Second Amendment cases moving through the courts today will establish the parameters of the right to keep and bear arms for future generations. The Second Amendment Law Center is now at the front lines of those historic battles in states across the country. Below is a representative sampling of just some of the lawsuits that 2ALC or our legal team has been involved in or is currently supporting.

REPRESENTATIVE LITIGATION

California

Duncan v. Becerra, 366 F. Supp. 3d 1131 (S.D. Cal. 2019), aff'd, 970 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2020), reh'g en banc granted, opinion vacated, 988 F.3d 1209 (9th Cir. 2021), and on reh'g en banc sub nom. Duncan v. Bonta, 19 F.4th 1087 (9th Cir. 2021), cert. granted, judgment vacated, 213 L. Ed. 2d 1109, 142 S. Ct. 2895 (2022), and vacated and remanded, 49 F.4th 1228 (9th Cir. 2022), and rev'd and remanded sub nom. Duncan v. Bonta, 19 F.4th 1087 (9th Cir. 2021), and cert. granted, judgment vacated, 213 L. Ed. 2d 1109, 142 S. Ct. 2895 (2022). - This is the famous “freedom week” case that was filed in response to SB 1446 and Prop 63. It is still active. It challenges California’s ban on the acquisition and possession of magazines over ten rounds. Plaintiffs successfully obtained preliminary and permanent injunctions, which were upheld on appeal by a three judge panel at the 9th Circuit. The case was then taken up to an 11 judge panel for an “en banc” review. The en banc panel overturned the three judge panel ruling and reinstated the law. We appealed to the Supreme Court (SCOTUS). SCOTUS held the case until  Bruen was decided, then granted review, vacated (i.e. nullified) the en banc ruling, and sent the case back down to the Ninth Circuit for reconsideration in light of the Bruen ruling. The Ninth Circuit then remanded the case back down to the trial court, which ordered additional briefing and held hearings on how the Bruen standard should be applied. A ruling from District Court judge Benitez is expected any day! 

Fiscal v. San Francisco, 158 Cal. App. 4th 895, 70 Cal. Rptr. 3d 324 (2008). - This case challenged “Prop H,” a ballot initiative that banned civilian residents of San Francisco from possessing handguns and also banned the sale, transfer, and/or distribution of all firearms and ammunition within the city. In June 2006, the Superior Court invalidated the ordinance on preemption grounds. The City appealed and lost in a published opinion that clarified California’s preemption doctrine as applied to local firearms regulations and serves as the current leading precedent on the subject. (158 Cal. App. 4th 895 (Ct. App. 2008.)) The City paid back $380,000 to NRA in attorney’s fees. This victory received significant media coverage and made international news.

Flanagan v. Bonta, No. 18-55717, 2023 WL 1771160 (9th Cir. Feb. 1, 2023). - This case challenged Los Angeles County’s public carry restrictions, which cumulatively prohibit concealed and open carry. The case was stayed as of 2021 pending a ruling in the Young v. Hawaii matter. Ultimately the Ninth Circuit dismissed the case as moot because the issues had been decided in our favor in the Bruen case.

Gentry v. Becerra, No. C089655 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 26, 2021). - This case challenged the DROS fee that applies to a firearm transfer as an unconstitutional tax. The matter was appealed to the California Court of Appeal. The state then changed the law so DROS fees were no longer used for purposes other than a background check, and the state agreed to reimburse our attorney’s fees and costs.

Kirk v. City of Morgan Hill, 83 Cal. App. 5th 976, 299 Cal. Rptr. 3d 879 (2022). - This case challenges the City of Morgan Hill’s 48 hour firearm loss/theft reporting ordinance due to state level preemption. The case was appealed to the California Court of Appeal, which held that preemption didn’t apply.

