https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69020207/association-of-new-jersey-rifle-and-pistol-clubs-i-v-attonrey-general-new/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc

Here’s a breakdown of what happens in each step:

Step 1 (by November 18, 2024):

•	The appellants (the parties appealing the lower court’s decision) in two related cases, Nos. 24-2415 and 24-2506, are required to file their opening briefs. These briefs present the arguments for why they believe the lower court’s decision should be reversed or changed.
•	They also must submit a joint appendix, which is a compilation of relevant documents from the case record (evidence, transcripts, etc.) to support their arguments. This filing will cover all three appeals, meaning it will also address issues from appeal No. 24-2450.

Step 2 (by January 8, 2025):

•	The appellees (the parties defending the lower court’s decision) in the cross-appeal case No. 24-2450, who are also cross-appellants (they have their own issues they want reviewed), must file their brief.
•	Their brief will cover two things:
1.	Their arguments on why the lower court’s ruling should be upheld or modified in their own appeal (No. 24-2450).
2.	Their responses to the opening briefs filed by the appellants in Nos. 24-2415 and 24-2506.

Step 3 (by February 7, 2025):

•	The appellants in Nos. 24-2415 and 24-2506 must now respond to the brief filed by the appellees/cross-appellants from Step 2.
•	Additionally, they will file reply briefs that respond to the arguments the other side made about their own appeals. Essentially, they are addressing any points of disagreement from the appellees’ brief.

Step 4 (by February 28, 2025):

•	The appellees/cross-appellants in No. 24-2450 get the final word on the issues in their own appeal (No. 24-2450) by filing a reply brief. This will address any new arguments raised by the appellants in Step 3 about the cross-appeal.

This process ensures that each side has multiple opportunities to present their arguments and respond to the other side before the court makes its decision.

The Supreme Court keeps remanding Second Amendment cases for reconsideration under Rahimi, and the lower courts keep sending them back unchanged. What is going on?

On Thursday, a Second Circuit panel became the third appeals court to revisit a gun case the High Court granted, vacated, and remanded (GVR). They were also the third to return with the same decision as before. Rahimi didn’t change a thing in any of them.

In Antonyuk v. James, the panel unanimously reaffirmed themselves.

“Having reconsidered the prior decision in light of Rahimi, and the parties’ supplemental briefing regarding the effect of that decision on our reasoning in this case, we now issue a revised opinion in Antonyuk,” the panel wrote. “We reach the same conclusions that we reached in our prior consolidated opinion.”

In late August, an Eighth Circuit panel did the same.

“We begin with the Second Amendment challenge, which is back before us on remand after United States v. Rahimi,” the panel wrote in US v. Doss. “In Doss’s view, the federal statute criminalizing possession of firearms by felons, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), is unconstitutional after New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, both on its face and as applied to him. We have already rejected this argument in two recent cases. Together, they spell the end for Doss’s constitutional challenge.”

A few weeks before that, a different Eighth Circuit panel started the trend.

“The case is now on remand from the Supreme Court for further considerationin light of United States v. Rahimi. Rahimi held that 18U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), the federal prohibition on possession of a firearm while subject to a domestic violence restraining order, is constitutional on its face,” the panel wrote in US v. Jackson. “Rahimi does not change our conclusion in this appeal, and we again affirm the judgment of the district court.”

All three of them denied challenges to gun laws. Two of them expounded on why they thought Rahimi reinforced their initial rulings.

In Doss, the panel saw a parallel between Rahimi‘s violent history and Doss‘s background that they argued would doom his case even if it were considered under a lower, as-applied standard.

“Even if he could bring an as-applied challenge, he would not succeed,” the panel wrote. “His lengthy criminal record includes over 20 convictions, many of them violent. It is safe to say that Doss’ pose[s] a credible threat to the physical safety of others.'”

The Antonyuk court went further and tried pinpointing a broader principle from Rahimi.

