Month: April 2023

History Legal

Why are there no juries in these 2A cases?

Apr 2, 2023 Anonymous Web Angel(GFZ)

We were asked “Why don’t we see juries involved in all of these Second Amendment cases? The simple answer is “they are not needed”. Read on for why.

Court cases are decided in two different ways, on the merits of the case, and procedurally.

Consider the question “Does the District of Columbia’s restriction on having a functional firearm within the home violate the Second Amendment?”

Prior to 2008 many courts were using the collective right interpretation of the Second Amendment. With this in mind the most of these cases were dismissed for procedural reason. I.e. if you were not the militia challenging the restriction you did not have standing. Standing is a procedural issue.

Cases that are decided on a procedural basis can be brought up again once the procedural issue is corrected.
Read More

.......

Another Bruen win. Renna v. Bonta CA UHA

Apr 1, 2023 Anonymous Web Angel(GFZ)

Judge Dana M. Sabraw of the United States District Court Southern District of California has granted a Preliminary Injunction against California’s Unsafe Handgun act.

He enjoined the chamber loaded indicator, magazine disconnect mechanism, microstamping, and three-for-one removal provisions.

The judge then stayed the injunction pending appeal or further hearing on the matter.

It is highly likely that this case and Boland will be combined at the Ninth Circuit Court.

We keep winning. The infringers are losing ground constantly. We are going to win, it just takes time.

Case 3:20-cv-02190-DMS-DEB

.......

Bruen Win in Minnesota

Apr 1, 2023 Anonymous Web Angel(GFZ)

On 2023-03-31 United States District Judge Katherine Menendez issued summary judgement for the plaintiffs(good guys) allowing young adults to receive government permission to carry handguns in Minnesota.

The State of Minnesota requires a person to obtain a permit to lawfully carry a handgun in public, but does not issue permits to anyone under the age of twenty-one. The Plaintiffs, who are 18-to-20-year-old individuals and firearms advocacy organizations with members in that age range, argue that the minimum age requirement in Minnesota’s permit-to-carry law violates their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), compels the conclusion that Minnesota’s permitting age restriction is unconstitutional, and Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
— Summary Judgement and Opinion 0:21-cv-01348 District Court of Minnesota

The state claimed Minnesota’s permit to carry statute is facially constitutional as a matter of law. — Memorandum in support for Summary Judgement for the defendants at P. 14. They get their claim by contending that the Supreme Court has approved infringing on the rights of 18-20 year olds.
Read More