By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—SCOTUS: The LastConference date of the 2024-2025 term is June 25; A Worthwhile Read for Second Amendment Supporters; Will CRPA petition SCOTUS for certiorari in the Duncan v. Bonta case? Louisiana: United States v. Peterson, Case No. 24-30043: a suppressor case; Oregon Supreme Court: Arnold v. Kotek: The court has agreed to hear oral arguments in the case on Nov. 6; Pennsylvania Superior Court: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Ruyaadh Sumpter: struck down Philadelphia’s licensing regine.
SCOTUS
Conferences through the end of the 2024-2025 term
For the rest of the 2024-2025 term, the scheduled conference date is June 25.
California: Ninth Circuit
Duncan v. Bonta, Case #: 23-55805. On June 18, @CRPAPresident posted on X.com:Remembering “Freedom Week” when 10+ mags could be sold. Obviously, a lot of pent-up demand! The Duncan case will be petitioned to SCOTUS on 7/18. The case is worked up just the way they like. Digits crossed.,
Background: On March 20, the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc in San Francisco, issued a 7-4 decision upholding California’s ban on large-capacity magazines (LCMs)—defined as magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The majority concluded that this ban is constitutional under the Second Amendment. The case, Duncan v. Bonta, has been a long-running challenge to California’s restrictions, originally stemming from a 2016 voter-approved law (Proposition 63) and earlier statutes limiting magazine capacity.
After I wrote the above news about the Duncan case, Mark W. Smith, host of the YouTube channel, The Four Boxes Diner, made a commentary specifically about litigation strategy and why he is not a fan of sending machine gun case litigation to SCOTUS. He says it was a bad idea and within that commentary, he also discussed this case. He predicts the Supreme Court will likely deny review (“certiorari”) in Duncan, as it recently did in other magazine and semi-automatic rifle cases. And he goes on to argue that the pro-Second Amendment community should prioritize a challenge to AR-15 bans over magazine bans, as the Court appears more receptive to addressing the constitutionality of semi-automatic rifle restrictions.
A Worthwhile Read for Second Amendment Supporters
I have mentioned a California pro-Second Amendment Attorney named Kostas Moros in several of my reports in the past two years. He has done a considerable amount of research on the history of gun We are now in the final legislative throes of the Big Beautiful Bill, which now includes the SHORT ACT in the Senate version. Konstadinos T. Moros, who is one of the fine lawyers at Michel & Associates, has outdone himself with his analysis of whether the SHORT ACT is a tax. He defends these comments:
“In anticipation of the Parliamentarian’s imminent ruling on whether the HPA and SHORT Act provisions merged into the reconciliation bill survive the Byrd rule, below are a bunch of cases over the years from the Supreme Court and federal circuit courts also saying clearly that the NFA is a TAX.”
This post includes a case-by-case listing of US Jurisprudence supporting the fact that the NFA is truly a tax on a fundamental right. His analysis is an outstanding one, and he ends his analysis with this additional comment, And remember, that was by no means comprehensive, just a sampling.).
US Court of Appeals
Louisiana: Fifth Circuit
United States v. Peterson Case No. 24-30043
On Feb. 19, I covered this case and wrote:
“A three-judge panel reviewed his case and, on Feb. 5, 2025, held that suppressors are not “Arms” and affirmed the District Court’s denial of Peterson’s motions to dismiss and suppress. However, as of Feb. 14, the Fifth Circuit Court has withheld the mandate in this case, which means the decision is being held up because there appears to be disagreement concerning this ruling. Which possibly could lead to a review en banc or whatever ruling a majority of the Fifth Circuit decides. Mark W. Smith, @fourboxesdiner on X.com, believes that this could lead to an en banc hearing regarding the panel’s ruling that suppressors are not “Arms.” On June 17, we learned that this Court has withdrawn its Feb. 5 opinion, an extraordinary event in judicial history. Second Amendment attorney Mark W. Smith notes that the panel’s withdrawal of its opinion, without any indication of en banc review, suggests the judges themselves intend to revisit and correct their reasoning. The Firearms Policy Coalition, a party supporting Peterson in this case, tweets on X.com,
The Fifth Circuit will now poll its active judges to decide whether to grant the US v. Peterson En Banc petition.If granted, the case will likely be re-briefed and re-argued before the full 5th Circuit.
If not, the next available option is to petition SCOTUS for a writ of certiorari.
It appears that the question of suppressors will continue.
State Courts
Oregon
Oregon Supreme Court: Arnold v. Kotek: The court has agreed to hear oral arguments in the case on Nov. 6.
Oregon: Oregon Court of Appeals (Case No. A183242)
Arnold v. Kotek is a lawsuit challenging Oregon’s Ballot Measure 114 (BM 114), a gun control initiative approved by voters in November 2022. The plaintiffs filed the case against Oregon Governor Tina Kotek, arguing that BM 114 violates Article I, Section 27 of the Oregon Constitution, which guarantees the right to bear arms. They also requested preliminary injunctive relief, which the trial court granted in two orders on December 8 and 13, 2022, temporarily blocking BM 114’s enforcement.
On Wednesday, March 12, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the lower court decision. The three-judge panel unanimously held that the provisions of BM 114 do not violate the Oregon state constitution. In April, the plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Oregon Supreme Court, which was accepted this month.
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Superior Court: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Ruyaadh Sumpter: Case: No: 2271 EDA 2023: The Pennsylvania Superior Court has ruled that the state law making Philadelphia the only place that requires a permit to open carry violates the Fourteenth Amendment (as applied to the defendant). The Court writes:the following:
“This brings us to Bruen and Rahimi, both of which post-date Scarborough. Building on Heller and McDonald, Bruen established that the right to keep and bear arms applies outside the home. The Bruen Court struck down a licensing regime that required applicants to establish a “proper cause” to carry a firearm outside the home. (Bruen, 597 U.S. at 11.) Bruen and Rahimi confirm that the right involved in this case is fundamental. To the extent that Scarborough provides precedential authority to the contrary, Scarborough has been abrogated by Bruen and Rahimi.”