Parker v. California, 164 Cal. Rptr. 3d 345 (Ct. App. 2013), review granted and opinion superseded sub nom. Parker v. State, 317 P.3d 1184 (Cal. 2014). - This case challenged the various California statutes regulating “handgun ammunition” on the ground that the statutes were unconstitutionally vague. That challenge succeeded in the Fresno County Superior Court and was affirmed by California’s Fifth Appellate District. Former California Attorney General Kamala Harris petitioned the California Supreme Court to review that victory, which the high court granted. Before the case could be heard, however, laws expanding AB 962’s provisions to all ammunition were passed. As a result, the California Supreme Court dismissed the case as moot. But because we were successful in the lower courts, we were entitled to reimbursement of our fees and costs in litigating the case. As a result, California agreed to settle that issue by paying a total of $419,860.20 to cover legal expenses for the lawsuit.

Peruta v. San Diego, 742 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2014), on reh'g en banc, 824 F.3d 919 (9th Cir. 2016), 771 F.3d 570 (9th Cir. 2014). - This case challenged the local jurisdiction’s failure to issue concealed carry licenses to lawful citizens and supports the concept that individuals have the right to carry outside of the home. The Supreme Court issued an order declining to hear the case, but not without a strong dissenting opinion from newly appointed Justice Gorsuch and Justice Thomas, highlighting how the “en banc” panel improperly declined to answer the core question of the case. The Peruta case changed a lot of minds among authorities that issue permits to carry a concealed firearm, and as a result, the number of permits in certain jurisdictions skyrocketed, even before the Bruen decision came from the Supreme Court, which did away with the “good cause” requirement.

Rhode v. Becerra - 342 F. Supp. 3d 1010 (S.D. Cal. 2018). - This active case challenges Proposition 63 and Senate Bill 1235’s restrictions that impose background checks and other burdens on the purchase of ammunition. Plaintiffs obtained a preliminary injunction in 2020, which is on appeal before the 9th Circuit.

Richards v. Prieto – 560 F. App’x 681 (9th Cir. 2014). – Filed an amicus brief in this action in support of plaintiffs seeking to challenge California’s firearm carry laws and pave the way toward a permissive carry system.

Rodriguez v. City of San Jose - 930 F.3d 1123 (9th Cir. 2019). - Filed an amicus curiae brief in this action to challenge the customs, policies, practices, and procedures of seizing and retaining firearms in conjunction with a mental health and welfare check under California’s Welfare and Institutions Code; when firearms are taken from homes that have California approved gun safes and at least one responsible and qualified person to take custody of the firearms.

Rupp v. Becerra - 401 F. Supp. 3d 978 (C.D. Cal. 2019), vacated and remanded sub nom. Rupp v. Bonta, No. 19-56004, 2022 WL 2382319 (9th Cir. June 28, 2022). - This still active case challenges California’s highly restrictive “assault weapons” regulatory regime. The matter is fully submitted before the 9th Circuit but was remanded to the trial court in light of Bruen. Motions for summary judgment are pending.

Silvester v. Harris, 843 F.3d 816 (CA9 2016). – Filed an amicus curiae brief in this action in support of plaintiffs seeking to overturn California’s waiting period for purchasers who already own firearms.

Villanueva v. Becerra - No. F078062, 2021 WL 129748 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 14, 2021). - This case is a challenge to the California Department of Justice’s adoption of certain “assault weapon” regulations.

United States v. Fencl - 21-CR-3101 JLS (S.D. Cal. 2022). - The right of a court to remove firearms from an individual as a condition of pretrial release before they have been proven guilty is challenging.

United States v. Perez-Garcia - No. 22-50314, 2023 WL 2596689 (9th Cir. Jan. 26, 2023). - challenged the court’s authority to remove firearms from an individual as a condition of pretrial release before they have been proven guilty.

Delaware

The Second Amendment Law Center is currently monitoring and preparing to assist in three federal challenges to Delaware's bans on the possession, sale, and transfer of any semi-automatic firearm the state has designated as an "assault weapon" and on certain magazines based on their capacity.

