by William Kirk
Hello again everyone. Welcome to Washington Gun Law tv. I am Washington Gun Law President William Kirk. Thanks for joining us. Hey, a lot of you ask all the time, why do we even bother trying to fight some of these gun laws? The courts are all in on it anyways. They're going to uphold it. And yes, depending on the jurisdiction you're in, that may in fact be the case. However, we have to keep fighting because number one, it's the principle of it. Number two, it's the importance of the rights that we're trying to defend. And number three, if ever there is a time to have litigation that could get to the Supreme Court as it relates to the Second Amendment, the time actually would be right. Now, I'm going to give you two examples that come from opposite sides of the country, but it really does go to show that if you just keep banging your head into the wall, yes, sometimes good things can happen. So today, let's geek out and let's talk about two huge wins on opposite sides of the country.
What do you got there, man? T Pack. Oh, sweet. Attack Pack. Nice. Oh, what's Attack Pack? That's the new sponsor of the channel. So what's in Attack Pack? Oh, what's in attack Pack? Well, here's the best thing. It is a monthly subscription of all sorts of tactical gear, and I mean, they got a lot of really cool stuff. The best part about it is that they actually have two separate subscription models. So they got their Tac Pack standard, which ships at 59 95 a month. Best thing about that is it really has a value of about somewhere between 90 and $120. And then they got the Tac Pack plus. Now that ships at 139.95 a month, but oh, check this out. They actually have a value of somewhere between 240 and $300. Wow, that's pretty cool. Yeah, it's super cool. And here's the coolest part yet, because if you sign up right now for the Tac Pack Plus and you use the promo code Gun Law yt, you're going to get an extra $60 everyday carry kit, which means that your initial investment for less than $140, you're going to be ended up getting over $300 worth of tactical gear.
Listen, look at some of the cool things you're going to get if you subscribe to Tack Pack today. So get down there, check out the link below. Make sure you use the promo code Gun Law yt Checkout Tac Pack. Okay? Let's just get a couple of the formalities out of the way. Neither the state of California nor the state of New York had a good week this week. We'll talk about both of those, but I tell you who did have a good week. That's right, the good folks over at the Firearms Policy Coalition because both of the cases, and I did mention we're talking about big wins here. Both of these cases we're spearheaded by the good folks over at FPC, which means yes, we will have a link down below in the description box. So if you want to show 'em some love, you can do that.
Now the other thing is, is we're going to be talking about one of these two cases comes from the state of California. It's been a while since I got to do this, but I got to give a shout out to our first ever California subscriber. Of course, that's Philippi down there spreading the Gospel of Washington gun Law ever since I was rocking this dew right here. Okay, let's start In California, we're going to talk about the case of NA Win Banta. We have talked about this case before. This is a challenge. The California's absolutely ludicrous law that restricts you to purchasing one firearm during every 30 day period. Essentially, it is a quota on the exercise of what is supposed to be in an alienable right now, a challenge at the lower court actually resulted in an injunction on this law. Good news. However, the appellate court, that accepted review of it stayed that injunction, which means California, you've been living under the purview of this law ever since. Now, what happened this week was oral arguments on the merits of the case. We don't have a ruling yet, but to give you an idea of just what disastrous day this was for California, let's first start with this from oral argument.
Speaker 2:
Do I understand the state's argument to be that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear an arm, that it could be just one arm and then your right is satisfied?
Speaker 3:
Well, admittedly, your honor, the term arms is plural, but what we have in this case are plaintiffs who already currently own arms and so they can purchase another one. So they are exercising that Second Amendment right of possessing multiple arms. And so this,
Speaker 2:
I guess I want to make sure I understand your answer, is your answer that no, the state of California is position is not, that the Second Amendment is satisfied so long as you can possess one firearm.
Speaker 3:
So the second amendment right is encompassed in the fact that the arms is plural. So
Okay, California, I'm going to remind you that that is your tax dollars paying for that lawyer's salary. That's right. Your tax dollars are paying for a salary. Well, listen, we don't know how the court's going to rule, but we got a pretty good idea because they have now issued a one page order. And this one page order lifts the stay on the injunction of the law. So if you are a lawful responsible gun owner in California, this is good news because now this law has again been enjoined and the order of the court is quite short. It reads as follows, the order granting defendant's motion for a stay pending appeal is reversed. And I will point out that this order was issued shortly after oral argument. So if you are into reading the Tea Leaves California, I think you got a big old butt kicking coming on this case.
