STATUS UPDATE: On August 19, 2019, the California Rifle and Pistol Association filed a brief with the court regarding the State’s opposition to a motion for a Preliminary Injunction to suspend California’s un-Constitutional ammunition laws and regulations. Judge Benitez has been collecting information from the State and ammunition vendors and purchasers in order to rule on the injunction. A decision is expected before the end of the year.
STATUS: On July 22, 2019, the California Rifle and Pistol Association, with the assistance of Gun owners of California, filed a motion requesting an injunction against continued implementation and enforcement of the new ammunition laws and regulations. San Diego Federal District Court Judge Roger Benitez (same judge who ruled in our favor on large capacity magazines, aka, Freedom Week) will hold a hearing on this case on August 19, 2019.
STATUS: On April 26, 2019, our Second Amendment partners files a lawsuit challenging the passage of Proposition 63 and SB 1235 (Gunmagedon legislation) restricting the sales, acquisition and transportation of ammunition calling them unconstitutional violations of the Second Amendment, the Interstate Commerce Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause and more. This case is in the discovery phase of the trial.
STATUS UPDATE: On June 10th, 2019, the United States Supreme Court denied granting Certiorari to hear this case. The case is now closed.
STATUS: On January 18, 2019, the United States Supreme Court docketed the case, meaning that they opened an official file, and were open to receiving associated briefs. This is the first step in gaining a grant of certiorari (agreement to hear the case). Jeremy Kettler was convicted of possessing an unregistered firearm sound suppressor in violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934. He challenged whether the NFA continues to be a proper exercise of Congress’s taxing power due to changed circumstances, and if so, whether it imposes an impermissible tax on the exercise of a constitutional right. The Tenth Circuit concluded that it was bound by the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Sonzinsky (1937), upholding the NFA, and that only this Court could overturn its own decisions. The Tenth Circuit also concluded that the Second Amendment protects only “bearable arms,” not including firearm accessories such as sound suppressors. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the National Firearms Act of 1934, upheld in Sonzinsky, continues to be a constitutional exercise of Congress’s taxing power when the justifications for that decision have significantly eroded over the last 82 years. 2. Whether the Second Amendment protects firearm accessories such as sound suppressors. 3. Whether the tax imposed by the National Firearms Act, targeting the exercise of a Second Amendment right, violates the rule of Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) and Cox v. New Hampshire (1941). If the court finds that the NFA is no longer constitutional based on the court’s own more recent decisions, then the firearms and accessories controlled by the act will be protected arms under the Second Amendment.
STATUS UPDATE: On May 29, 2019, did not decide to take or reject the case. The court is most likely holding the case pending a decision in NYSR&PA v NYC.
STATUS: On February 19, 2019, the United States Supreme Court requested a response from the State of New Jersey who did not submit a brief on this case, an unusual but very encouraging request which shows interest in the issue by the high court. This case argues that the right to keep and bear arms extends outside of the home and that the State of new Jersey unconstitutionally denies that right by requiring law abiding citizens to show a special need before they can be permitted to carry a firearm. This case also argues that the Third Circuit Court of Appeal’s use of “Intermediate Scrutiny” to come to their conclusion that the State of New Jersey was justified, was a direct violation of Justice Antonin Scalia’s admonition that lower courts refrain from using judicial balancing tests and instead use the textual, historical and traditional meaning of the words in the Second Amendment.
STATUS UPDATE: The United States Supreme Court has set this case for argument on December 2, 2019. Both the City and State of New York have changed their restrictive laws in an attempt to moot the case before the court. The court ordered the participants to present their arguments on mootness as well as the merits of the case for consideration. If the court does not moot the case, a decision is expected sometime between April and June of 2020.
STATUS: The Supreme Court pushed the hearing of this case until early this fall, the beginning of their new session.
STATUS: On January 22, 2019, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the case this session. This case challenges the City of New York’s restrictions on the transportation of legally owned and registered firearms anywhere outside the home or business except to a few government permitted locations. Gun owners are prohibited from transporting their firearms outside of the city for training, recreation or any other purpose. This is a clear violation of the right to “bear arms” outside of the home. The Second Court of Appeals ruled that the Second Amendment only protects the right to keep arms in the home according to their very narrow interpretation of the Heller v. DC and McDonald v. Chicago decisions. The appellate court came to its decision by using a judicial balancing test that was specifically warned against by Justice Scalia in Heller. Courts nationwide have chosen to ignore or defy the high court and this case will give the Supreme Court the opportunity to correct this situation once and for all.
