Updates in Under-21, Gun Range, Hawaii Permit, and More Cases in Today’s FPC Daily 2A Legal Update
In today’s FPC legal update, we have updates from numerous cases that recently had important filings.
Issue: Under-21 handgun ban
Court: Western District of Louisiana
The plaintiffs filed a reply in this lawsuit challenging the federal ban in handgun sales to under-21 adults, arguing that they have standing and that “[p]reventing women from buying handguns works directly against the objectives of the Ban, and even if that were not so, there is nothing ‘reasonable’ about the fit between a 0.0019% homicide rate and ‘a functional ban on 18-to-20-year-olds’ acquiring handguns and ammunition.” The brief also argues that “if the Government could justify a restriction by reference to comparative rates alone, then the Government could always burden someone’s constitutional rights if it chose the comparatively worst group.”
Issue: Gun seizures
Court: Supreme Court
Action: Cert petition
In this lawsuit from New Jersey, the petitioner claims that the state seized their guns based on a temporary restraining order, which has since been dismissed. However, the state refuses to return the guns, saying that it would not be “in the interest of public health, safety or welfare.” As a resuilt, they are also prohibited from possessing any other guns in the state. New Jersey’s response to the petition is due on September 7th.
N.J. v. Sonnabend
Issue: Student speech
Court: Seventh Circuit
Action: Brief of the defendant-appellees
In this case regarding student speech, two Wisconsin public schools claim that they can prohibit students from wearing clothing depicting firearms because “the restrictions in this case were reasonably related to the legitimate pedological concerns of student fear and anxiety and reducing student aggression.” The schools also argue that “[s]chool is not where one typically expects to find anyone advocating for gun rights or the right to carry guns, concealed or otherwise.” The students will have an opportunity to file a reply before the court makes a ruling in this case.
Issue: Gun license requirements
Court: District of Hawaii
In this case, a federal judge in Hawaii struck down two provisions in the state’s gun laws requiring “that individuals purchase a handgun (i.e., a pistol or revolver) within 10 days of obtaining a permit to acquire,” and “that individuals physically bring their firearm to the police department for in-person inspection and registration within five days of acquiring it.” In striking down the two provisions, the judge said that “the Government has entirely failed to demonstrate how each law effectuates its asserted interest in public safety” and criticized Everytown’s amicus brief for “point[ing] to no law that required in-person inspection and registration of firearms held by civilians in their personal capacity.” In addition, the judge said that the ruling will not take effect until September 15th, which will give the state time to determine if it will file an appeal.
Drummond v. Robinson Township
Issue: Gun range zoning
Court: Third Circuit
In this lawsuit, a 3-judge panel at the Third Circuit reopened a lawsuit over gun range restrictions in a Pennsylvania town and sent the case back to the district court to be reheard. The restrictions at issue in this case limit rifles to only rimfire ones and prohibit “Sportsman’s Clubs” from being for-profit entities. In ruling against the township, the court found that “the challenged zoning rules constitute outliers,” and “the pleading-stage materials fail to justify their anomalous features…” The parties will now continue the lawsuit at the Western District of Pennsylvania.
NRA v. Swearingen
Issue: Under-21 gun ban
Court: Eleventh Circuit
Action: Opening brief
The opening brief was filed today in this lawsuit challenging Florida’s law banning under-21 adults from buying guns. The brief argues that “[m]ore than 98% of the young adults who are subject to the Ban will never commit a violent crime, with or without a gun,” and that the law “is unconstitutional per se because it is inconsistent with the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment.” The state will now have an opportunity to respond to the opening brief.