Maryland moves to dismiss petition to Supreme Court defending public carry ban
ANNAPOLIS, Md. — On April 20, Maryland petitioned the Supreme Court to hear a case in which the state believes its carry ban on private property open to the public is constitutional, submitting a lengthy, 139-page brief.
In January, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit largely upheld Maryland’s sensitive locations carry bans in a 94-page decision, with the exception of the private property element.
On August 10, they withdrew that petition, perhaps looking to secure the victories already established, and recognizing that the Supreme Court’s June decision in Wolford would almost certainly dictate an outcome not in the state’s favor.
While not a victory for gun owners, per se, the state’s move doesn’t further impinge on gun owners’ rights as it pertains to carry.
Judge Kacsmaryk strikes down ATF’s ongoing attempt to defend “Engaged in the Business” rule
AMARILLO, Texas — Make no mistake, although the ATF and Justice Department are under new leadership, the ATF continues to fight for gun control measures, and this week Judge Kacsmaryk again struck down its request, calling it, “Too clever by half.”
The judge issued an August 13 order in State of Texas v. ATF denying the ATF’s request to alter the court’s final judgment issued in June vacating the Biden-era “Engaged in the Business” Final Rule that was the cause of numerous wrongful convictions. (See full coverage on the contested rule.)
The ATF’s request and argument? “[V]acatur of the Rule in its entirety is not warranted by the holdings reached by the Court and is not necessary to remedy the harms alleged by the Plaintiffs.”
They also beg the court not to “burden” the agency, a line that would elicit ridicule and condemnation from every gun owner from coast to coast. “Vacatur of the Rule as a whole will be unduly burdensome to the [ATF] as it seeks to replace the Rule through the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (the “NPRM”).”
To his great credit, Judge Kacsmaryk sees directly through this argument, noting, “…the Engaged in the Business Rule had one goal: universal background checks. Defendants concede as much in their Reply…”
He denied the motion and succinctly stated, “The Engaged in the Business Final Rule remains VACATED in its entirety.”
Gun rights group seeks clarity on questions in victory over the NFA
Gun owners are properly celebrating after portions of the NFA were struck down and the government decided not to appeal the stay with the passing of the August 12 deadline.
However, millions of gun owners have more questions than answers. An August 13 open letter from the Firearms Policy Coalition, which backed the case, seeks answers to some of the most commonly asked questions, including:
- Will the Government be providing guidance to regulated entities and individuals on how it plans to ensure compliance with the injunction?
- If the Government will be providing guidance, what form will it take, and when will it be provided?
- Does the Government intend to continue enforcing the enjoined provisions of the NFA against entities or individuals who are not covered by the injunction?
- If so, what will the Government do to ensure that it does not seek to enforce the enjoined provisions of the NFA against entities and individuals across the country who are covered by the injunction?
- If the injunction is later stayed, modified, dissolved, or otherwise made ineffective, how will the Government treat NFA items made or transferred while the injunction was in effect?
The letter was sent by law firm Cooper & Kirk, representing the plaintiffs, to the DOJ Civil Division attorney, Jody D. Lowenstein, and seeks a response by August 21.
Related, the Second Amendment Foundation, also a backer of the case, set up an FAQ page on their website to answer questions for those who are protected plaintiffs by virtue of being SAF/CCRKBA members.
DOJ admits that carrying a firearm in a post office is a “lawful purpose”
WASHINGTON — On August 13, the Department of Justice made a huge admission: law-abiding Americans who carry a firearm into a post office open to the public are not breaking the law.
The DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) gives formal legal advice to the executive branch (the president, attorney general, etc.). The 28-page guidance produced by Lanora C. Pettit, principal deputy assistant attorney general, was addressed to the attorney general (Todd Blanche), and concluded that:
But we ultimately need not reach that issue here, as Congress has exempted the “lawful carrying” of firearms or other dangerous weapons “incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.” 18 U.S.C. § 930(d)(3). Because carrying arms for self-defense when entering a building held open to the public is a paradigmatic “lawful purpose[],” that exception permits the lawful carrying of constitutionally protected firearms in post offices.
Based upon this, we may expect to see further guidance from the Justice Department. In January of this year, the OLC issued similar guidance related to the 1927 ban on mailing “concealable” firearms, subsequent to a lawsuit, Shreve v. United States Postal Service, challenging the century-old ban.
