The importance of the choice is that around the time of the 14th (1866-68) *some* gun controls had been enacted, whereas at the time of the 2nd (1789-91) virtually none had been (even limits on concealed carry were unknown). Although this in turn begs the question: isn't something more than one or two states, or a handful of city ordinances, required to support an argument that *the entire country* accepted the form of restriction being documented? You can hardly take the actions of a few city councils as proof of how an entire generation of Americans thought.
]]>"Sgt. Major George K. Young Jr. (Retired U.S. Army Green Beret) passed on earlier this week. He was my first client I represented on my own. Prior to meeting me, he had filed two pro se lawsuit against Hawaii's concealed carry restrictions. That means he was his own lawyer. I corresponded with him while working on my first federal case. Shortly, there after he told me he was going to file a third lawsuit. After he was dismissed a third time, I agreed to represent him on appeal. Together we took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, prevailed and compelled the counties in Hawaii to adopt the Bruen ruling which made them begin to issue concealed carry permits for the first time in Hawaiian history. My first Second Amendment case was supposed to be a one off and I had no intention of filing any subsequent cases until I met George. He convinced me to keep filing cases and often helped me research colonial history which he was an expert in. He taught me a lot during the ten years I represented him. Everything that we've accomplished in Hawaii is thanks to George. He inspired the whole movement we are a part of. He was a dear friend and he will be deeply missed."
Here is an article on Sgt. Young.
]]>In this case, a panel had struck down Maryland's permit requirements, and the court voted to take that en banc. While it was at it, it voted to take two more appeals en banc, even though the panels hadn't yet ruled. I've never seen that done before.
]]>Josh points out there is another case pending on cert (vote likely to be taken later this month), which is the converse. In the Range case, the prohibited person was such due to a conviction for welfare fraud, years ago. The Third Circuit upheld a Second Amendment as-applied challenge to the statute. If the Supreme Court grants cert, there could be an interesting interplay between the two cases.
]]>Cargill will be interesting. For quite some time the courts have given "Chevron deference" to an agency's interpretation of ambiguous statutes. Some members of the Court have challenged that, as abdication of the Court's responsibilities. Cargill is a fine vehicle for challenging that, since ATF reversed its position on bump-stocks (I seem to recall more than once). How does a court defer to agency positions that are completely opposed to each other? Did the meaning of Congress's enactment somehow change, without Congress touching it?
]]>SAF, Crossroads of the West, and others get a preliminary injunction against a California law forbidding gun shows at government-owned facilities. The judge finds that the law violates both the First and the Second Amendments, as incorporated.
]]>