21, Appellants responded to the petition. On 6/25/21, the court granted the petition for rehearing en banc. Appellants’ brief is due on 7/26/21; Appellees’ brief is due on 8/25/21; Appellants’ reply brief due not later than 9/7/21. On 7/26/21, Appellants filed their supplemental brief. Amicus briefs have been filed by David Codrea, Owen Monroe, and Scott Heuman, and the National Rifle Association, the Cato Institute, FPC, and other state firearms associations and citizens defense leagues. En banc oral argument is set for 10/20/21 at 2pm EST. On 8/25/21, the Appellees filed their supplemental brief. On 9/7/21, the court granted Giffords Law Center, Brady, and Everytown’s motion for leave to file a brief as amici curiae, and Appellants also filed their supplemental brief.
The Sixth Circuit disagreed with the lower court’s application of Chevron deference, held that the ATF’s Final Rule was not the best interpretation of § 5845(b), and found that Plaintiffs-Appellants were likely to prevail on the merits and their motion for an injunction should have been granted. Judges Batchelder wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Judge Murphy. Judge White wrote a dissent and found that Chevron could apply to laws with criminal applications. Appellants appeal the district court’s denial of their PI motion (1:18-cv-01429). Appeal is fully briefed, and 6th Cir. heard oral argument on 12/11/19. Audio here.
Modern Sportsman, et al. v. United States; companion case McCutchen v. United States
Takings Clause challenge to ATF rule banning bump stocks, brought by former bump stock sellers and individual owners seeking compensation. (Modern Sportsman, et al. v. United States: Fed. Cir. No. 20-1107. McCutchen v. United States: Fed. Cir. No. 20-1188)
Case Status: Oral argument heard on 12/8/20 and submitted to panel: Wallach, Taranto, and Chen. Audio here.
Lower Court Outcome: Lower court granted defense motion to dismiss on 10/23/20.
Miller v. Bonta
Second Amendment challenge to California’s assault weapons ban. (9th Cir. No. 21-55608, S.D. Cal. No. 19-cv-1537)
Case Status: On 6/10/21, Defendants appealed to the Ninth Circuit under an Emergency Motion to stay lower court action. On 6/15/21, Appellees files a response opposing the emergency motion. On 6/15/21, the State of Arizona joined by 21 other states filed a motion to become amicus curiae and submitted a brief for review. On 6/16/21, Appellants replied to Appellee’s response. On 6/21/21, the district court’s order and judgment were stayed pending resolution of Rupp v. Bonta, 9th Circuit No. 19-56004. The briefing schedule in this case is stayed until further order of the court.
Lower Court Outcome:Held in favor of Plaintiffs, finding California’s assault weapons ban unconstitutional. Plaintiffs’ PI motion and def.’s partial motion to dismiss are fully briefed. On 12/14/20, Defendants filed their answer to the amended complaint. On 1/13/21, Defendants filed a motion seeking an order in limine to preclude or limit Plaintiffs’ proffered testimony at trial. On 1/27/21, both parties submitted trial briefs and their proposed findings of fact. Bench trial was held on 2/5/21. Plaintiffs filed an objection to the use of two exhibits: one by the Violence Policy Center and the other by Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Defendants’ response argues the deadline for objections has passed. Judge Benitez ordered Defendants to “adduce for the years 2020 and 2021: a. The total number of firearms sold in the state with background checks; b. If ascertainable, the total number of rifles, shotguns, semi-automatic pistols, and revolvers sold within the state with background checks; c. If ascertainable, the number of first-time buyers of a firearm in the state” by 3/15/21. On 3/15/21, Defendants responded to the order. On 5/11/21, the parties received notice of filing of the official transcript from the two days of trial on 2/3/21 and 2/5/21.
