In their own consolidated brief, the Feds spent the majority of pages challenging Plaintiffs’ standing in their effort to get the judge to dismiss the lawsuit, which is SOP for such litigation efforts. We were well prepared for this and responded in our Opposition that shredded their wholly off-point and inadequate brief on the motion to dismiss.
In our reply brief supporting our Motion for Summary Judgment,we showed the Court that the Feds applied the wrong standard of review under Bruen, crippling their arguments. Moreover, we highlighted the fact that the Feds offered no evidence whatsoever to rebut our arguments that automatically opening knives are “arms” protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment. The Feds also failed to provide evidence of any kind to contradict our contention that such knives are in common use and thus are not both “dangerous and unusual.” Finally, they offered patently insufficient evidence of any historical analogous laws or regulations that would justify the outright prohibitions under the FSA in accordance with Bruen.
That means they are stuck arguing in favor of keeping an unconstitutional law on the books that the DOJ originally opposed and which they say they haven’t enforced recently, but are unwilling to say they won’t enforce. Say, what?
The next step is their reply to our Opposition to their Motion to Dismiss. That is due January 5, 2024.
