In a bizarre ruling from a District Court judge in the 5th U.S. District, injunctive relief has been granted to the plaintiffs in a case known as Reese v. ATF, but limits the judgment to members of the plaintiff organizations living in Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana, and ordered that lists of members as of Nov. 6, 2020 be provided to the ATF within 21 days.
The case is seeking to get full Second Amendment rights to young adults in the 18-20-year age group who wish to purchase handguns, but are currently prohibited by federal law.
The plaintiff organizations are the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition and Louisiana Shooting Association, and as of this writing, SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut is essentially saying, “Wait a minute.”
In a statement released by SAF, Kraut declared, “The practical effect of this order is almost laughable if it wasn’t so frustrating and didn’t impact the Second Amendment rights of thousands of individuals. What the court has done here is say that this law is unconstitutional, but in order for an 18-year-old to avoid having their constitutional rights trounced by it today they must live in one of only three states in the nation and have been the member of SAF at age 13. And even then, they’re only covered if SAF discloses their membership to the government under duress. We’re currently examining our options in relation to the relief granted and will vigorously defend our members’ right to free association and privacy of such.”
The ruling appears to create problems with the First, Fourth and Fourteenth amendments, in terms of freedom of association, privacy and equal protection.
In his ruling, District Judge Robert Rees Summerhays, a Donald Trump appointee, wrote, “The Court enters declaratory judgment…with respect to (a) Caleb Reese, Joseph Granich, Emily Naquin, and (b) individuals and federally licensed firearms importers, manufacturers, dealers or collectors who were members of Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., Second Amendment Foundation, or Louisiana Shooting Association at the time this action was filed on November 6, 2020.”
Reese—for whom the case is named—Granich and Naquin are individual plaintiffs along with the named associations.
As spelled out in the SAF statement, and reiterated by Kraut to Ammoland in a telephone conversation, “the Court appears to have adopted the Government’s position that the scope of the injunction – who’s protected by it – is a population of people that is essentially zero. In so doing the court simultaneously declares the challenged ban to violate the rights of individuals aged 18 to 20 but allows its continued enforcement against all of them.”
The Firearms Policy Coalition issued a statement which was a little more blunt, calling Judge Summerhays’ ruling “legally baseless and morally bankrupt.”
“To be clear,” the statement says, “FPC has never provided a list of its members to the government—and never will. Our legal team is already taking action to urgently address this appalling order. We will commence appellate proceedings as necessary to protect our members and effectuate the Fifth Circuit’s decision in our favor. Further updates will be provided as the case proceeds.”
Long story short, the court is making this such a narrow victory that it may not be a victory at all, and it does not apply to anyone outside of the Fifth District, and also doesn’t apply to anyone who wasn’t a member as of November 2020, and who is outside the affected age group.
In the SAF statement, founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb observed, “Today’s Judgment in Reese challenges commonly accepted standards of associational standing and relief. SAF brings these cases on behalf of our members and through the generous support of our members. When we win, the relief we’ve secured rightly flows through to the entire membership and not just a small subset.”
Now what? Attorneys for the plaintiffs will likely try to get some resolution with the Fifth Circuit, and beyond that, the question may have to go to the U.S. Supreme Court.
If Summerhays’ ruling is allowed to stand, it could create a nightmare of litigation, with courts requiring membership disclosures from any organization bringing a lawsuit on any constitutional issue. And, because this ruling is limited to three states, plaintiff organizations in all the other circuits would apparently have to bring their own lawsuits, which could result in a patchwork of potentially conflicting rulings from one circuit to another, suggested one legal source.
About Dave Workman
Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.
from https://ift.tt/BMtHnRO
via IFTTT
.
