Both Ceasefire Oregon and the Washington-based Alliance for Gun Responsibility have one-gun-per-month provisions in their legislative agendas.
It’s been an interesting week for the Ninth Circus. First they slapped down a former Supreme Court Justice’s brother’s attempt
The court as a whole and the two concurrences hurtle pell-mell toward making it virtually impossible for plaintiffs like Mexico to successfully plead their claims.
Three years ago, SCOTUS ruled in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen that the Second Amendment is not a second-class right. Regrettably, not every state got the message.
How is this going to flesh out? We’ll have to see if the AGs are granted a sweeping nationwide injunction on the settlement. Or maybe this will all be a waste of taxpayer funds on another politically motivated frivolous lawsuit.
Mexico’s amorphous theory of liability is seriously in question after the Smith & Wesson decision. As was true in that case, Mexico’s allegations in the Arizona lawsuit likewise constitute a generalized complaint about how firearms are sold in the US.
Going forward, courts and would-be plaintiffs should heed the Supreme Court’s admonition that “capacious” interpretations of the PLCAA’s exceptions – especially those that “swallow most of the rule” – will not fly.
For those fluent in federal firearm law, the judge’s comment, “did not possess all parts of destructive devices” is simply unbelievable. It damns the prosecution, their ATF “expert” and the judge herself.
The case revolves around Jamond M. Rush, who was charged with being in possession of an unregistered SBR. He has been convicted and sentenced to 30 months in prison “for possessing a firearm that is in common use for lawful purposes.”
As the Court dithers, Rhode Islanders with magazines holding more than ten rounds and Marylanders owning a banned “assault rifle” face real felony charges. Those are charges that aren’t applicable to citizens in most of the rest of the United States.
