Update to
Bianchi v Frosh, now Brown (MD AW ban) -
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...r-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-8#post-12374752
After more than a year of post Bruen ruling silence, we have activity with oral arguments tentatively scheduled for 3/20/24 -
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...1/2024.01.12_076_En_Banc_ORDER.pdf?1705099281
ORDER
A majority of judges in regular active service and not disqualified having voted in a requested poll of the court to grant rehearing en banc,
IT IS ORDERED that rehearing en banc is granted.The parties and amicus curiae shall file 16 additional paper copies of their briefs and appendices previously filed in this case within 10 days.This case is tentatively calendared for oral argument during the next available argument session.
Update to
Lane v Rocah (NY AW ban) -
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66692907/lane-v-james/
Judge allows challenge to NY assault weapons ban to proceed -
https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...allenge-to-ny-assault-weapons-ban-to-proceed/
- District court judge Kenneth Karas denied motion by state to dismiss the lawsuit arguing court did not have jurisdiction to address plaintiffs’ claims and plaintiffs “fail to establish that any injury-in-fact is traceable to the assault weapons ban” because they do not say they hold a license required to buy a semiautomatic rifle
- Judge Karas wrote “While there may be serious questions about Plaintiffs’ exemption argument, the Court need not address that question here because Plaintiffs adequately allege standing under Defendants’ interpretation of the statute,” ... “Put simply, Defendants have failed to explain how invalidating the Assault Weapons Ban would have no effect on the ability to obtain licenses for those same weapons,”
- State argued for dismissal because plaintiffs did not “suffered an injury-in-fact” but judge Karas wrote individuals “have also demonstrated that they face a credible threat of enforcement if they follow through with attempting to acquire assault weapons.”
From the ruling -
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...99/2024.01.14_057_ORDER_on_MTD.pdf?1704731499
This case arises out of relatively simple facts. Plaintiffs claim that they intend to purchase specific models of assault weapons, but New York has long prohibited their possession. Plaintiffs believe that law is unconstitutional given the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen ...
New York has long criminalized the possession of “assault weapons.” ... Plaintiffs are two Westchester residents who claim they intend to keep and bear assault weapons for various purposes, including home defense and target shooting ... Plaintiffs allege that AR-15 style weapons are in common use throughout the country, citing various surveys and gun-sale statistics, and similarly allege that they are appropriate for self-defense and hunting ... would immediately acquire their desired AR-15-model firearms were it not for New York’s enforcement of the Assault Weapons Ban and the associated threat of prosecution ...
New York law prohibits an individual from purchasing or possessing a “semiautomatic rifle” without a license ... New York’s “shall-issue” licensing provision, in turn, directs the state to issue a “license for a semiautomatic rifle, other than an assault weapon or disguised gun,” if applicants meet certain criteria ... Defendants argue that two results flow from these provisions:
(a) Plaintiffs cannot obtain any semiautomatic weapon without a license, and
(b) it is impossible to obtain a license for an assault weapon because they are excluded from the provision authorizing licenses for semiautomatic weapons generally ...
First, Plaintiffs’ desire to possess assault weapons involves a course of conduct affected with a constitutional interest. The Supreme Court has held that the Second Amendment protects“the sorts of weapons” that are “in common use” for “lawful purposes like self defense.”District of Columbia v. Heller ...
Second, the weapons Plaintiffs seek to purchase are “squarely proscribed” by the Assault Weapons Ban. The statute defines “[a]ssault weapon” as,among other things, semiautomatic rifles, with detachable magazines and certain military-stylef eatures, including “a flash suppressor, muzzle break, [or] muzzle compressor.” N.Y. Penal Law§ 265.00(22)(a) ...
Third, Plaintiffs have also demonstrated that they face a credible threat of enforcement if they follow through with attempting to acquire assault weapons ...
Conclusion
For the aforementioned reasons, Defendants’ Motions are denied. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the pending Motions. (Dkt. Nos. 37, 40.)
Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, which the Court previously held in abeyance pending this Opinion, (see Memo Endorsement (Dkt. No. 28)), is due by no later than February 9, 2024. Defendants shall file responses by no later than March 11, 2024, and Plaintiffs shall reply by no later than March 25, 2024.
SO ORDERED.