By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—SCOTUS: Garland v. VanDerStok: Case No. 23-10718: The SCOTUS hearing is scheduled for Oct. 8; Illinois: Schoenthal v Raoul: Judge Iain Johnston granted the motion allowing the four plaintiffs to carry firearms on public transit; California: Ninth Circuit three-judge panel: United States v. Jesus Perez-Garcia, No. 22-50314 & United States v. John Thomas Fencl, No. 22-50316: A three-judge panel denied the defendants from possessing firearms while on bail. Hawaii: Ninth Circuit: USA v. Chan Hawaii (22-cr-00109-DKW) judge denied plaintiffs’ claims; New York: Second Circuit: Christian v. James (1:22-cv-00695): Oral arguments were held Sept. 12.
SCOTUS
Several cases requesting certiorari are scheduled to be announced on September 30, 2024; among them areSmith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, Case # 23-1141; and Wilson v. State of Hawaii: Case # 23-7517.
Garland v. VanDerStok: Case No. 23-10718: The SCOTUS hearing is scheduled for October 8, 2024.
The final brief by the plaintiffs (Garland & DOJ) has been submitted. According to Attorney Mark Smith, the DOJ’s final brief before oral arguments is based on their view that the ATF is simply reiterating their long-standing rules. However, they admit that due to this rule, 42 out of 43 nonlicensed kit makers will be forced to cease business.
Background: SCOTUS granted certiorari for the 2024-2025 term. This certiorari petition was brought by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) on Feb. 7, 2024. The DOJ petition asked the following questions:
1. Whether “a weapon parts kit that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive,” 27 C.F.R. 478.11, is a “firearm” regulated by the Act.
2. Whether “a partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver” that is “designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver,” 27 C.F.R. 478.12(c), is a “frame or receiver” regulated by the Act.
Since the case challenges an administrative ATF regulation, similar to the Cargill case, it may be unlikely that Second Amendment issues will be involved in this litigation at the Supreme Court. The first DOJ plaintiffs’ brief was filed in June. During the summer recess, many groups, especially the anti-gun groups, are filing amicus briefs in cases SCOTUS has agreed to hear in the 2024-2025 term.
Circuit Court
Illinois: Seventh Circuit
Schoenthal v. Raoul: Case # 3:22-cv-50326: On Aug. 30, Judge Iain D. Johnston entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs but limited only to the plaintiffs. The defendants filed a motion to stay the decision on Sept. 5, 2024, and on September 12, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a motion to deny the stay.
Background: Plaintiffs Benjamin Schoenthal, Mark Wroblewski, Joseph Vesel, and Douglas Winston alleged that the ban on carrying a firearm on: “any bus, train, or form of transportation paid for in whole or in part with public funds, and any building, real property, and parking area under the control of a public transportation facility” violates the Second Amendment. The original complaint was filed on Sept. 20, 2022. On March 1, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment. Proceedings were held on March 17, 2023. On this past Jan. 29, defendant Kimberly Foxx filed a motion for summary judgment with supporting documents. Plaintiffs filed a response on March 25. At the end of June, the defendants filed two supplemental briefings.
California: Ninth Circuit
United States v. Jesus Perez-Garcia, No. 22-50314 & United States v. John Thomas Fencl, No. 22-50316: A three-judge panel denied the defendants from possessing firearms while on bail.
Background: Both Perez-Garcia and Fencl had appealed to the Ninth Circuit while their lower court proceedings were ongoing. Fencl was convicted at trial in October 2023, while Perez-Garcia had his bond revoked after he missed hearings. A three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the disarmament of defendants awaiting trial was consistent with the Bruen case. The public defender vows to continue the case to an en banc review and then the certiorari process before the U.S. Supreme Court.
District Court
Hawaii: Ninth Circuit
USA v. Chan Hawaii (22-cr-00109-DKW): Christopher Chan, a US citizen residing in Hawaii, was found guilty of violating sections of 18 U.S.C. § 9ss(o) by having a short-barreled rifle and a machine gun. He is appealing his conviction in Hawaii.Judge Derrick Watson, in his opinion, denied both his claims.
New York: Second Circuit:
Christian v. James (1:22-cv-00695): Oral arguments were held on September 12, 2024. Judge John Leonard Sinatra, Jr. stated that he would not rule on the public park question since the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is addressing that issue. He will rule on the “vampire rule,” the prohibition against carrying a gun on private property unless the gun owner has the landowner’s consent.
Background: originally Christian v. Nigrelli: Although “A preliminary injunction, effective immediately from enforcing N.Y. Pen.L. § 265.01-d with respect to private property open to the public” was issued by Judge John L. Sinatra on Nov. 22, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a stay on Dec. 12, 2022. This case filed in the US District Court for the Western District of New York challenges the enactment of S51001.
