90 results for 'cat:"Constitution" AND cat:"Firearms"'.
J. Schroeder finds that the district court properly dismissed an action brought by five registered California gun owners who challenged California legislation aimed at encouraging research on firearm violence that permits the California Department of Justice to disseminate information from its databases to accredited research institutions about purchasers of firearms and ammunition, as well as individuals who hold permits to carry concealed weapons. The gun owners did not state a claim for violation of the right to informational privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment. Affirmed.
Court: 9th Circuit, Judge: Schroeder, Filed On: May 8, 2024, Case #: 23-55133, Categories: constitution, Privacy, firearms
J. Webb answers the federal district court's certified question regarding Arkansas code addressing employee firearm possession on an employer's property. The Union Pacific employee's truck caught fire, revealing he had a gun inside, against Union Pacific's rules. Though the gun was properly locked and out of plain view, in compliance with the law, the employee was suspended for the company violation. Arkansas changed its law regarding weapons concealment and asked Union Pacific for clarification of its position in light of the change. The Arkansas code is not dependent on liability immunity provisions. If the employer immunity provision is preempted by the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, the Arkansas Code is not likewise preempted.
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court, Judge: Webb , Filed On: May 2, 2024, Case #: CV-23-653, Categories: constitution, Employment, firearms
J. Forrest finds that the district court improperly denied a motion to suppress a firearm found during a warrantless search of defendant’s truck in a case that presented the question of whether an officer’s failure to comply with governing administrative procedures is relevant in assessing the officer’s motivation for conducting an inventory search. The deputies who searched defendant’s truck acted solely for investigatory reasons and the warrantless search therefore violated the Fourth Amendment. Reversed.
Court: 9th Circuit, Judge: Forrest, Filed On: May 2, 2024, Case #: 20-50345, Categories: constitution, firearms, Search
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Smith finds the district court properly denied the firearm advocates' request for a preliminary injunction. The advocates challenge provisions of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act of 2022, saying the government has shown no historical analogue for expanded background checks for 18- to 20-year-olds. The 10-day waiting period for background checks is not abusive, nor does it impose a de facto prohibition on possession. Existing case law makes clear that background checks are constitutional. Affirmed.
Court: 5th Circuit, Judge: Smith , Filed On: April 26, 2024, Case #: 23-10837, Categories: Administrative Law, constitution, firearms
J. Womack finds the circuit court improperly denied the remaining plaintiffs-attorneys' petition for declaratory judgment. The attorneys, as officers of the court, seek to carry guns in court. As officers of the court, according to the clear language of amendment 80 of the Arkansas Constitution, the attorneys are allowed to carry guns in courthouses. The Arkansas Supreme Court distinguished courtrooms from courthouses because the General Assembly distinguished them in the section being interpreted, not considering courthouses and courtrooms the same. Courtroom-specific claims may proceed. Reversed in part.
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court, Judge: Womack , Filed On: April 18, 2024, Case #: CV-23-477, Categories: constitution, firearms, Attorney Discipline
J. Stiglich finds the district court improperly declared several statutes regulating unfinished firearms unconstitutional, granting a permanent injunction against the laws' enforcement. The court found the definition of "unfinished frame or receiver" was impermissibly vague, concluding it did not explain key terms or notify individuals precisely when raw materials became an unfinished frame or receiver. The defining terms have ordinary meanings that provide sufficient notice of what the statutes proscribe. The statutes are general intent statutes that do not lack a scienter requirement and do not pose a risk of arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement. Reversed.
Court: Nevada Supreme Court, Judge: Stiglich , Filed On: April 18, 2024, Case #: 83999, Categories: constitution, firearms
J. Gallagher finds defendant fails to show he received ineffective assistance during his firearm possession case. The lack of binding precedent at the time of defendant's conviction as to whether the Second Amendment allows convicted felons to possess firearms renders his conviction for possession of a firearm constitutional, while the Supreme Court's decision in Bruen only altered the analysis framework for future Second Amendment cases. Therefore, defendant's attorney was not required to raise the argument before the trial court. Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Gallagher, Filed On: March 28, 2024, Case #: 2024-Ohio-1163, Categories: constitution, firearms, Ineffective Assistance
J. Webb finds the circuit court properly found in favor of the state of Arkansas on constitutional claims filed by an involuntarily civilly committed psychiatric patient who was found to be in possession of a firearm during a traffic stop. His commitment was based on his dangerous and reckless use of a firearm. In Arkansas, only felons convicted of non-gun-related and nonviolent crimes may have their gun rights restored. Affirmed.
