Miscellaneous lawsuits and Proposed Laws
“Elite Precision Customs LLC, et al. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, et al.” is a new lawsuit, which has just been filed, that challenges the federal ban on interstate handgun sales. Under current federal law, individuals cannot purchase handguns across state lines directly from dealers unless the firearms are shipped to a dealer in the purchaser’s home state. (Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(3) and § 922(b)(3).)
The lawsuit says the ban violates the Second Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens from purchasing handguns across state lines for lawful purposes. Modern background checks and digital records negate the concerns that originally justified these restrictions and that the restrictions are outdated.
________________________________________________________________
Currently, New York State fully bans the use and ownership of suppressors.
State Senate Minority Leader Robert G. Ortt’s proposed bill, S02099, would legalize firearm suppressors in New York state, allowing for the legal possession of suppressors. Forty-two other states allow for the use of firearm suppressors.
Senator Ortt has introduced a version of this bill every legislative session since 2017. It is hoped that, at some point, Democrat Senators who oppose this bill will realize that suppressors have no legitimate negative consequences as they are almost never used in crimes - except in movies where they only go puff. (And we all know that Hollywood never lies. Sarcasm intended.)
__________________________________________________________________
Reese v. ATF is a Louisiana lawsuit challenging the ban on firearm sales to persons under 21 years of age. The plaintiffs argue that federal laws unconstitutionally restrict their right to keep and bear arms based on their age, thereby denying them equal protection under the law. They seek a judicial declaration that these provisions are unconstitutional
Initially, the district court found that the plaintiffs had standing to sue but dismissed the case under Rule 12(b)(6) for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
A three-judge panel of the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the Western District of Louisiana unanimously ruled to reverse the lower court decision and remand the case for further action.
The Fifth Circuit Court scrutinized the historical evidence regarding the regulation of firearms among eighteen-to-twenty-year-olds at the time of the nation’s founding. The appeal court found prior judicial interpretations, (like the NRA I decision which upheld similar age-based restrictions,) incompatible with recent Supreme Court decisions that emphasize a historical understanding of gun rights, such as Bruen and Rahimi.
A positive decision in this case would directly affect only the U S 5th Circuit (which encompasses Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas) but would be a good start in total repeal of these laws.
In the case, U.S. v. Daniels, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the conviction of a man under a federal law that prohibits firearm possession by one who is “an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.” (The substance in question was marijuana.)
Police officers legally searched Patrick Daniels Jr’s car and found marijuana and 2 loaded firearms. Daniels waived his Miranda rights and admitted he had been a regular marijuana user since high school, smoking the drug “approximately fourteen days out of a month.” Importantly, the agents did NOT ascertain or render an opinion as to whether Daniels was under the influence of marijuana at the time of his arrest.
Daniels was charged and convicted under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3) and sentenced to nearly four years in federal prison.
Daniels appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court which ordered the Fifth Circuit to rehear Daniels’s case in light of the high court’s opinion in U.S. v. Rahimi.
Fifth Circuit then found that applying 18 U.S.C. 922 (g)(3) to his case violated the Second Amendment. The Fifth Circuit determined that:
922(g)(3) was not per se unconstitutional and allowed the statute itself to stand.
922 (g)(3) could be validly applied where the accused was determined to be actively impaired by illegal drug use at the time of the firearm possession.
922 (g)(3) could NOT be constitutionally applied “where it seeks to disarm an individual solely ‘based on habitual or occasional drug use.’”
922(g)(3) might be applicable where the illegal drug use was so regular and heavy that it rendered the person “continually impaired,” even when not acutely intoxicated.
Habitual or occasional drug use has no historical basis under the Second Amendment as grounds for a lifetime firearm prohibition.