“[R]ahimi strongly suggests that what matters in the search for historical antecedents of modern firearms regulations is the substance of the regulation, rather than the form,” it said.

That may be a reasonable takeaway from Rahimi, but it isn’t much more specific than or different from the same court’s takeaway from Bruen. Even in cases that haven’t been GVRd, lower courts don’t seem to be coming out much differently than before Rahimi was handed down. So, it may strike some as odd that the Court keeps doing this with every Second Amendment case.

There are a few reasons the Court may be going this route.

The easiest and, perhaps, likeliest explanation is the Court just doesn’t want to get ahead of itself. It doesn’t want to settle more Second Amendment cases until its ruling in Rahimi has percolated through the lower courts. It may want to ensure any case it takes has already seen all of its precedents incorporated into it, with a fully developed record that includes whatever insights the lower courts have to offer.

The other possibility is that the High Court thinks Rahimi is more significant than the lower courts seem to believe. It may be GVRing all these cases with the expectation they’ll come back with different results or, at least, different reasoning. Maybe the justices are unhappy with how little insight the lower courts see in their latest Second Amendment ruling.

It’s impossible to say for sure since the High Court hasn’t said much of anything about why it’s issuing these GVRs. In fact, it just issued another this week.

If the Supreme Court is merely trying to keep its docket tidy, then the only Second Amendment cases with any realistic chance of being heard are the ones that have already taken Rahimi into account. Given the narrow nature of the ruling and how lower courts have reacted to it thus far, that would probably just result in a bit of a delay as activists shift to pushing post-Rahimi test cases to the forefront.

If the Court is using these GVRs to send a message that it doesn’t think lower courts are reading enough into Rahimi, it will probably eventually take up one of those cases in order to make themselves clearer. That could happen sooner rather than later now that there are a few options to choose from on that front.

For now, things may continue on this way for a while. Expect more GVRs from the Supreme Court and more shrugs from the lower courts.

10/31/2024 448 submissions are currently in the queue. We are working on (Wednesday) 10/30/2024 work. The current delay is 1+ day(s).
More Info: www.njnics.com

10/30/2024 360 submissions are currently in the queue. We are working on (Tuesday) 10/29/2024 work. The current delay is 1+ day(s).
More Info: www.njnics.com

Full Suit: https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.anjrpc.org/resource/resmgr/legal_motions___briefs/20241025_doc_1_red_flag_comp.pdf

Summary of the Complaint: David L. Burg and the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Gurbir S. Grewal, et al.

This legal complaint, filed on behalf of David L. Burg and the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs (ANJRPC) against the State of New Jersey, its Attorney General Gurbir S. Grewal, and other state officials, challenges the constitutionality of several state laws related to gun control, specifically the “Extreme Risk Protective Order Act” (ERPO). The plaintiffs argue that these laws infringe on their Second Amendment rights and violate constitutional due process protections.

Background of the Complaint

David L. Burg, a New Jersey resident, lawfully owned firearms for self-defense and sport, but these were seized under an ERPO. This event occurred after an interaction where Burg lawfully displayed a firearm during a confrontation in which he felt threatened. The police intervened, and under the provisions of the ERPO, they confiscated his firearms.

This incident serves as the foundation for the broader challenge to the New Jersey ERPO law, which allows for the removal of firearms from an individual if a judge determines they pose a significant risk of using the gun to harm themselves or others. The ERPO can be issued without prior notice to the gun owner, allowing for firearms to be seized before the individual has an opportunity to defend themselves in court. The plaintiffs argue that this violates due process guarantees under the U.S. Constitution, as well as their Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms.