Renna v. Becerra
Second Amendment challenge to 2020 amendments to California Unsafe Handgun Act. (S.D. Cal. No. 20-cv-02190)
Case Status: Complaint filed 11/10/20, followed by opposed notice to relate case to Duncan, Miller and Rhode. On 1/5/21, summons were issued as to the first amended complaint. On 1/25/21, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. On 2/15/21, Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to the motion to dismiss. Status conference held on 3/12/21 in light of Duncan. On 4/23/21, the court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss. On 5/4/21, the court extended Defendants’ deadline to file an answer to the First Amended Complaint to 5/14/21. On 5/14/21, Defendants filed their answer to the amended complaint. On 7/21/21 the court entered a notice and order setting an early neutral evaluation for 9/7/21. The deadline to submit confidential briefs, file the joint discovery plan is set for 9/16/21.
Ross, et al. v. Mellekas
Second Amendment challenge to Connecticut LCM load restrictions (limited to loading 10 rounds in 15-round magazines). (D. Conn. No. 20-CV-319)
Case Status: Defense motion to dismiss organizational plaintiffs is fully briefed; discovery is ongoing and rescheduled to close on 2/11/21. Plaintiffs’ expert reports are to be disclosed by 1/15/21. Parties’ joint motion to modify the schedule order was granted and discovery is due by 6/12/21; dispositive motions are due by 7/12/21; trial ready date is set for 1/12/21. On 4/16/21, the court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. On 6/2/21, the court granted Defendants’ motion to compel and instructed Plaintiffs to respond by 9/25/21. On 6/11/21, the court extended the deadline for discovery to 8/12/21. On 6/22/21, Plaintiffs filed a stipulation of dismissal, and on 6/23/21, the court approved the stipulation of dismissal.
Rainier Arms, et al. v. ATF
Second Amendment and Administrative Procedure Act challenges to ATF’s regulatory guidance for pistol braces. (N.D. Tex., No. 21-cv-00116)
Case Status: On 4/30/21, Defendants notified the court about the President’s order that DoJ initiate rulemaking about pistol braces within 60 days on 4/7/21, and the parties are conferring over the announcement’s implication for the case. On 5/21/21, Defendants filed a consent motion to stay the case in order to “allow Defendants to undertake issuing the proposed rule.” On 5/24/21, the court granted the agreed motion to stay and vacated all pending deadlines. Parties filed their joint status report on 6/14/21, and on 6/15/21, the court agreed with the parties that the case should remain stayed pending public comment on Defendants’ proposed rule on “Factoring Criteria for Firearms With Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces.’” Parties are to file a joint status report on or before 9/21/21 indicating whether the case should remain stayed.
Time and again, courts have ruled that the Second Amendment is fully compatible with a wide range of gun safety laws. Giffords Law Center and our partners frequently draft and submit amicus curiae—or “friend of the court”—briefs in cases challenging lifesaving gun laws.
Lower Court Outcome: On 11/24/20, a divided panel affirmed and rejected the as-applied constitutional challenge, determining felony tax fraud to be a serious offense under Binderup. Judge Bibas dissented and would have held that the 922(g)(1) firearm prohibition is only constitutional when applied to persons shown to be dangerous. The district court rejected the as-applied challenge.
Torres v. United States (Cert Stage)
As-applied challenge to 922(g)(1) brought by a pro se petitioner convicted of violating the felon-in-possession law. (S. Ct. No. 20-5579; 9th Cir. No. 15-10492)
Case Status: Docket available here. Petition denied on 12/14/20.Cert. petition filed 6/22/20. On 10/1/20, Firearms Policy Coalition filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioner. On 11/6/20, the United States submitted its opposition brief. On 11/23/20, Petitioner filed his reply. Set to be distributed for conference on 12/11/20.