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court, Judge: Webb , Filed On: March 28, 2024, Case #: CV-23-349, Categories: constitution, Health Care, firearms
J. Barros finds that the lower court improperly ruled a law relating to extreme risk protection orders prohibiting a person from purchasing or possessing a firearm under certain circumstances unconstitutional. The order was issued against a man after he brandished a loaded shotgun and pointed it at his neighbor in a verbal dispute. The law is consistent with the nation's historical tradition of regulating firearms to keep dangerous individuals from carrying guns. Reversed.
Court: New York Appellate Divisions, Judge: Barros, Filed On: March 20, 2024, Case #: 01545, Categories: constitution, firearms
J. Stranch finds the undecided nature of the constitutionality of felon-in-possession charges based on previous convictions relative to the Second Amendment prevents this court from overturning defendant's conviction for possession of a firearm. Meanwhile, the trial court erroneously applied a four-level enhancement to defendant's sentence for reckless endangerment because there was no evidence to indicate any bystander was placed in a "zone of danger" when he fired his weapon outside. Affirmed in part.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Stranch, Filed On: March 18, 2024, Case #: 22-5459, Categories: constitution, firearms, Sentencing
J. Mathis finds that while a statistical disparity exists between the number of black residents in the London, Kentucky area and the number included on the jury wheel used by the district court to empanel a jury, defendant failed to prove the disparity was extreme enough to establish a constitutional violation, especially considering there is no procedural flaw in the method used by the court to select its juries. Meanwhile, although a circuit split exists regarding the constitutionality of felon-in-possession of firearm convictions, there is no controlling precedent that would render defendant's conviction a violation of the Second Amendment; therefore, it will be upheld. Affirmed.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Mathis, Filed On: March 5, 2024, Case #: 22-6048, Categories: constitution, firearms, Jury
J. Pallmeyer grants Cook County’s motion for summary judgment on claims that its statute barring assault weapon trade and ownership violate the Second Amendment. Two Cook County residents, backed by gun rights advocacy groups, challenged the county statute as unconstitutional in 2021. Given contrary determinations from the Seventh Circuit, which supported the county law, and nearly identical city-level assault weapon bans, the residents moved to have this case decided in the county’s favor so they could challenge factual underpinnings of the Seventh Circuit rulings on remand from an appeal. The county rejected that motion and instead committed to overcoming the legal challenge on its merits. Yet more support for assault weapon bans has emerged from the Seventh Circuit since 2021, and the court defers to the appellate judges’ determinations in granting the county summary judgment.
Court: USDC Northern District of Illinois, Judge: Pallmeyer, Filed On: March 1, 2024, Case #: 1:21cv4595, NOS: Constitutionality of State Statutes - Other Suits, Categories: constitution, firearms
J. Mazzant denies the gun owner's motion to reconsider and modify a judgment in a challenge to an ATF final rule that establishes criteria used to determine whether stabilizing braces convert pistols into short-barreled rifles that are fired from the shoulder. The gun owner is not entitled to a preliminary injunction since he has not shown a substantial likelihood he will succeed on his claims, including that the rule violates the Second Amendment. Also, he is not likely to suffer irreparable harm because the rule is currently stayed nationwide.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Texas , Judge: Mazzant, Filed On: March 1, 2024, Case #: 4:23cv80, NOS: Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision - Other Suits, Categories: Administrative Law, constitution, firearms
J. Furman denies the arms manufacturers' motion to dismiss the state's claims that they sell products used to make "ghost guns," including unfinished frames and receivers, designed to subvert state and federal laws by allowing people to build homemade guns that lack serial numbers. The state plausibly alleges the manufacturers' products are "firearms," and the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act does not preempt its claims.
Court: USDC Southern District of New York, Judge: Furman, Filed On: February 23, 2024, Case #: 1:22cv6124, NOS: Constitutionality of State Statutes - Other Suits, Categories: Commerce, constitution, firearms
J. Coghlan finds that the lower court properly convicted defendant of unlawful use of a weapon for possessing a short-barreled shotgun. Unlike handguns, short-barreled shotguns are not considered a class of weapons used for self defense and they are regulated precisely because they are concealable and not typically possessed for lawful purposes. Therefore, his conviction does not violate the Second Amendment. Affirmed.
