The court has issued 40 opinions as of June 7th. We are expecting more before the end of the term later this month.
Two of those cases were Second Amendment cases, around 5%. We had 2 major opinions, for The People, in the 2023 term.
The first major win for The People came in Loper Bright. This started life as a case regarding offshore fishing regulations and inspections. The Commerce Department issued new rules regarding inspections of offshore fishing. The rules required the fishing vessel to provide food and bunk space, as well as to pay the cost of the inspector onboard the vessel.
In short, the boat had to pay to have an inspector living onboard looking over their shoulders, even if they weren’t catching any fish that required the inspector.
They sued for relief.
The lower courts applied the Chevron doctrine, which had been interpreted to mean, “What the Federal Agency says is what we have to agree with.” Chevron has stopped many civil suits through the decades. Loper Bright puts an end to that.
Takeaway ONE
The court’s job is to decide what the law is, not some regulatory agency. Courts must do their job and not just accept what the government says.
This takeaway is used in later opinions of the Court.
NRA v Vullo is our second interesting case, this is one of the lawfare, red tape war waged against gun owners’ rights. The short of it was that the state of NY was pressuring regulated business to stop doing business with the NRA.
Takeaway TWO
The government cannot compel a third party to do what the government is forbidden to do.
Garland v. Cargill was one of the cases that led to the striking of Chevron. In Cargill, the Court found that the ATF exceeded their statutory authorizations.
Takeaway THREE
The executive branch does not get to create legislation, even when Congress appears to have granted that transfer of power.
United States v. Rahimi was a case with bad facts which did get us a reasonable result.
Rahimi had a TRO against him. He was aware of the TRO. He was in the courtroom when the judge issued the TRO and he had agreed to the conditions of the TRO. Those included “no firearms”.
Rahimi was and is a violent person. He was charged with multiple crimes and was captured with TRO paperwork and a firearm.
Takeaway FOUR
There is no regulation in this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation that permanently removed the right to keep and bear arms.
Takeaway FIVE
A violent person can be temporarily denied his Second Amendment protected right.
Bondi v. VanDerStok
HELD: The ATF’s rule is not facially inconsistent with the GCA.
This case is a legal match to Rahimi The question we wanted to be answered in Rahimi, and which was answered, is 18 U.S.C. §921(g)(8) facially unconstitutional.
To be facially unconstitutional, there can be no situation where the law is constitutional. This means that the law is unconstitutional when applied to 1 million people, but because it is constitutional when applied to the 1,000,001st person, then it survives the challenge.
In Rahimi, was there any time a person could have their Second Amendment protected rights removed? The answer turns out to be “Yes.” They can be taken away temporarily if the person has been adjudicated violent.
In VanDerStok it was again a facial challenge. The Court found that there was at least one kit being sold which met the definition of a firearm.
Takeaway SIX
There are infringements which will survive judicial review in light of Bruen and Heller
Takeaway SEVEN
The Court attempts to be consistent with their previous opinions. This leads to outcomes we dislike.
Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos
Takeaway EIGHT
The Remington settlement caused negative ripples. It emboldened the infringers to ramp up their lawfare actions.
Takeaway NINE
The agenda-driven Justices agreed that Mexico did not meet the requirements to pierce the PLCAA protections.
Takeaway TEN
AR-15s are in common use for lawful purposes.
Takeaway ELEVEN
While it does not require a probable event to pierce PLCAA protections, it does require a true allegation of a crime and plausible connection of the defendant to that probable event.
Takeaway TWELVE
PLCAA is a powerful protection against frivolous lawsuits.
Takeaway Thirteen
This was a major course correction after the failures in the Remington case.
Leave a Reply