STATUS UPDATE: This case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court for hearing. The United States Supreme Court denied a writ of certiorari leaving the 9th Circuit’s en-banc opinion in place that declared that there is no constitutional right to carry a concealed firearm in public. This ruling can be greatly affected if SCOTUS rules in support of the Second Amendment in NYSR&PA v NYC and NJR&PC v Grewal.
STATUS: In June 2015, the “en banc” panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments. In June 2016, the panel ruled 7-4 in favor of San Diego County, holding that the government’s denial of the only means of carrying a firearm under state law does not implicate the Second Amendment. This decision reverses an earlier three-judge panel decision of the 9th Circuit, and now stands in direct conflict with the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller III v. District of Columbia. The plaintiffs recently petitioned for a Full Court En Banc Rehearing by all sitting members of the 9th Circuit. A decision from the Court on whether to rehear the case is expected in the next few months.
STATUS: In light of the Peruta ruling, a decision is likely to be made at any time.
STATUS: The Richards Plaintiffs have joined the Peruta Plaintiffs in petitioning for a full court en banc rehearing by all sitting members of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. A decision from the Court on whether to rehear the case is expected in the next few months.
STATUS: In light of the Peruta ruling, a decision is likely to be made at any time.
STATUS: On March 4, 2015, the 9th Circuit upheld the lower court's denial of plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction. The case was set to resume in the trial court following the resolution of Peruta, but the passage of SB 1446 prohibiting the possession of 10+ round magazines statewide now preempts the local ordinance. Repeal of the ordinance or a preemption claim will follow.
STATUS: The federal district court held the Roster is constitutional on February 25, 2015. Plaintiffs have appealed. The case has been fully briefed before the 9th Circuit and oral arguments are to be scheduled in late 2016 or early 2017. After oral arguments are concluded, a decision is likely to follow within 3-9 months.
STATUS: The case is currently being appealed to the 9th Circuit. Oral arguments took place before the 9th Circuit on February 9, 2016. A decision can be made at any time, but is expected to be made in the next 3-9 months.
STATUS: On March 2, 2015, the District Court issued its opinion granting the Defendant's motion for summary judgment, upholding California's use of DROS fees to fund the Armed Prohibited Persons System (APPS) as constitutional. Plaintiffs filed an appeal to the 9th Circuit. The case has been fully briefed and oral arguments are likely to be scheduled in in late 2016 or early 2017.
STATUS: The case is currently in the discovery process in the trial court. The timeline for this case is currently unknown.
STATUS: The case is currently awaiting oral argument before the California Supreme Court. Oral arguments could be set at any time. The timeframe for decisions from the Supreme Court can vary, but they often come within a few months of the oral arguments.
STATUS: Plaintiffs dismissed the case and are seeking to recover attorneys’ fee.
STATUS: The California Trial Court upheld the DOJ regulation, and the plaintiffs have appealed the decision. The case is to be briefed before the California Court of Appeals, and oral arguments are likely to take place in late 2017.
STATUS: In July 2015, the district court denied a request to prohibit enforcement while the case was proceeding. That decision was appealed, and in February 2016 the 9th Circuit upheld the lower court’s order within two weeks of oral arguments. The litigation in this case will now resume in the lower court.
However, following the appeal of the preliminary injunction, the district court issued a permanent injunction. As a result, California is now prohibited from enforcing its arbitrary and ineffective handgun ad ban.
STATUS: The DOJ was forced to begin the process for enacting regulations for the FSC program on February 2015. The Plaintiffs are now appealing the lower court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees. The Plaintiffs have fully briefed their appeal to the 9th Circuit and are waiting for oral arguments to be set.
STATUS UPDATE: In June 2018, the California Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s ruling in favor of the State. NSSF petitioned the court to reconsider its opinion but was denied in August of 2018. Another case, Pena v Lindley may be considered by the United States Supreme Court regarding the issue of microstamping.
STATUS: The California trial court upheld the microstamping requirements, and the plaintiffs appealed. The case has been fully briefed before the California Court of Appeals, and oral arguments are likely to take place in late 2016 or 2017.
STATUS: This case has been fully briefed before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and is awaiting oral argument. Oral arguments are expected to take place in 2016, with a decision to follow within 3-9 months after oral arguments conclude.
STATUS: Case was dismissed without prejudice (without loss or waiver of rights or privileges).
STATUS: The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Maryland’s handgun licensing rules that limit the right to carry a concealed weapon to those who have proven a “good and substantial reason.” In the absence of clear standards, the judges “merely assume[d] that the Heller right exists outside the home.” Letting that assumption stand, or maybe not, the Supreme Court denied review on October 15, 2013.
STATUS: The case was stayed pending the final resolution of Peruta. The timeline for this case is currently unknown.
STATUS: The case was filed on January 15, 2016. On February 18, 2016, Daly City filed an answer. The case is now in the discovery process. No timeline is currently available.
