Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Charlie T Waite

Super Moderators
  • Content Count

    4,607
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    43

Posts posted by Charlie T Waite


  1. BELLEVUE, WA – Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation have moved for an interim injunction pending appeal by New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal in the continuing challenge of Grewal’s censorship relating to the publication of information about 3D gun production.

    The case is in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, where a three-judge panel recently ruled unanimously that Grewal is “subject to the jurisdiction of Texas courts” because of his efforts to prevent publication of the information by Defense Distributed violates the company’s and SAF’s First Amendment rights. Grewal is one of nine Attorneys General to file suit in the Western District of Washington to enjoin the State Department from authorizing the release of Defense Distributed’s files.

    The SAF/Defense Distributed motion states their case bluntly: “This appeal arises from the ongoing efforts of New Jersey’s Attorney General Gurbir Grewal and several of his peers to hamstring the plaintiffs’ distribution of materials related to the 3D printing of firearms.”

    Plaintiffs are now asking for an injunction because Grewal “has now sought panel rehearing and rehearing en banc (and might also seek certiorari). This prevents the Plaintiffs from promptly proceeding on remand to have the district court rule on the merits of their preliminary injunction request. Having chosen to keep this Court in charge of the case indefinitely, Grewal cannot refuse to litigate Plaintiffs’ request for interim injunctive relief here and now. “

    “New Jersey passed a statute aimed specifically at us and Defense Distributed,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Attorney General Grewal is essentially trying a delaying tactic to tie this case up in legal red tape as long as possible, while in the process depriving us of our First Amendment rights to share firearms information under color of state law.

    “We’re asking the court for an injunction so Grewal will be prevented from enforcing the New Jersey statute and requiring us to cease and desist publishing computer files with digital firearms information,” he added.

    SAF and Defense Distributed are represented by attorney Chad Flores with Beck Redden LLP in Houston.


  2. Biden Plans "Psych" Test for Gun Ownership

    His talk about AR-15 confiscation is overruled by new
    "character, suitability and 'any other' " requirements
    for gun ownership; Second Amendment would be optional.

    The Bill of Rights ban on infringement would be ignored;
    Unelected bureaucrats will literally choose who can bear arms;
    All existing arms in private hands will be subject to confiscation.

    A plain reading—not "analysis"—of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden's gun bill, now in both houses of Congress, will require current and future gun owners to pass psychology and character tests to continue owning the firearms they already legally possess. When asked, legal experts have been unable to describe how this would be legal, Biden has not commented. America has 100 million gun owners by most estimates. That has grown dramatically by sales to people terrified amidst urban rioting, who can't get police protection, during the corona-virus pandemic.

    The first line of the identical bills, HR5717 and S3254, requires a federal license for any American to legally "purchase, acquire, or possess a firearm or ammunition." This is de facto infringement.

    To obtain this license you would need to prove to unelected officials that you are of "sound mind and character," you do not "potentially create a risk to public safety," and you meet "any other requirements the State determines relevant." No standards or guidelines are provided. Assuming anyone could qualify, authorities, "make a determination of suitability," for your possession and ownership of firearms, including any you currently own. Orthodox Rabbi Raziel Cohen, a JPFO Ambassador and certified trainer says, "This outrageous usurpation of power, and affront to the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment could never pass muster at the U.S. Supreme Court."

    Alan Korwin, an author and consultant to JPFO notes that, "Democrats have publicly promised if they can't succeed legislatively, they will repeal the filibuster rule, pack the Supreme Court with left-leaning Justices and exercise their will." Nothing limits the High Court to only nine seats.

    • Sad 1

  3. WHAT HAPPENED: The Third Circuit Court of Appeals today released a 2-1 panel decision in Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, Inc., et al, v. Attorney General New Jersey, et al. affirming the district court’s judgment upholding New Jersey’s limit on ammunition magazines to a capacity of 10 rounds. Today’s Opinion determined that the 3rd Circuit had already ruled on the constitutionality of the ban on so-called large capacity magazines (LCMs) in an earlier decision, and that the court was therefore bound to follow its earlier precedent. However, there were some significant and positive developments worth taking note of. Judge Matey, who authored the dissenting opinion and was the only Judge on the panel who reached the merits of the case, agreed with FPC’s position.  This case in particular underscores how important it is to get the right judges appointed, and then provide them with the resources and insight necessary to get pro-Liberty outcomes.  

    While the majority opinion did not reach the conclusion FPC advocated for, the case was not without its silver linings.  Judge Matey’s Dissent concluded that the prior panel ruling—purported by the majority to have clearly decided the constitutionality of the law—wasn’t so clear after all.  Because that prior ruling lacked some key analysis, Judge Matey wrote, this current panel should not be bound by it, and should instead be free to undertake its own review of the constitutionality of New Jersey’s LCM ban. 