Hirschfeld v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms
Challenge to federal minimum age restriction. (4th Cir. No. 19-2250)
Case Status:Vacated, reversed, and remanded. A divided panel of the Fourth Circuit held that laws preventing firearms dealers from selling handguns to people under the age of 21 are unconstitutional. On 7/27/21, Prospective Intervenors Corey Fraser and Battlefield Arms filed a motion to intervene with a proposed complaint. On 8/9/21, Defendant filed its response in opposition to motion to intervene and cross-motion for vacatur. On 8/10/21, Prospective Plaintiff-Appellants filed notice of their intent to file a reply to Defendant’s response in opposition. On 8/17/21, Plaintiffs filed their response in opposition. On 8/23/21, Defendants filed a reply to Plaintiffs’ response. On 8/27/21, Defendants filed their petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc. On 8/30/21, the court temporarily stayed the mandate pending the petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. On 9/3/21, amicus briefs were filed by Illinois et al, Virginia, and Maryland. On 9/8/21, the court granted a motion permitting Brady, Everytown, Giffords Law Center, and March for Our Lives to file an amicus brief. Oral argument was heard on 10/30/20; Brady and Giffords Law Center participated. On 12/4/20, Giffords Law Center submitted supplemental authorities. On 3/11/21, AG Merrick Garland was substituted for Robert M. Wilkinson.
Lower Court Outcome: District court granted defense motion to dismiss on 10/4/19.
Jones v. Becerra
Challenge to CA minimum age law. (9th Cir. No. 20-56174; C.D. Cal. No. 19-CV-1226)
Case Status: On 12/4/20, Appellants filed their opening brief and excerpts of record. The case is fully briefed. On 1/26/21, an amicus brief was filed by IL, CT, DE, DC, HI, MD, MA, MI, MN, NJ, NM, NY, OR, PA, RI, VE, VI, and WA. An amicus brief was also submitted by GLC, Brady, AFT and California Federation of Teachers. Everytown also submitted an amicus brief. On 1/28/21, NEA also submitted an amicus brief. On 3/26/21, parties were ordered to file supplemental briefing addressing 1) the original public meaning of “a well regulated militia,” “the right of the people,” and “shall not be infringed,” 2) how the tool of corpus linguistics can inform the original public meaning, and 3) how does the data yielded from corpus linguistics assist in the interpretation of the age-based restrictions under the Second Amendment; briefs due on 4/23/21. On 4/20/21, Appellants filed their supplemental brief. On 4/21/21, Appellees filed their supplemental brief. Motion by Neal Goldfarb for leave to file reply brief as amicus curiae was denied. Oral argument held in Pasadena on 5/12/21 at 9am before Nelson, Lee, and Stein (S.D.N.Y.), recording available, here. Appellees and Appellants have both filed notice of supplemental authorities, disagreeing about the precedential value of National Rifle Association v. Swearingen. On 7/21/21, Appellants filed notice of supplemental authorities relying on Hirschfield (4th Cir.).
Lower Court Outcome: On 11/3/20, the court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. On 11/6/20, Plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal to the 9th Circuit.
Mitchell v. Atkins (Held in Abeyance Pending Jones v. Becerra)
Commerce clause challenge to WA law prohibiting sale of semiautomatic rifles to out-of-state residents, and Second Amendment challenge to minimum age provision. (9th Cir. No. 20-35827, W.D. Wash. No. 19-cv-05106)
Case Status: Held in abeyance pending Jones v. Becerra. Case is fully briefed. Amicus briefs have been submitted by IL, CA, CT, DE, D.C., HI, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, NJ, NM, NY, OR, PA, RI, VT, and VA, and Giffords Law Center and Brady, and Everytown. On 4/20/21, Appellees notified the court of Young which supports affirming the district court decision. On 5/17/21, Appellants submitted their reply brief. On 7/15/21, Appellants notified the court about the decision in Hirschfield. On 7/22/21, Appellee disagreed with Appellants’ reliance on Hirschfield (4th Cir.), recognizing it “represents an outlier that should not be followed.”
Lower Court Outcome: Granted Defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice on 8/31/20.
