The National Rifle Association (NRA) and affiliated parties are suing the governor of California along with a number of Los Angeles area and other government officials in response to the decision to close gun stores due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiffs, which include individuals, nonprofits, and a gun retailer, allege that the Los Angeles County Sheriff's decision to order gun retailers to close because of their "non-essential" business status violates the constitutional right to bear arms. The suit also claims that current county and state-wide orders affecting gun store operations are unconstitutionally vague.
Last week, a federal judge in Santa Ana, California ruled that the Second Amendment does not prevent California from enacting reasonable gun safety laws. This case arose when the California Rifle and Pistol Association, part of the National Rifle Association, challenged a state law that prevents California residents from making, owning,…
On Thursday, August 16, 2018, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed a Texas District Court's dismissal of a lawsuit brought by three University of Texas at Austin professors. Professors Jennifer Lynn Glass, Lisa Moore, and Mia Carter challenged a Texas law permitting the concealed carry of handguns on the University of Texas campus, along with a University of Texas policy forbidding professors from banning concealed weapons in classrooms.
Today a federal judge in Seattle issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) preventing a Texas man from publishing online the blueprints for making guns using a 3D printer. The attorneys general of eight states and the District of Columbia filed the lawsuit Monday in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington.
On Tuesday, July 24, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in a 2-1 ruling held that the Second Amendment grants the right to carry guns openly outside the home. With three federal appeals courts having found no right to carry guns openly in public, the issue seems ripe for United States Supreme Court interpretation.