Karnal wrote on Nov 28^th, 2022 at 2:13pm:

Uvalde school shooting victims' parents file lawsuit — but what other legal actions have families taken after US gun attacks?

Bans on AR-15 rifles and similar guns are at odds with the Second Amendment, a federal judge determined on Friday.

U.S. District Judge Raymond Moore, an Obama appointee, issued a temporary restraining order against Superior, Colorado’s ban on “assault weapons.” The judge cited the Supreme Court’s New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen ruling extensively in one of the first significant decisions since the landmark case.

“In its simplest terms, the Second and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit governments from preventing ‘law abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms,'” Moore said of the Court’s conclusion in Bruen.

Employing the test created in Bruen, he ruled the town’s ban is unconstitutional.

“The conduct regulated by this provision of the Amended Code, the right to possess, sell, or transfer illegal weapons, (which, as defined, include weapons commonly used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes), is covered, at least in part, by the Second Amendment, and therefore that conduct is presumptively protected,” Moore wrote.

If other courts applying the logic of Bruen find similar bans also run afoul of the Second Amendment, it could lead to changes all over the country. Seven states and the District of Columbia already have assault weapons bans. While support for such bans has been dropping, many Democrats in Congress are currently pushing for a federal version despite dim prospects for success.

Judge Moore said he couldn’t identify historical precedent for the town’s ban, which was a key part of the Supreme Court’s reasoning in the Bruen case that found New York’s gun-carry regime unconstitutional.

“The Court is sympathetic to the Town’s stated reasoning,” Moore wrote. “However, the Court is unaware of historical precedent that would permit a governmental entity to entirely ban a type of weapon that is commonly used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, whether in an individual’s home or in public.”

He ruled there was “a strong likelihood” the Plaintiffs, including gun-rights groups Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and National Association for Gun Rights, “will be successful on the merits” in the case, which met the standard for a temporary restraining order against the law’s enforcement.

Superior’s ordinance, which had the backing of gun-control groups such as Everytown for Gun Safety, banned anything meeting its definitions of “an assault weapon, large-capacity magazine, rapid-fire trigger activator, blackjack, gas gun, metallic knuckles, gravity knife or switchblade knife.” Moore ruled against the provisions banning the sale and possession of these weapons and requiring people already in possession of them to dispose of them or apply for a certificate to continue to legally own them, although he upheld the provision prohibiting open carry without a permit.

“Thus, while the Supreme Court has concluded that the Constitution prohibits certain, unreasonable licensing requirements, it has not held that all such requirements are unconstitutional,” Moore said.

His ruling also did not extend to the other assault weapons bans in a handful of other Colorado towns.

Rocky Mountain Gun Owners executive director Taylor Rhodes released a statement on social media Friday celebrating the decision as “a massive win for gun rights in the State of Colorado.”

“Today, the judge affirmed what we already knew to be true, under the Second Amendment and the Bruen ruling,” Rhodes said. “The Town of Superior doesn’t have a leg to stand on.”

Bans on AR-15 rifles and similar guns are at odds with the Second Amendment, a federal judge determined on Friday.

U.S. District Judge Raymond Moore, an Obama appointee, issued a temporary restraining order against Superior, Colorado’s ban on “assault weapons.” The judge cited the Supreme Court’s New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen ruling extensively in one of the first significant decisions since the landmark case.

“In its simplest terms, the Second and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit governments from preventing ‘law abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms,'” Moore said of the Court’s conclusion in Bruen.

Employing the test created in Bruen, he ruled the town’s ban is unconstitutional.

“The conduct regulated by this provision of the Amended Code, the right to possess, sell, or transfer illegal weapons, (which, as defined, include weapons commonly used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes), is covered, at least in part, by the Second Amendment, and therefore that conduct is presumptively protected,” Moore wrote.

If other courts applying the logic of Bruen find similar bans also run afoul of the Second Amendment, it could lead to changes all over the country. Seven states and the District of Columbia already have assault weapons bans. While support for such bans has been dropping, many Democrats in Congress are currently pushing for a federal version despite dim prospects for success.

Judge Moore said he couldn’t identify historical precedent for the town’s ban, which was a key part of the Supreme Court’s reasoning in the Bruen case that found New York’s gun-carry regime unconstitutional.

“The Court is sympathetic to the Town’s stated reasoning,” Moore wrote. “However, the Court is unaware of historical precedent that would permit a governmental entity to entirely ban a type of weapon that is commonly used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, whether in an individual’s home or in public.”

He ruled there was “a strong likelihood” the Plaintiffs, including gun-rights groups Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and National Association for Gun Rights, “will be successful on the merits” in the case, which met the standard for a temporary restraining order against the law’s enforcement.