Lara v. Evanchick
Challenge to Pennsylvania’s Uniform Firearms Act and PA’s minimum age requirement laws under the Second Amendment. (3d Cir. No. 21-1832; W.D. Pa. No. 20-CV-01582)
Case Status: On 4/23/21, Appellant filed a notice of appeal to the Third Circuit. On 6/23/21, Appellants filed their brief with addendum and joint appendix. On 7/23/21, the court granted Appellee’s unopposed motion for an extension of time; Appellee’s brief is now due on or before 9/22/21.
Lower Court Outcome: On 4/16/21, the district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed Plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice.
Williams v. Garland
As-applied challenge to 922(g)(1) brought by a person convicted of a DUI misdemeanor and given the mandatory minimum sentence, house arrest for ninety days. (3d Cir. No. 19-02694; E.D. Pa. No. 17-cv-02641)
Case Status: Notice of appeal filed on 7/23/19. Following the Supreme Court’s denial of cert in Holloway v. AG, the court reinstated the briefing schedule. On 5/28/21, Appellant filed their brief and appendix. On 6/2/21, volumes II-V of the joining appendix were sealed. On 7/28/21, Appellees filed their opening brief.
Lower Court Outcome: Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was denied, and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was granted on 4/1/19.
NRA v. Fla. AG
Challenge to Florida minimum age law. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is fully briefed. (11th Cir. 21-12314;N.D. Fla. No. 18-cv-00137)
Case Status: On 7/7/21, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. Appellant’s brief is due on or before 8/17/21, and the appendix is due no later than 7 days from filing the Appellant’s brief. On 8/24/21, NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund filed a motion to file an amicus brief. On 9/8/21, the court granted Appellee’s motion for an extension of time to file an amicus brief, which is now due on 10/18/21.
Lower Court Outcome: On 6/24/21, the court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, denied Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the claims with prejudice. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is fully briefed. On 5/1/20, the district court denied defense motion to dismiss the 2A claim. The trial set for 1/11/21 has been cancelled because of the pandemic.
MINIMUM AGE CHALLENGES PENDING IN DISTRICT COURTS
Reese v. DOJ
Challenge to federal handgun minimum age law. (W.D. La. No. 20-cv-01438)
Case Status: Complaint filed on 11/6/20. On 4/15/21, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, and a motion for summary judgment. On 4/26/21, the court granted Giffords Law Center leave to file an amicus brief. On 5/6/21, Defendants filed an unopposed motion to withdraw their motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, and motion for summary judgment. On 5/10/21, the court granted Defendants’ motion to withdraw and ordered that Defendants respond to the amended complaint on or before 5/27/21. On 5/27/21, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, and an alternative motion for summary judgment. On 6/3/21, Giffords Law Center filed an unopposed motion for leave to file an amicus brief, which was granted and the brief was filed on 6/4/21. On 6/14/21, the court granted Plaintiff Joseph Granich’s voluntary motion to dismiss his claims. On 6/17/21, Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment, a memorandum in opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and a response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. On 7/16/21, Defendants filed their reply to Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. On 7/21/21, the court granted Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for an extension of time. On 8/13/21, Plaintiffs filed a reply in response to summary judgment.
Suarez, et al. v. Evanchick
Challenge to Pennsylvania and Federal Misdemeanor Firearm Prohibitions brought by Binderup, Suarez, and Miller. (M.D. Pa. No. 21-cv-00710)
Case Status: Complaint and motion for summary judgment filed on 4/16/21. On 4/22/21, the court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment as premature and without prejudice. Case management conference set for 7/15/21. On 6/17/21, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. On 7/15/21, Defendant filed his brief in support of his motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. On 8/13/21, Plaintiffs filed their brief in opposition. On 8/17/21, Plaintiffs filed a notice of supplemental authority notifying the court of the Third Circuit’s decision in Drummond, et al. v. Robinson Township, et al. released on 8/17/21. On 8/19/21, the court granted Defendant’s motion for extension of time; response is now due 9/13/21. On 9/2/21, Defendant filed a reply brief.
