Typically, filing a pro se petition in the Supreme Court is a near-hopeless endeavor. Cert odds are very tough as it is, but when you don't even have a lawyer, it gets even tougher.

But the Court did something interesting in this case, as it requested a response to the petition from Maryland. That definitely does not mean cert is guaranteed, but it is some indication that there is a modicum of interest from the Court to hear more about a petition.

Ms. Gardner was arrested in Maryland for carrying without that state's permit, but she did have a Virginia permit. Her story is a compelling one, and after the Supreme Court requested a response, we decided to support the petition with this brief.

A thread on some of the points we make.

https://x.com/2AFDN/status/1999199851410759710

Our brief begins with the story of Lloyd Muldrow, who like Ms. Gardner, was arrested in Maryland while carrying with only a Virginia permit.

But his facts are even more enraging, as he was arrested after an act of heroism for which he won a Carnegie Medal. As the news reported, "police thanked him, and then arrested him."

The United States has filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioners in Wolford v Lopez, the case concerning Hawaii's "Vampire Rule" law which requires those with carry permits to get consent before entering any private property, even businesses otherwise open to the public.

The brief represents the first time the United States Department of Justice has filed an amicus brief in support of the Second Amendment and gun rights litigants in a case granted review by the Supreme Court. It follows their earlier support of the Wolford petition at the cert stage, which was likely a major reason the case was granted review in the first place. The United States writes that Hawaii's restriction is "blatantly unconstitutional as applied to private property open to the public. States cannot evade Bruen by banning public carry through indirect means."

Our motion for summary judgment makes two main sets of arguments. First, the NFA's regulations of untaxed "firearms" exceeds Congress's constitutional authority. Second, the NFA's regulation of suppressors and SBRs violates the Second Amendment.

A thread on the highlights of our motion for summary judgment.

https://x.com/2AFDN/status/1988676915381899623

The NFA has always been justified as an exercise in the taxing power. That is how then-Attorney General Homer Cummings explained it in 1934, and it's how every court since has upheld it.

We are live in the Third Circuit, which started a couple of minutes early. Erin Murphy arguing for Plaintiffs currently.

In a case we are closely watching:

A Ninth Circuit panel has overturned California’s burdensome and error-prone ammunition background check regime in a case we have been watching closely, Rhode v. Bonta. We congratulate our friends and frequent litigation partners at CRPA on this significant win.

Besides such background checks being unprecedented, the other big problem with California’s system is it does not even work well, worsening the constitutional concerns with it. By the state’s own admission, it wrongly denied over 10% of applicants who tried to use it, and the State did not bother to tell those people why they were denied, so many did not subsequently purchase ammunition. Data that Judge Benitez forced the State to disclose showed that of the 7,342 people wrongly rejected in January of 2023, only 62.9% managed to successfully purchase ammunition by July 1, 2023. Over a third, around 2700 people, were either denied their rights or forced to purchase ammunition through illegal means.

To make matters worse, this background check costs a dollar each time you do it, and it will now be increasing to $5. If you do not have a firearm registered at your current address, then you have to do a costlier $19 background check to purchase ammunition.

We are relieved the panel ruled correctly, but of course given this is the Ninth Circuit, en banc review is certainly possible.

🧵👇 For some more background, here is a chart submitted by California DOJ showing the data for the first six months of 2023.

Look at the ratio between people denied ammunition because they are a prohibited person, compared to people denied due to a records mismatch. 141 vs. 58,057. For every prohibited person the system stops from buying ammunition, it blocks about 411 law-abiding citizens from their purchases.

Even setting aside constitutional concerns (and we certainly do not!), this system simply does not work.