A Virginia judge says that the plaintiffs in a case challenging Virginia’s gun and magazine ban set to take effect on July 1 have established the likelihood of irreparable harm if the ban becomes effective and is later determined to be unconstitutional, but refused to issue an injunction that would halt the law from being enforced while litigation continues.
The case, known as Curtis v. Katz, is one of four state-level challenges to the impending ban, and the only one to argue that the new prohibitions on the sale, manufacture, and transfer of so-called assault firearms and large capacity magazines (defined as a detachable magazine that can hold more than 15 rounds) violates the militia clause in Article 1, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution, which states:
That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
The plaintiffs contend that, because the body of the people is the militia in the Commonwealth, they must have access to arms that are suitable for militia purposes, and that includes the “assault firearms” and magazines in question.
Spotsylvania Circuit Judge William E. Glover, however, wrote that he is currently persuaded that both the history and practice surrounding Sec. 13 establish no individual right to possess military style weapons by members of the unorganized militia.”
Rule 3:26 (d) ii directs the Court to consider the balance of hardships to the parties. Here, although the Court concedes the harm alleged by the Plaintiffs is definitionally irreparable, it does not outweigh the potential harm to the Commonwealth. As discussed above, the Virginia legislature, elected by the people, and the Governor, also elected, enacted the Ban to promote public safety. Preventing its implementation, even for a short period creates a risk of harm greater than that posed to the Plaintiffs.
Rule 3:26 (d) iii requires the Court to ascertain whether the public interest supports the issuance of the preliminary injunction. It does not. For the same reasons addressed above, the public is entitled to the implementation of the laws their representatives create and the Governor approves. If the law is struck down at a later date, the balance between the legislature and judiciary is maintained; to enjoin the legislation preliminarily is not, at least on these facts, in the public interest.Therefore, the Motion for Preliminary Injunction is denied. This matter will continue on the Court’s docket for additional proceedings as the parties require.
I disagree, but that and five bucks might buy me a cup of coffee at the Spotsylvania Courthouse Starbucks.
The firearms that are soon to be prohibited from sale in Virginia are rarely used in crime. Sales of these firearms have also gone through the roof in recent months. Preventing its implementation, even for a short period of time, will prevent even more sales of these guns and magazines, but I think it’s safe to say that there are already tens of thousands of guns and over 100,000 “large capacity” magazines in Virginia than there were a few months ago, and the state is not a more dangerous place because of that fact.
There are three more challenges to the ban pending in various parts of the state, but a judge in northwest Virginia has already cancelled a hearing for an injunction while he waits to see if the state Supreme Court will consolidate the litigation.
An injunctive hearing in Santolla v. Katz is still scheduled for June 25 in Washington County, at least for now, but a hearing in Black v. Hook scheduled for Thursday afternoon in Fauquier Count was withdrawn by the judge.
That would leave Santolla as the one remaining case where an injunction could be granted before the gun and magazine ban kicks in, at least at the circuit court level, but the Lancaster County judge overseeing Crump v. Katz has rescheduled the hearing on an injunction that he previously placed on hold, and it’s now supposed to take place on June 25 as well.
The plaintiffs’ attorney in Curtis v. Katz is holding a press conference tomorrow afternoon, and I assume he’ll announce the appeal of the Spotsylvania Circuit Court decision, but with less than two weeks before the ban takes effect I have no idea if the Virginia Courts of Appeal will review the decision before sales and transfers of some of the most popular firearms and commonly-owned magazines in the country become a criminal offense. We’ve got two more shots at a circuit court injunction in Santolla and Crump. Fingers crossed at least one of those lawsuits hits its target.
Editor’s Note: The radical Left will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.
Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Read the full article here