Meyer et al. v. Raoul et al.
Challenge to Illinois Minimum Age Law. (S.D. Ill. 21-cv-00518)
Case Status: Complaint filed on 5/27/21. On 6/1/21, Judge Gilbert recused himself and the case was transferred to Judge Dugan. The court granted an extension of time for Defendant Raoul, whose response is now due on or before 8/12/21. On 7/29/21, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and lack of jurisdiction. The court granted one Defendant’s motion for extension of time to file his response; the response is now due on or before 8/12/21. On 8/5/21 and 8/12/21, Defendants filed motions to dismiss; responses due by 9/10/21 and 9/16/21 respectively.
Our Post-Heller Litigation Summary rounds up all the most significant Second Amendment lawsuits and decisions since DC v. Heller.
Challenge to Governor Cuomo’s Executive Order 202.6 ordering the closure of non-essential businesses, and the Order’s application to gun stores, which classifies as essential only firearm sales to law enforcement and military. (2d Cir., No. 20-2725; N.D.N.Y., No. 20-CV-360)
Case Status: On 8/7/20, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal seeking review by the 2nd Circuit, who was notified on 8/14/20. Appellants filed their brief, two volumes of appendices, and a special appendix. Appellees’ brief is due 2/19/21. On 9/3/21, the court ordered Appellants to submit a supplemental brief addressing Appellees’ claim that the appeal is moot. On 9/7/21, Kathy C. Hochul was substituted for Cuomo.
On 12/7/20, the appeal was dismissed for Appellants’ failure to file their brief and appendix, and Appellants moved to reinstate the appeal on 12/19/20. On 12/28/20, the court granted the motion to reinstate the appeal. On 3/29/21, Appellees filed their brief and submitted a request for oral argument. As of 4/9/21, both parties have filed their oral argument statement. Case set for oral argument on 9/21/21.
McDougall v. Ventura County; companion case Brandy, et al. v. Villanueva, et al.
Challenge to California, Ventura, and Los Angeles Counties’ COVID-related emergency orders, including Second Amendment and 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 challenges to gun store closures. (McDougall v. Ventura County: 9th Cir., No. 20-56220; C.D. Cal., No. 20-CV-2927. Brandy, et al. v. Villanueva, et al.: C.D. Cal., No. 20-CV-02874.)
Case Status: On 1/14/21, Appellants were granted an extension of time to file their Opening Brief. On 3/5/21, Appellants filed their opening brief; Appellees reply is now due on 4/5/21. On 4/6/21, Appellees filed their answering brief. On 4/26/21, Appellants filed their reply brief. Oral argument is set for 10/18/21 at 9am.
Lower Court Outcome: For McDougall: on 10/21/20, Defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted, and Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice. For Brandy: on 10/1/20, Defendants’ motion for judgement on the pleadings was granted and the Plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed with prejudice.
McCarthy, et al. v. Baker, et al.
Challenge to Governor Baker’s Order No. 13, which orders the closure of all non-essential businesses, and does not provide an exception for firearms dealers. (D. Mass., No. 20-CV-10701)
Case Status: On 5/7/20, the court granted a preliminary injunction of Governor Baker’s Order as applied to gun stores. On 6/8/20, the State filed a notice that the Governor rescinded Order No. 13 in light of “sustained trend of improvement in public health data.” On 9/23/20, Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgement. On 10/19/20, Defendants filed a cross-motion for summary judgement. Hearing on all pending motions occurred on 12/17/20. Plaintiffs filed a supplemental memorandum in support of their motion for summary judgment addressing organizational standing. On 7/1/21, Defendants filed supplemental authorities showing that the State of Massachusetts’ state of emergency order ended on 6/15/21. On 8/31/21, Defendants filed supplemental authorities citing the First Circuit’s decision in Boston Bit Labs, Inc. v. Baker, to rebut Plaintiffs’ voluntary cessation arguments.
