Source: https://www.firearmspolicy.org/case-tracker
Timestamp: 2020-01-23 14:05:34
Document Index: 650508830

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 31900', '§ 230', '§ 230', '§ 42', '§ 923', '§ 923', '§ 2254']

Case Tracker - Firearms Policy Coalition
New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. New York City
Summary: Right to transport a weapon outside the city limits. Respondents argue case is moot; Court said that mootness is to be taken up at argument.
FPC, et al. brief in support
Next action: Oral arguments held Dec. 2, 2019; submitted
Pending/Held
No. 18-663
Cert. petition filed: Nov. 19 2018
Summary: Right to transfer handguns to out-of-state residents. The 5th Circuit found that the restriction is not a violation of the Second Amendment or the Equal Protection Clause.
[W]hether prohibiting interstate handgun sales, facially or as-applied to consumers whose home jurisdictions authorize such transactions, violates the Second Amendment and the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
Next action: Distributed for Conference of April 12, 2019
No. 18-824
Cert. petition filed: Dec. 20 2018
Summary: Right to carry a firearm outside of the home. 3rd Circuit upheld New Jersey’s law.
Next action: Distributed for Conference of May 23, 2019
Cert. petition filed: Dec. 28 2018
Summary: Challenge to California's Unsafe Handgun Act (UHA), which created a roster of handguns determined to be “not unsafe” and bans handguns determined to be “unsafe”. The 9th Circuit found that intermediate scrutiny is proper, and public safety concerns outweighed the handgun requirements limitations on access.
The question presented is whether California’s “Unsafe Handgun Act,” Cal. Penal Code § 31900 et seq., violates the Second Amendment by banning handguns of the kind in common use for traditional lawful purposes.
FPC, et al. brief in support.
No. 18-1272
Cert. petition filed: Apr. 1 2019
Summary: Right to carry a firearm outside of the home. 1st Circuit found that intermediate scrutiny was appropriate and Massachusetts’ laws do not violate the Second Amendment.
Next action: Distributed for Conference of June 6, 2019
Cert. petition filed: Jun. 28 2019
Summary: Right to carry a firearm outside of the home. Superior Court of New Jersey found that the law does not violate the Second Amendment.
Whether States can limit the ability to bear handguns outside the home to only those found to have a sufficiently heightened “need” for self-protection.
Next action: Distributed for Conference of Oct. 18, 2019.
No. 19-114
Cert. petition filed: Jul. 18 2019
Summary: Right to carry a firearm outside of the home. New Jersey Appellate Division found that intermediate scrutiny was appropriate and that the NJ “may issue” law did not violate the Second Amendment. New Jersey Supreme Court denied certiorari.
Whether the legislative requirement of “justifiable need” for a permit to carry a handgun in public violates the Second Amendment.
Next action: Distributed for Conference of Oct. 1, 2019.
In Briefing (cert. stage)
No. 19-296
Cert. petition filed: Aug. 29 2019
Summary: Challenge to Trump Admin. bump-stock ban by executive fiat. D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction over a strong dissent by Judge Henderson.
Whether, if Chevron deference applies and takes priority over the rule of lenity, such deference can be waived in the course of litigation and on appeal?
FPC et al. brief in support
Next action: Petitioners' reply due
No. 19-404
Cert. petition filed: Sept. 23 2019
Summary: Ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. 1st Circuit affirmed bans as constitutional.
Does Massachusetts’ ban unconstitutionally infringe the individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment?
No. 19-423
Cert. petition filed: Sept. 26 2019
Summary: Maryland “may issue” laws. 4th Circuit found people only have a right to self-defense inside their home.
Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit typical, law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense in any manner.
Next action: Response in opposition due Dec. 18, 2019
Daniel v. Armslist Wisc.
No. 19-153
Cert. petition filed: Jul. 29 2019
Summary: Company immunity under the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230. Supreme Court of Wisconsin found that Armslist was immune from civil liability.
Does the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230’s prohibition on treating providers of interactive computer services as publishers or speakers of third party information posted on their sites, bar states from imposing civil liability on website owners or operators for their own design, content and conduct intended to facilitate and profit from tortious or criminal activity (as the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the First Circuit, and other courts have held), or does it bar only those claims that seek to impose liability on website owners or operators for third-party posts (like the Washington Supreme Court, and the Seventh and Ninth Circuits have held)?
No. 19-287
Cert. petition filed: Aug. 30 2019
Summary: Felon right to a firearm. D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court’s rejection of as-applied challenge.
FPC et al. brief in support.
No. 19-168
Cert. petition filed: Aug. 1 2019
Summary: Firearm manufacturer immunity from civil liability. The Connecticut Supreme Court found that the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (“PLCAA”) does not shield Remington Arms from liability.
The question presented is whether the PLCAA’s predicate exception encompasses alleged violations of broad, generally applicable state statutes, such as the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, which forbids “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b(a).
Armament Services v. Barr
No. 18-1561
Cert. petition filed: June 19, 2019
Summary: Revocation of firearms license. The 3rd Circuit denied motion to reverse dismissal on summary judgement.
Whether the Third Circuit applied an improperly deferential standard of review in a de novo federal firearms licensing proceeding under 18 U.S.C. § 923(f)(3), when determining whether Petitioners “willfully” violated any provisions of the Gun Control Act.
Whether the Third Circuit, while imputing the alleged conduct of a former officer of a federal firearms licensee to the company and its new president, inconsistently and improperly denied them the same statutory safeguards and protections regarding licensing decisions guaranteed to that former officer under 18 U.S.C. § 923(f)(4).
No. 19-121
Cert. petition filed: July 23, 2019
Summary: Revocation of firearms license. The 9th Circuit denied to reverse the lower court's decision.
Is the following question one that jurists of reason would find debatable?
Does the total prohibition on the exercise of a person’s fundamental Second Amendment right to keep a firearm in one’s home for purposes of self-defense constitute the type of “severe restraint on liberty” described in Hensley v. Municipal Court, 411 U.S. 345, 351 (1973) which satisfies the habeas corpus custody requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).