Superior’s ordinance, which had the backing of gun-control groups such as Everytown for Gun Safety, banned anything meeting its definitions of “an assault weapon, large-capacity magazine, rapid-fire trigger activator, blackjack, gas gun, metallic knuckles, gravity knife or switchblade knife.” Moore ruled against the provisions banning the sale and possession of these weapons and requiring people already in possession of them to dispose of them or apply for a certificate to continue to legally own them, although he upheld the provision prohibiting open carry without a permit.

“Thus, while the Supreme Court has concluded that the Constitution prohibits certain, unreasonable licensing requirements, it has not held that all such requirements are unconstitutional,” Moore said.

His ruling also did not extend to the other assault weapons bans in a handful of other Colorado towns.

Rocky Mountain Gun Owners executive director Taylor Rhodes released a statement on social media Friday celebrating the decision as “a massive win for gun rights in the State of Colorado.”

“Today, the judge affirmed what we already knew to be true, under the Second Amendment and the Bruen ruling,” Rhodes said. “The Town of Superior doesn’t have a leg to stand on.”

Shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling last month that expanded the right to carry firearms outside the home, gun rights activist Andrew Namiki Roberts rushed to the Honolulu Police Department to apply for four permits to carry handguns in public. He was fourth in line, surrounded by excited Hawaii gun owners who felt vindicated in their crusade for greater firearm access.

The high court’s June 23 decision struck down a New York law that required people to show a specific need to carry a firearm in public. And it means similar laws in five other states, including Hawaii, are now unconstitutional. Roberts likely won’t receive his gun permits until the legislature amends state law or the state attorney general issues new guidance, but he is eager to carry a gun outside his home because he is convinced it will make him safer.

“We finally have our Second Amendment rights affirmed,” said Roberts, who is director of the Hawaii Firearms Coalition.

Elated gun rights advocates say the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen has opened the door to overturning many other state gun restrictions.

Gun safety advocates, however, emphasize that the court’s ruling was limited in scope and still allows states to regulate types of firearms, where people can carry firearms and the permitting process, including requirements for background checks and training. Democratic lawmakers in some of the states affected by the Supreme Court decision already have passed new firearm restrictions that they hope will survive judicial scrutiny.

The New York law, which had been on the books for more than a century, required residents to demonstrate a “proper cause” for carrying a concealed handgun in public for self-defense. Not only did the court strike down this law, finding it was applied unevenly, but it also established a new legal test. Gun laws now must be judged based on the “text, history and tradition” of the Second Amendment: What did the amendment mean to the founders, where did they think the right to bear arms originated, and how did they apply it?

In the majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the Second Amendment often has been treated like a second-class right.

“We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need,” he wrote.

The ruling fundamentally changes the legal landscape for gun laws, said Hannah Hill, director of research and policy at the National Foundation for Gun Rights, which filed a brief in the case. Gun rights advocates now can “go on the offense,” Hill said. She hopes the “text, history and tradition” test eventually will lead to a day when people in every state can carry firearms without a permit.

“This is going to have massive implications,” Hill said. “It’s a radical test, and if applied accurately it will have radical results. A lot of gun laws will not be able to withstand Second Amendment scrutiny.”

This is the first major gun case taken up by the Supreme Court since Heller v. District of Columbia in 2008, in which the court established that Americans have the right to keep guns in their homes. The court, however, made it clear in that ruling that states could regulate gun ownership and where people could carry guns.

Gun rights advocates’ excitement over this latest ruling is justified, said Darrell Miller, a professor at Duke University School of Law. There will be a wave of new litigation, he said.

“We can fully expect that gun rights advocates will use the majority opinion and reasoning to challenge not just licensing rules, but every single regulation on the book without clear historical backing,” Miller said.

Gun safety advocates argue the ruling in the New York case will exacerbate the epidemic of gun violence in the United States—a crisis in full view this week when a man killed seven people and injured more than 30 at a Fourth of July parade in Highland Park, Illinois, an affluent suburb north of Chicago.

After Monday’s shooting, Illinois Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker called gun violence a “uniquely American plague,” and rejected the notion that the right to own and carry high-powered weapons has historical backing.

“Our founders carried muskets, not assault weapons,” Pritzker said, “and I don’t think a single one of them would have said that you have a constitutional right to an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine, or that that is more important than the right of the people who attended this parade today to live.”

When gun safety advocate and lawyer Josh Horwitz first saw the Supreme Court decision, he felt “pure outrage.” Horwitz, the co-director of the Center for Gun Violence Solutions at Johns Hopkins University, called the “text, history and tradition” test unworkable and unnecessary. The court, he said, could have struck down New York’s law without inventing a test that invites a “deluge of litigation.”