Fetsurka v. Outlaw
Challenge to COVID-related delays in the issuance of concealed carry permits in Philadelphia. (E.D. Pa., No. 20-CV-5857)
Case Status: Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice and scheduled a non-jury trial on the merits of the claim for 4/19/21, with Defendants’ pretrial memoranda due 3/26/21. Discovery deadline extended to 4/2/21. Plaintiffs’ pretrial memorandum is due by 4/9/21. On 3/26/21, Plaintiffs filed a motion for judgment pursuant to FRCP Rule 68. Hearing held on 4/22/21 at 11am. On 4/22/21, the court issued an order against the City of Philadelphia in favor of Plaintiffs for damages totaling $30,000. On 4/28/21, the court ordered that Plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed without prejudice.
GET THE FACTS
Gun violence is a complex problem, and while there’s no one-size-fits-all solution, we must act. Our reports bring you the latest cutting-edge research and analysis about strategies to end our country’s gun violence crisis at every level.
Dormant commerce clause and numerous other challenges to New Jersey AG’s efforts to prevent dissemination of code for 3D printed firearms. (S Ct. No. 20-984; D. N.J. No. 19-cv-04753)
Case Status: Docket available here. Petition denied on 3/29/21. On 1/19/21, petition for writ of certiorari was filed. On 2/24/21, the State of New York filed an amicus brief. Distributed for conference on 3/26/21. Stay lifted on 10/2/20 after developments in 5th Circuit case brought by same plaintiffs in TX (Def. Distributed v. Grewal (5th Cir. 19-50723) (on 8/19/20, the 5th Cir. reversed and remanded holding that the NJ AG has established sufficient minimum contacts with Texas to subject him to the jurisdiction of Texas courts; on 9/11/20, Appellee withdrew en banc petition, and the mandate was issued).
Mitchell v. Atkins
Commerce clause challenge to WA law prohibiting sale of semiautomatic rifles to out-of-state residents, and Second Amendment challenge to minimum age provision. (9th Cir. No. 20-35827, W.D. Wash. No. 19-cv-05106)
Case Status: Case is fully briefed. Amicus briefs have been submitted by IL, CA, CT, DE, D.C., HI, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, NJ, NM, NY, OR, PA, RI, VT, and VA, and Giffords Law Center and Brady, and Everytown. On 4/20/21, Appellees notified the court of Young which supports affirming the district court decision. On 5/17/21, Appellants submitted their reply brief.
Lower Court Outcome: Granted defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice on 8/31/20.
Rhode v. Rodriguez (previously Rhode v. Becerra)
Commerce clause and Second Amendment challenge to CA ammunition background checks law. (9th Cir. No. 20-55437)
Case Status: Held in abeyance pending Duncan. Case fully briefed and on 10/14, parties filed supplemental briefs addressing historical evidence in response to district court’s finding that “an ammunition background check has no historical pedigree.” Oral argument held on 11/9/20 before Watford, Parker (visiting judge) and Bumatay. On 11/16/20, parties directed to file supplemental briefs addressing constitutionality of the Basic Check. Appellees submitted their supplemental brief on 12/16/20; Appellants submitted their supplemental brief on 1/15/21.
Lower Court Outcome: Judge Benitez granted PI on 4/23 (S.D. Cal. No. 18-cv-00802).
ANNUAL GUN LAW SCORECARD
The data is clear: states with stronger gun laws have less gun violence. See how your state compares in our annual ranking.