     Perhaps even more important was Judge Matey’s recommendation regarding how the 3rd Circuit should be analyzing Second Amendment challenges,  including this one. Judge Matey concluded unequivocally that the proper standard for adjudicating Second Amendment challenges is one that draws on the text, history, and original meaning of the constitutional guarantee of the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  This so-called “text informed by history and tradition” test has been championed by FPC’s own Director of Research Joseph Greenlee.  Today’s dissent is another clear indication that more and more judges are understanding the importance of clarifying and correcting the current state of confusion surrounding the proper way to consider Second Amendment challenges, and that the text, history, and tradition model is gaining traction.  This is an important move in the right direction. 

    Judge Matey also followed several pages of FPC’s brief in summarizing the history of repeating arms, covering a period from 1640 though the present-day and citing FPC’s brief extensively in the process. 

    The current appeal reached the 3rd Circuit in a somewhat “tortured procedural posture,” which is legalese for “you won’t fully understand this unless you’re a law student studying for your Civil Procedure final.” Here’s what happened: In a prior ruling on the plaintiffs’ challenge to the constitutionality of the New Jersey mag ban law, the district court denied a preliminary injunction that was being sought by the plaintiffs.  That denial was appealed, and a panel of the 3rd Circuit upheld the district court’s order.  The court today held that in doing so, that panel of the 3rd Circuit went beyond simply answering the question of the plaintiffs’ “likelihood of success on the merits” (part of the standard to receive a preliminary injunction) and directly addressed the constitutionality of the statute.  The case was then sent back to the district court where it had originated, where that court ruled on summary judgment that it was bound by that earlier decision.

     The plaintiffs then appealed that summary judgment ruling, arguing first, that the district court erred in treating the prior panel’s opinion on the constitutionality of the statute as binding, and second, reasserting plaintiffs’ belief that the statute was unconstitutional under the Second, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.  The majority in today’s opinion held that the plaintiffs were wrong on their first argument – i.e. that the prior panel ruling had in fact come to a binding conclusion as to the constitutionality of the law.  Because they were bound to follow the prior decision, the majority said, they did not need to re-address the constitutional arguments.


  4. Tomorrow, the Senate Government Oversight and Reform Committee has scheduled a hearing to consider Senate Bill 317.  Please contact committee members and ask them to support the right to self-defense of school employees.

    click-here-take-action.gif?width=500&hei

    Senate Bill 317, sponsored by Senator Bill Coley, allows those school employees who are allowed to lawfully carry a concealed firearm for self-defense on school property to do so without being required to undergo an extensive police training program.  SB 317 clarifies the intent of the law and allows local school districts to continue to determine what is in the best interest of their faculty and students. 

    Again, please contact members of the Senate Government Oversight and Reform Committee and ask them to support Senate Bill 317.


  5. During the Business Meeting tomorrow, the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors will consider whether to begin drafting a ban on firearms in certain public locations. Second Amendment supporters are encouraged to urge the Board to take NO ACTION on Action Item #5. The meeting will be held remotely by video conference, starting at 5:00PM. Click here for information on attending the meeting remotely.

    For decades, Virginia’s strong preemption statute has prohibited localities from passing their own gun control ordinances. This not only prevents a confusing patchwork of laws, but also ensures that Second Amendment rights are equally protected across the whole Commonwealth. Unfortunately, the anti-gun majority in the General Assembly and Governor Ralph Northam eroded those protections by passing and signing Senate Bill 35, which went into effect on July 1st.

    The Board of Supervisors previously directed their staff to prepare a report outlining their options under the new laws. This report, Action Item #5 on the agenda, recommends that the Board order the drafting of an ordinance to ban firearms in public buildings, public parks, and on public streets and sidewalks where, or adjacent to where, certain events are occurring. The Board has the option to direct staff to take no action on Item #5.

    Anti-gun jurisdictions in Virginia have already passed, or are in the process of drafting, these gun ban ordinances. They usually contain no exemptions for those with a concealed handgun permit. As we predicted, these ordinances vary from locality to locality, putting an onerous burden on law-abiding citizens to comply, while also not improving public safety. The prohibitions apply to both permitted events and events that “would otherwise require a permit,” making it extremely difficult for law-abiding citizens to determine which areas are suddenly a “gun-free zone.” Individuals who live in an area where an event is occurring may not enter or leave their own property with a firearm.

    Again, please consider attending the meeting remotely to urge the Board to take NO ACTION on Action Item #5.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.