The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit revived a case allowing plaintiffs who had been arrested for carrying guns in Los Angeles prior to the Bruen decision to proceed with their claims against the city and LAPD.
In Matthews et al. v. City of Los Angeles, Circuit Judges Clifton, Ikuta, and Forrest issued a five-page decision where they agreed that:
The district court erred in dismissing the Second Amendment claims brought by Hunn and Hearns. Under Bruen, Los Angeles’s no-issue policy is unconstitutional.
They also agreed that the plaintiffs have Article III standing, meaning a real injury traced to the defendant’s actions can be remedied through a Court’s ruling.
The Court also rejected the LAPD’s argument that they needed to apply for a permit to have standing, acknowledging it would have been futile. The invocation of the futility doctrine is itself a major reason that the Court agrees there is standing for the case.
In framing the case for the plaintiffs’ argument, the Court summarized:
In other words, the complaint plausibly alleges that if Los Angeles had a Constitutional shall-issue licensing regime, under which persons could obtain CCW licenses for the purpose of general self-defense, Hunn and Hearns would have had such licenses, and the officers would have lacked probable cause to arrest them. Accordingly, Hunn and Hearns adequately allege that Los Angeles’s no-issue policy caused their arrests.
The Ninth Circuit Decision overturns the district court’s dismissal and remands it back to the lower court.
Ironically, the non-California resident and defendant for whom the case draws its name, Matthews, had passed the two-year statute of limitations to bring his claims before Bruen had been published, and his case will be thrown out. He was also the only defendant to bring a Fourteenth Amendment claim on which the statute of limitations had also passed.
Several gun rights groups were involved in this case, including the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), which filed an amicus brief, and the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA).
Regarding this case, CRPA President Chuck Michel made the following statement on Twitter:
CRPA led the charge in submitting amicus briefs in this case. This decision will be used to help us force LAPD to issue CCWs faster. Support CRPA’s CCW Reckoning Project as we force jurisdictions across California that are charging too much or taking too long to issue CCWs.