Lawsuit against manufacturers of the assault rifle used at Sandy Hook. (Conn. Sup. Ct. UWY CV15-6050025)
Case Status: Docket available here. On 7/29/20, case was stayed pending bankruptcy proceedings for Remington Outdoor Company, Inc. (20-81688-11) and Remington Arms Company, LLC. (20-81692-11). On 4/21/21, the court requested an update on the bankruptcy proceedings. If the case remains in bankruptcy status, an updated affidavit must be filed on or before 5/21/21 or the case will be dismissed. If the case is no longer in bankruptcy, a request for status conference must be filed on or before 5/21/21. On 6/22/21, Plaintiffs’ gave notice of filing bankruptcy court document preservation order in Remington Outdoor Company, Inc. et al., at No. 20-81688-CRJ-11, which concerns the preservation of evidence relevant to this case for discovery purposes. On 7/2/21, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel. The court will hear arguments on the motion to strike on 7/26/21 and the motion for summary judgment on 5/25/22. On 7/16/21, Defendants filed their reply in support of their motion to strike Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint. On 7/22/21, Defendant Remington filed a motion for a protective order regarding corporate designee deposition notices. On 8/13/21, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file unredacted pleading under seal to give Remington “the opportunity to argue for sealing. It is the plaintiffs’ position that these records should be public.”
Lower Court Outcome: CT Supreme Court reinstated plaintiffs’ unfair trade practices (CUTPA) claim, interpreting federal law (PLCAA). SCOTUS denied cert on 11/12/19.
In re Academy
Lawsuit against gun dealer who sold a rifle and ammunition to the perpetrator of the 2017 shooting at a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas. (Tex. Supreme Court 19-0497)
Case Status: Docket available here.Reversed. On 6/25/21, the TX Supreme Court held that the PLCAA bars lawsuits brought by victims and family members of victims of the Sutherland Springs church shooting and protects the Academy from continued participation in litigation; the court conditionally granted the Academy’s petition for writ of mandamus. Justice Boyd filed a concurring opinion agreeing that the PLCAA bars Plaintiffs’ claims for negligence, negligent hiring, training, and/or supervision, and gross negligence but disagreeing that the PLCAA barred Plaintiffs’ negligent entrustment claim. The stay order issued on 6/21/19 was lifted. The Texas Supreme Court granted review on 4/3/20. Oral argument was heard on 10/6/20. The State of Texas was granted time to participate in oral argument. On 11/24/20 and 11/25/20, both parties filed post-submission letters contesting mandamus relief and the PLCAA’s application.
City lawsuit against manufacturers for crime externalities resulting from firearms manufacture and distribution. (Ind. Super. Ct. 45D01-1211-CT-000233)
Case Status: Plaintiffs currently proceeding in discovery in state trial court. On 5/23/19, an Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the trial court order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss. Indiana Supreme Court denied review on 11/26/19. On 3/26/21, an e-filing appearance was filed on behalf of Defendant. On 5/7/21, the court granted the withdrawal of Plaintiff’s attorneys. On 5/20/21, Defendants filed a motion to sequence discovery and a motion for hearing. On 5/27/21, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel and a motion for hearing. On 6/4/21, Plaintiff filed a response to Defendants’ motion to sequence discovery. A hearing on all pending motions is scheduled for 9/8/21 at 2:30pm. On 6/11/21, Defendants filed a joint response to Plaintiff’s motion to compel. On 9/8/21, the court held a hearing on a motion to compel discovery. On 9/9/21, the court granted the motion to compel the City of Gary Indiana to respond to the discovery requests.
Parsons, et al. v. Colt’s Manufacturing, et al.