All three cases—Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association v. Delaware Dep’t of Homeland Security, Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association v. Delaware Department of Safety and Homeland Security, 23-1633, (D. Del. 2023.), Gray v. Jennings, Gray v. Jennings, 1:22-cv-01500, (D. Del. 2022.), and Graham v. Jennings, Graham v. Jennings, 1:23-cv-00033 (D.N.M. 2005.) —are on appeal to the Third Circuit from orders of the District Court of Delaware denying the plaintiff's requests for preliminary injunctive relief. The unconstitutional ban remains in effect while the case is on appeal.

The Third Circuit consolidated the appeals for purposes of scheduling and disposition. The plaintiffs-appellants are expected to file their briefs by July 3, 2023, seeking to reverse the trial court's ruling and strike down the laws as unconstitutional.

 2ALC's legal team is working with the parties and their lawyers to launch a comprehensive amicus brief campaign supporting the plaintiffs-appellants and the right to keep and bear arms for all Delaware citizens. Amici briefs are currently due on July 10.

District of Columbia

Grace v. District of Columbia, 461 US 171 (D.D.C. 2017). - Filed an amicus curiae brief in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals supporting plaintiffs’ lawsuit seeking to overturn D.C.’s restriction on concealed carry licenses as unconstitutional. The D.C. Circuit issued its decision declaring Washington D.C.’s “good reason” requirement for the issuance of a CCW as a violation of the Second Amendment. The Court also issued a permanent injunction prohibiting D.C. from enforcing the requirement.

Heller v. District of Columbia,832 F. Supp. 2d 32 (D.D.C. 2011). – Authored and coordinated several amicus briefs to the United States Supreme Court on behalf of 29 California elected District Attorneys, various law enforcement groups, and others. This case resulted in the Supreme Court’s acknowledgment that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental individual right to self-defense. The case received significant media coverage and became the premiere case on Second Amendment law and the right to bear arms.

Florida

Henderson v. United States, 555 Fed. App’x. 851 (2015). - Filed an amicus curiae brief with the United States Supreme Court. The question presented is whether such a conviction prevents a court under Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure or under general equity principles from ordering that the government (1) transfer non–contraband firearms to an unrelated third party to whom the defendant has sold all his property interests or (2) sell the firearms for the benefit of the defendant. The Second, Fifth, and Seventh Circuits and the Montana Supreme Court all allow lower courts to order such transfers or sales; the Third, Sixth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits, by contrast, bar them.

Hawaii

Livingston v. Ballard, 91 So. 3d 311 (La. Ct. App. 2012). - Challenge Hawaii’s de facto ban on issuing concealed carry licenses to lawful ordinary citizens. Obtained a formal judgment preventing Hawaii from requiring applicants for a permit to carry in public from proving a special need for one. Recovered attorney’s fees from the state.

Young v. Hawaii, 992 F.3d 765 (9th Cir. 2021). – Filed an amicus curiae brief in this action in support of plaintiffs seeking to overturn Hawaii’s arbitrary concealed carry permit issuance regime.

Illinois

Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois v. Pritzker, Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois v. Pritzker, 3:23-cv-00215 (S.D. Ill. 2023). - The challenges the State of Illinois “assault weapon” ban that prohibits residents of Illinois from acquiring, possessing, transferring, or repairing hundreds of firearms that are in common use in America today. You can view a copy of the newly filed complaint here.

Hatfield v. Session, 322 F. Supp. 3d 885 (S.D. Ill. 2018). - Filed an amicus curiae brief in this case in support of the plaintiff who brought an “as applied’ challenge to his federal firearms prohibition under section 922(g).

New York

New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. City of New York, 140 S. Ct. 1525 (2020). - An amicus curiae brief will be filed, and this case will be heard on appeal to the Supreme Court soon. This is an action to vindicate the right of the people of the State of New York to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits infringement of the right of law-abiding citizens to keep commonly possessed firearms in the home for defense of self and family and for other lawful purposes.