Court: Illinois Appellate Court, Judge: Coghlan, Filed On: February 13, 2024, Case #: 221455, Categories: constitution, firearms
J. Brasher finds that the district court improperly dismissed an action brought by three individuals and a gun advocacy group challenging the constitutionality of a Georgia law barring anyone under the age of 21 from obtaining a license to carry firearms. The district court correctly found that the individuals lack standing to sue the public safety commissioner but incorrectly found they lacked standing to sue three county probate judges. The individuals showed that they faced an injury due to the statute. The individuals also showed that their injury is traceable to the probate judges and redressable by an order against them because probate judges are responsible for issuing the licenses. Probate judges perform a ministerial rather than judicial function when processing weapons carry licenses. Reversed in part.
Court: 11th Circuit, Judge: Brasher, Filed On: February 9, 2024, Case #: 22-13444, Categories: constitution, firearms
J. Eddins finds a lower court improperly dismissed charges defendant who was arrested for firearm possession after brandishing an AR-15 and pistol, and now alleges constitutional violations. There is not state constitutional right to carry a firearm in public; the Hawaii constitution “textually cements the right to bear arms to a well regulated militia,” which does not include defendant who had also not properly applied for a firearm license. “It is a misplaced view to think that today’s public safety laws must look like laws passed long ago.” Vacated.
Court: Hawai'i Supreme Court, Judge: Eddins, Filed On: February 7, 2024, Case #: SCAP-22-561, Categories: constitution, firearms
J. Horton finds the trial court properly convicted defendant for being a felon in possession of a firearm. At the first hearing, defendant requested a bench trial but failed to attend. Defendant says his rights were infringed by the court's convicting him by bench trial outside his presence. The record shows his attorney never claimed that no plea was entered, and the court of appeals must assume that a plea was entered before trial. Therefore, the premise of the appeal, that defendant was tried without entering a plea, has no merit. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Horton , Filed On: January 31, 2024, Case #: 09-22-00139-CR, Categories: constitution, firearms, Due Process
J. Niemeyer finds the lower court properly granted judgment to the county. The gun store owners argued that pamphlets that the county requires to be given out with the purchase of each firearm violated the First Amendment. Still, the literature distributed pursuant to the ordinance was constitutionally permissible because it compelled commercial speech that was factual and uncontroversial and furthered a government interest. Affirmed.
Court: 4th Circuit, Judge: Niemeyer, Filed On: January 23, 2024, Case #: 23-1351, Categories: constitution, firearms, First Amendment
J. Leinenweber denies a firearm owner’s motion for a preliminary injunction against Highland Park’s ban on assault weapons. The court finds the Chicago suburb, where a deadly July 2022 mass shooting occurred, has legally banned the weapons under Second Amendment provisions, based on a “long-established” history of government bodies restricting private access to weapons designed for military use. The court also grants Highland Park’s motion to dismiss a gun rights advocacy group as one of the suit’s plaintiffs, finding the group lacks standing to bring the case.
Court: USDC Northern District of Illinois, Judge: Leinenweber, Filed On: January 9, 2024, Case #: 1:22cv4774, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: constitution, Municipal Law, firearms
J. Mueller finds for the Attorney General of California on two individuals’ constitutional challenge to two state firearms laws that prohibit people from openly carrying firearms without permits. The pair fail to show the law is unconstitutional, nor do they support their argument the state cannot make them carry a weapon in a certain way. "This contention is unpersuasive for the simple reason that American governments have imposed restrictions on how people carry guns since the founding era, as the Supreme Court has twice held."
Court: USDC Eastern District of California, Judge: Mueller, Filed On: December 29, 2023, Case #: 2:19cv617, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, constitution, firearms
J. Susswein finds that the trial court properly denied petitioner an ID card and permit to purchase a handgun on grounds that he falsified information on the application and due to a past physical altercation with a neighbor. Disqualifying for falsification does not require a criminal charge of perjury, and while the applicant's past psychiatric treatment would not automatically waive his right for the permit, such would likely warrant follow-up inquiries. Affirmed.
Court: New Jersey Appellate Division, Judge: Susswein , Filed On: December 22, 2023, Case #: A-3899-21, Categories: constitution, firearms