By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—Courts of Appeals: New Jersey: Third Circuit: Consolidated Cases: The Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs v. Platkin and the consolidated cases known as “Cheeseman”; Illinois: Seventh Circuit: The “Barnett” Case; California: Blank v. Santa Clara Sheriff’s Department: In an article on thegunmag.com, Dave Workman covers this case that the Second Amendment Foundation and the CRPA have filed against the Santa Clara County, California Sheriff’s Department.
Courts of Appeal
New Jersey: Third Circuit: Consolidated Cases: The Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs v. Platkin and the consolidated cases known as “Cheeseman”:
Significance:
These cases address whether New Jersey’s bans on popular rifles and high-capacity magazines are constitutional. We are also following similar issues, such as the Barnett case in the Seventh Circuit. All these cases highlight a nationwide push for Supreme Court clarification on the rights of Americans to possess such firearms and accessories.
The Trump Department of Justice, led by Attorney General Pam Bondi, has directly mandated that the DOJ defend Second Amendment rights to the fullest extent, resulting in the submission of this robust brief in support of gun owners.
The Legal Arguments in the DOJ Brief:
- Everyday Use Standard: Echoing Supreme Court precedent, the DOJ argues that all arms “in common use” by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes are protected by the Second Amendment and cannot be banned. This includes not just handguns but also AR-15 rifles and magazines holding more than 10 rounds.
- Purpose of the Second Amendment: The DOJ’s brief emphasizes that the Second Amendment safeguards arms not merely for self-defense, hunting, or recreation, but also for the “common defense”—a principle connected to the militia clause and broader societal security. The government intends to trust “We the People” with the tools of sovereignty, notably arms in common use.
- Sovereignty and Popular Arms: The DOJ stresses that it is the American people—not the government—who determine which arms are in common use, through their purchasing choices and preferences. The DOJ highlights in its brief that New Jersey’s bans violate the Second Amendment because they prohibit the possession of arms in common use for lawful purposes.
Illinois: Seventh Circuit: The “Barnett” Case: However, this decision is now before a Seventh Circuit panel consisting of Judges St. Eve, Easterbrook, and Brennan. Mark W. Smith, Second Amendment legal supporter on YouTube.com, predicts a likely 2-1 loss for gun rights supporters due to the perceived anti-Second Amendment stance of Judges Easterbrook and St. Eve, contrasting with Judge Brennan’s consistent support for Second Amendment rights. Although the Trump DOJ is not supporting the state of Illinois, Smith predicts that, despite the likely negative outcome at the Seventh Circuit, the case is only “one whistle stop” from the Supreme Court.
Summary of Barnett v. Raoul (Case No. 3:23-cv-00209)
Background: On Jan. 24, 2023, the Illinois legislature passed the Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA), signed by Governor JB Pritzker, banning most modern semi-automatic rifles, magazines over 10 rounds, and certain firearm accessories. This law prompted multiple legal challenges, including Barnett v. Raoul, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.
Key Procedural Events:
- January 26, 2023: Plaintiffs filed for a preliminary injunction.
- February 24, 2023: The court consolidated four related cases challenging PICA.
- April 12, 2023: Oral arguments held.
- April 28, 2023: Judge Stephen P. McGlynn granted a preliminary injunction; Illinois appealed the same day.
- May 19, 2023: Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that PICA was unconstitutionally vague.
- June 29, 2023: The court stayed consideration of the summary judgment motion for 45 days.
- October 10, 2023: Additional hearing held.
- December 14, 2023: Judge McGlynn denied the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on vagueness grounds.
- February–April 2024: Status conferences held, with expert reports due by May 16, 2024.
- July 16, 2024: A bench trial was scheduled and conducted from September 16–19, 2024.
- November 3, 2024: Judge McGlynn issued a 168-page opinion granting a permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiffs, stayed for 30 days.
- November 8–December 3, 2024: Illinois appealed to the Seventh Circuit, filing a notice of appeal and a motion to vacate the injunction. Plaintiffs responded on November 27, and Illinois replied on December 3.
Supreme Court Appeal (Docket No. 23-879):
- On Feb. 14, 2024, Illinois appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. After multiple conference distributions, the Court denied certiorari.
Current Status: The case is under appeal in the Seventh Circuit.
District Court
California: Blank v. Santa Clara Sheriff’s Department: In an article on thegunmag.com, Dave Workman covers this case that the Second Amendment Foundation and the CRPA have filed against the Santa Clara County, California, Sheriff’s Department. Dave writes, “In their complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, SAF, CRPA and five private citizens allege, “Santa Clara County has a history of abusing its power to issue CCW permits. Former Sheriff Laurie Smith was sanctioned for her corruption and willful misconduct of issuing CCW Permits in a “pay-to-play” scheme to those who donated money to her political campaign. Even for those CCW permits that were not part of Smith’s corrupt patronage scheme, the overwhelming majority of the permits that were issued went only to Santa Clara County’s elite and powerful residents (e.g., judges, district attorneys, elected politicians).”