And candidly, this law is completely indefensible. So huge win out there in California. Now let's go all the way to the other side of the country. Let's talk about the case of Christian V. James or what you may have originally known as Christian v Re. Now this is one of a challenges that goes towards New York's concealed Carry Improvement Act. This specific challenge deals with the outright ban on firearms on private property unless the property owner has given express permission otherwise. So the law presumes that all private property is a gun-free zone unless the owner explicitly states otherwise. It's also called sometimes the Vampire Rule or the Vampire Law for various reasons. It sucks the lifeblood out of the Second Amendment. It turns ideas of consent completely upside down. There's a lot of different reasons they name it. But anyways, that portion of New York's Concealed Carry Improvement Act has been thrown out on a summary judgment motion, which means the court took a look at the pleadings of both sides and said, Hey, listen, I don't see where there's really any genuine issue of material fact.
I don't see a dispute here and the law's pretty clear. I think we all agree on what the law says. And because I look at the acceptable facts and the applicable law, yeah, the plaintiffs win here, this law is in fact unconstitutional and it is enjoined. Now understand both sides made a motion for summary judgment. The court granted the plaintiff's motion and denied the State of New York's motion for summary judgment. So this is a big win in a state where we don't get a lot of wins at all. Now, I want you to understand that this applies to privately owned property, which is held open to the public. So all your grocery stores, shopping malls, all things like that. The court's ruling specifically states plaintiff's request that this court enjoin enforcement of the private property restriction as the places open to the public is granted.
Defendant's cross motion on this issue is denied as set forth below. The nation's historical traditions have not countenance such curtailment of the right to keep and bear arms. Indeed, the right to self-defense is equally important and equally recognized on the vast swaths of private property open to public across New York State. So what the court in New York basically said is, listen, does the Second Amendment's tax cover this activity? It most certainly does. It's talking about keeping and bearing arms. Number two, then, is there a historical tradition that justifies these types of restrictions? The answer to that was vehemently no. As the court put it, in the absence of historical tradition in support of the state's restriction, there is no genuine issue for trial. Indeed on this record, the restriction violates the right of individuals to keep and bear arms for self-defense outside their homes on private property.
Open to the public judgment for the plaintiffs on this issue, therefore is required. The court here specifically found that there is just no historical analogs, even something relevantly similar. If we take a more nuanced approach that's going to justify this law as they put it in none of the proffered founding error enactment, fairly red burden, the individual's right to carry firearms in the same way, to the same extent, or for the same reasons as the restrictions here, which imposes a default rule banning firearms on all private property, open to the public for whatever reason, and regardless of the nature of the land at issue. And then much like what had happened in California and New York said, well, okay, but can we at least just get a stay so we can appeal this to a higher court? And as the trial court put it here, the state request, a 14 day stay pending appeal, that request is denied.
And of course, the court denied it because they said, Hey, listen, one of the factors granting a stay is you have to show me that you have a likelihood of prevailing on the merits and based on the record you've made so far, no, not going to happen. So why do we fight? We fight because this is the types of results we can get if we stay tenacious and stay vigilant in this battle to preserve our inalienable rights. Kudos to the Firearms Policy Coalition. You guys have had a good week. We're going to put a link down below so that you guys could show them some love. The cases, once again, out of California is N Win v Bonta and out of New York, it's Christian V. James. We're going to link 'em all up down below so that you guys can geek out on 'em for yourself. Maybe you got more questions about this or something else related to what's left of our Second Amendment rights.
If you guys do, you should know how to get ahold of Washington gun law by now. But if you don't, that's okay. That information's down there in the description box. If you got an idea for a video we should be doing around here, tell us by clicking on that link right there and letting us know it's probably going to be better than any idea we come up with. Maybe you just want to subscribe to our monthly newsletter. The ability to do all of that is right down there in the description box. And then finally, and most importantly, let's everyone remember that part of being in the lawful and responsible gun on earth like we talk about all the time here, is to know what the law is in every situation, how it applies to you in any instance that you may find yourself. Until next time, thanks for watching and stay safe.
YouTube Video Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16lku6njmD0
Credit: William Kirk, Esq. Washington Gun Law