Missouri Attorney General Sues ATF over NFA restrictions on suppressors and SBRs
ST. LOUIS — Adding to the bevy of suits already challenging NFA restrictions by the ATF, the Missouri attorney general filed an additional lawsuit on behalf of the state and a private citizen on September 8, marking the first such individual state challenge.
While other lawsuits represented a coalition of state and gun rights groups, State of Missouri v. ATF (filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri) represents a lone state challenge to the post-excise tax NFA registration rules still being enforced by the ATF.
The suit similarly challenges both the constitutionality of the NFA given the repeal of the excise tax, as well as the registration requirements and their attendant regulatory burden and administrative costs. “Had there been no tax or registration requirements on these firearms, use would be orders of magnitude more common. No historical tradition supports the regulation of these firearms,” states the complaint.
“Law and order and the Second Amendment go hand in hand. A government that respects the Constitution has empowered, law-abiding citizens who can protect themselves and their families. It does not paper over rights with red tape,” said General Hanaway in a press release. “The ATF’s heavy-handed restrictions on suppressors threaten lawful firearm use and undermine the rights protected by the Second Amendment.”
27 states file amicus brief to SCOTUS in support of lawsuit challenging AR-15 ban
WASHINGTON — Viramontes is quickly becoming one of the most high-profile cases of the decade, representing both the Supreme Court’s first-ever so-called assault weapons ban case and a case in which the Department of Justice is taking a historic stand on the concept of categorical firearms bans.
On September 4, more than half of the states in the Union joined the fray, with a joint amicus brief from 27 states in support of the petitioners.
The brief opens with a statement of interest that reads, “If there is anything this Court’s near century of Second Amendment jurisprudence teaches, it is that ‘the government cannot completely ban an arm in common use for lawful purposes.'”
Addressing the tension between federal and states’ rights, the brief states:
Amici States also, as a general matter, assiduously defend the rights of state legislatures to address policy issues as they see fit. “But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table,” – including a wholesale ban on semiautomatic rifles in common use for lawful purposes.
Ironically, inked prominently at the top of the brief’s opening page is the name of Jonathan Skrmetti, attorney general of Tennessee, who has fought aggressively to maintain archaic Tennessee gun control measures, framing arguments against them as “abstract categories of constitutionality.”
DOJ requests permission to participate in oral arguments in Viramontes AWB case
WASHINGTON — Following its submission of an amicus brief in support of the petitioners in the historic Viramontes case before the Supreme Court of the United States, the DOJ has filed a motion for leave to participate in oral arguments as well.
The September 9 filing asked the court to permit the Solicitor General the opportunity to participate in the oral arguments in this consolidated case, with 20 minutes to petitioners, 10 minutes to the United States, and 30 minutes to respondents.
The United States has a substantial interest in the preservation of the right to keep and bear arms and in the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment. The United States previously presented oral argument as amicus curiae in other Second Amendment cases.
Florida judge on firearms waiting period: why aren’t we dismissing this case?
TAMPA, Fla. — A Florida judge seems dumbstruck at the relative inaction of both parties after Attorney General James Uthmeier moved to settle a lawsuit against the state’s three-day waiting period to take possession of firearms, in this NRA-backed case.
In early June, AG Uthmeier – a staunch Second Amendment advocate – agreed the Florida law was unconstitutional and moved to settle the suit.
But on September 9, Judge Steven Merryday noted “the docket in this action reveals no material record activity, such as a motion to dismiss, a motion for summary judgment, or the like,” adding, “The absence of adversarial presentations is striking.”
Based on a complaint, an answer, and the acceptance of an offer of judgment but without adversarial briefing or other argument and despite an array of opinion among the circuits on the governing issue in the action, the parties request a summary adjudication on a matter currently the subject of intense debate and litigation around the country, that affects the United States and the Florida constitutions, and that resolves the validity of a Florida statute.
Judge Merryday observes that the subject itself is contentious enough that many courts around the country are split on the matter, yet in this case there doesn’t seem to be any genuine controversy because both parties agree. As such, he questions the suit.
He is ordering both parties to brief the court (with citations) on why he shouldn’t dismiss the case, and is giving them 14 days to respond.
Catholic Bishops claim to take no side in amicus brief in Viramontes before SCOTUS
WASHINGTON — Among the nearly two dozen briefs submitted to the Supreme Court in the pending Viramontes case addressing assault weapons bans, one from a religious group has caught significant attention.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops submitted a brief “in support of neither party,” and stated that “it takes no position on the facial constitutionality of the specific state statute and county ordinance at issue here.”
Yet a more critical reading reveals a position that appears to favor substantial gun control, at least as it relates to semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15.
The brief goes on to urge the court to “reject the view that gun ownership figures alone can place a category of weapons constitutionally and irrevocably beyond all regulation.”
If that statement wasn’t clear, they also offer this statement:
Amicus urges, however, that the Court decide this case in a manner that preserves the traditional authority of political communities to regulate weapons capable of exceptional violence and that threaten the public peace.
Missing from the brief is the fact that our nation has a tradition of supporting and even requiring armed churches, as we’ve covered in detail in our article on church security through the ages.