STATUS: This case is currently being litigated in the federal district court. A hearing on the Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgement will take place in late 2016.
STATUS: In light of the Peruta ruling, a decision is likely to follow.
STATUS: On February 4, 2016, the 4th Circuit overturned the district court’s approval of the ban under intermediate scrutiny, and ordered the district court to apply “strict scrutiny.” The State appealed and the case was reheard by the full 4th Circuit sitting “en banc” on May 11, 2016. A decision from the 4th Circuit can be expected anywhere in the next 12 months.
STATUS: On May 17, 2016, the Court granted the Plaintiffs’ request for an order blocking enforcing of the “good reason” requirement. The government appealed the decision to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. On May 27, 2016, the D.C. Circuit issued a stay of the lower court’s order that prohibited D.C. from enforcing its “good reason” requirement. The case will now be briefed and argued before the D.C. Circuit
STATUS: Oral arguments took place before a 3-judge panel of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals on September 28, 2015. On March 22, 2016, the Court ruled that Plaintiffs did not have standing to bring their claims and ruled against the Plaintiffs’ appeal.
STATUS: In September 2015, the D.C. Circuit issued an opinion striking down the majority of Washington D.C.’s firearm registration requirements as a violation of the Second Amendment. On October 19, 2015, D.C. filed a petition for an “en banc” rehearing of the case by a larger panel of the D.C. Circuit. On February 26, 2016, the Court denied the request for “en banc” review.
STATUS:The case was before the U.S. Supreme Court; oral arguments were heard in February. In a 9-0 decision, the court-ordered transfer of a felon’s lawfully owned firearms from government custody to a third party is not barred by a law that prohibits felons from possessing guns if the court is satisfied that the recipient will not give control over the firearms, so that he could either use them or direct their use.
An amended complaint has been filed by plaintiffs as well as a new motion seeking a preliminary injunction in this civil rights lawsuit pertaining to the California Department of Justice’s failures in the implementation of the ‘bullet button assault weapon’ registration program.
A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it is a Constitutionally protected right to openly carry firearms for self-defense in public. This is a stunning decision; it is still uncertain, however, whether the three-judge decision will be re-visited by an 11-judge panel. If the ruling stands and the State of Hawaii does not appeal to SCOTUS, the ruling will apply only in Hawaii, unless other states under the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit sue to have it apply to their states.
STATUS UPDATE: On July 26, 2019, Federal District Court Judge Josephine L. Stanton ruled in favor of Attorney General Becerra’s assertion that California’s “assault weapons” are constitutional. This case will most assuredly be appealed to the ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
STATUS: On April 24, 2017, this case was filed challenging California’s entire “assault weapons” ban as a violation of the Second Amendment.
Filed by CRPA, this case challenges the entire California “assault weapons” regulatory scheme as a violation of the U.S. Constitution, which includes the Second Amendment, the Fifth (takings) and Fourteenth Amendments (due process).
STATUS UPDATE: On March 29, 2019, Federal District Court Judge Roger Benitez granted a permanent injunction of the ban on “Large Capacity Magazines”. This instantly legalized all existing magazines that held more than ten rounds and allowed Californians to purchase any and as many new magazines as they wanted. However, Judge Benitez issued a stay of his order until the case was heard by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The judge made the stay effective on April 5, 2019 giving Californians a one-week window (commonly referred to as Freedom Week) where they could continue to buy magazines. In that week it is estimated that Californians purchased more than a million magazines. The California Attorney General has appealed Judge Benitez’ ruling to the 9th Circuit.
STATUS: On May 17, 2017, this case was filed I response to Proposition 63 and Senate Bill 1446 regarding acquisition and possession of standard capacity magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the injunction of the so-called “high capacity” magazine ban issued by San Diego District Court Judge Benitez. AG Becerra asked the 9th Court to remove the injunction and the court refused. Until the court rules otherwise, law abiding citizens can continue to possess all legally possessed magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds.
In response to SCOTUS’ refusal to hear Peruta v. San Diego, CRPA filed suit seeking to force the court to rule on the right to self-defense with a gun outside the home.
STATUS UPDATE: On May 30, 2018, the court issued an order upholding the regulations as valid. CRPA appealed and filed their opening brief in California’s 5th District Court of Appeals in March 2019. The State’s brief is due in July 2019.
STATUS: On September 8, 2017, the case was filed by the CRPA in response to the adoption of regulations regarding newly classified “assault weapons” under SB 880 & AB 1135. It challenges the regulations under California’s Administrative Procedures Act because they were enacted without legislative authority and without any input from the public.
*en banc: the court case will be heard by the Chief Justice and 10 other judges selected at random