Wrongful death lawsuit brought by family of Las Vegas victim against manufacturers, alleging defective design foreseeably led to conversion of semiautomatic weapons. (D. Nev. 19-CV-1189)
Case Status: On 4/10/20, the court issued an order allowing plaintiffs’ wrongful death claim to move forward, holding that it is not barred by PLCAA. The Court granted a stay until the Nevada SC responds to the amended certifying question. On 7/20/20, the court denied defendants’ motion for reconsideration of their motion to dismiss. On 7/30/20, the defendants’ moved for motion for certificate of appealability seeking certification for an interlocutory appeal. On 1/15/21, the judge ordered the Plaintiff to show cause as to why this action should not be remanded to state court, due on 2/16/21. On 2/8/21, the judge signed an order granting parties’ joint stipulation to extend deadlines pending the certifying of questions by the Supreme Court of Nevada. On 2/18/21, the judge denied without prejudice Defendants’ motion to certify orders in order to prevent Defendants from pursuing an interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
Gustafson v. Springfield
Reversed dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims and found the PLCAA unconstitutional. (207 WDA 2019)
Case Status: Reversed, decision issued on 9/28 dismissing plaintiffs’ claims and found the PLCAA unconstitutional.
Leyva v. Braziel
Lawsuit brought by family members of two victims of the Odessa-Midland shooting against the individual who supplied the firearm illegally and against Anderson Manufacturing. (A-20-08-0905-CV)
Case Status: Docket available here. Complaint filed on 8/28/20, and Defendants have answered the complaint. On 11/16/20, Plaintiffs filed their second amended petition. On 12/3/20, Defendants answered the amended petition. On 12/31/20 and 1/5/21, Defendants separately filed two different motions to designate responsible third parties and moved for a motion to dismiss. On 2/21/21, the court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss. On 4/6/21, Defendants answered a Petition in Intervention. On 4/15/21, Defendants answered an Intervenor’s Second Amended Petition. On 7/12/21, Defendants filed their amended answer to various Intervenors’ petitions. On 7/14/21, a party moved for summary judgment. On 8/3/21, Defendant filed a motion to stay discovery, which the court granted on 9/8/21. Hearing set for 9/23/21.
Our attorneys have crafted model laws to serve as the foundation for state or local lawmakers to draft legislation to fit the needs of their communities. Get in touch to see how we can help.
Challenge to Florida’s preemption statute which limits local regulation in the field of firearms. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. No. 1D19-2819)
Case Status:Docket available here. Reversed, upholding Florida’s preemption statute, including civil penalties–invalidated by the trial court–for legislators who knowingly pass preempted laws. On 1/2/20, Giffords Law Center filed an amicus brief in support of Plaintiff. On 5/17/21, the court denied Appellee’s motion for certification of questions of great public importance. On 6/16/21, the court received notice of discretionary jurisdiction and review was sent to the Florida Supreme Court. The record is due to the Supreme Court on 9/9/21.
Case Status:Docket available here. Complaint filed on 6/21/21. On 6/25/21, Plaintiff filed a joint motion for continuance. On 7/15/21, Plaintiff filed an amended petition. On 7/26/21, Defendants filed their answer. On 8/27/21, Plaintiffs’ request for declaratory relief was denied. On 9/7/21, a notice of appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court was filed.
State of Washington, et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of State
States’ APA challenge to federal export rule change affecting technology for 3D-printed guns. (9th Cir. No. 20-35391)
Case Status: Vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss on 4/27/21. Dissent by Judge Whaley. On 5/18/21, Appellants filed a consent motion to move the court to issue the mandate immediately in order to vacate the preliminary injunction issued by the district court. Motion granted and mandate issued on 5/26/21. On 1/11/21, the 9th Cir. heard oral argument in front of Bybee, Nelson, and Whaley, here.
State of Washington, et al. v. Defense Distributed, et al.
States’ APA challenge to federal settlement with Defense Distributed. (9th Cir. No. 20-35030)
Case Status: On 7/21/20, the appeal was declared moot; on 8/4/20, the appellants filed an en banc petition. On 1/5/21, the 9th Cir. denied the Appellants’ motion for reconsideration en banc. The mandate was issued on 1/13/21.
A joint effort by our country’s premier gun violence prevention organizations, the Firearms Accountability Counsel Taskforce works with the nation’s preeminent law firms to challenge the gun lobby in court and protect Americans’ most fundamental freedom—the right to live.