Legal Claims

1.	Second Amendment Violation:

The complaint asserts that the ERPO statute directly infringes on the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment. The plaintiffs argue that under Supreme Court precedent set by District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), individuals have a fundamental right to possess firearms for self-defense. The ERPO law, which enables the seizure of firearms without sufficient evidence or proper due process, is framed as an unconstitutional prior restraint on this right. The plaintiffs emphasize that Heller established that law-abiding citizens have the right to own firearms in the home for self-defense, and laws that arbitrarily or unjustly remove these firearms without clear evidence of danger cannot stand under the scrutiny of the Second Amendment. The plaintiffs argue that the state’s approach through ERPO laws is an extreme overreach, as it allows firearms to be taken from individuals based solely on suspicion or unsubstantiated claims.

2.	Due Process Clause Violation:

The second primary claim in the complaint is that New Jersey’s ERPO statute violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The ERPO law permits the seizure of firearms through ex parte orders, meaning that a judge can issue the order without the gun owner present or able to provide a defense before their firearms are confiscated. The plaintiffs argue that this lack of an opportunity to be heard before their property is taken is a fundamental violation of due process. According to the complaint, due process requires notice and a fair hearing before depriving an individual of life, liberty, or property. The ex parte process used in ERPO cases is criticized as unjust, especially since the burden of proof is often low, relying on assertions of potential risk rather than concrete evidence. Moreover, the hearing after the seizure often happens days or even weeks later, during which time the individual is deprived of their Second Amendment rights without a proper legal recourse.

3.	Unconstitutional Vagueness:

The plaintiffs also argue that the ERPO law is unconstitutionally vague, violating the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee that laws must be clear and understandable so that individuals can govern their conduct accordingly. The law uses vague standards such as “significant danger” or “reasonable cause” without adequately defining these terms. The complaint states that this lack of clarity makes it impossible for ordinary citizens to know whether their actions might trigger an ERPO and lead to the confiscation of their firearms.

The ambiguity, according to the plaintiffs, allows for arbitrary enforcement and gives law enforcement officials excessive discretion in determining when and how to apply for an ERPO. This vagueness exacerbates the potential for abuse and makes the law difficult to challenge in court because the standards are not precise.

4.	Right to Self-Defense:

Another critical element of the complaint is the argument that the ERPO law undermines an individual’s right to self-defense. The complaint asserts that by disarming individuals without sufficient evidence of wrongdoing or dangerous intent, the state is effectively leaving law-abiding citizens defenseless in situations where they might legitimately need a firearm for protection.

In Burg’s case, the complaint argues that he lawfully displayed his firearm during a confrontation and did not use it improperly. However, the state seized his firearms without adequately considering his need for self-defense. This, according to the plaintiffs, illustrates the broader issue that the ERPO law prioritizes the theoretical possibility of harm over an individual’s immediate and real need to defend themselves and their property.

Relief Sought

The plaintiffs seek both declaratory and injunctive relief. They ask the court to declare that New Jersey’s ERPO law and related firearm confiscation statutes are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Additionally, they request that the court issue an injunction preventing the state from enforcing these laws in the future.

The complaint highlights the significant chilling effect that ERPO laws have on gun ownership, particularly for individuals who may be wary of exercising their Second Amendment rights for fear of having their firearms seized without due process. By challenging these laws, the plaintiffs hope to restore what they see as the proper balance between public safety concerns and constitutional protections.

Broader Implications

This case is part of a growing national trend of litigation challenging “red flag” laws, which allow for the temporary confiscation of firearms from individuals deemed to be a risk to themselves or others. These laws have been enacted in many states as a response to concerns about mass shootings and gun violence, but they have also sparked significant constitutional debates, particularly concerning the right to bear arms and due process protections.

The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the future of red flag laws across the country. If the plaintiffs are successful, it may prompt other states to reconsider or modify their own ERPO statutes to ensure they comply with constitutional standards. Additionally, the case could lead to further clarification from the courts on how Second Amendment rights should be balanced against public safety concerns in the context of firearm regulation.

This expanded summary includes a more detailed discussion of the legal issues, the constitutional claims, and the potential national impact of the case.