Rendered from the court's authenticated repository
Searchable full text
32,013 characters extracted
—
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RIDGEWAY
RIDGEWAY NATIONAL RIFLE
ASSOCIATION, INC., a Ridgeway
licensed corporation;
SAGE03X, an individual and resident of
Ridgeway County;
ANTHONYPANCI, an individual and
resident of Ridgeway County, and;
TOMDONOVANSMITH, an individual
and resident of Ridgeway County;
Plaintiffs,
v.
LARGETITANIC2, in his official
capacity as Governor of the State of
Ridgeway;
TECHIEY, in his official capacity as the
Attorney General of the State of
Ridgeway;
AERIUM, in his official capacity as the
Colonel of the Ridgeway State Police;
Defendants.
Case No. RSC-CV-881
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Plaintiffs Ridgeway National Rifle Association, sage03x, AnthonyPanci, and
TomDonovanSmith (collectively “Plaintiffs”), file this action against the above-titled
Defendants, in their official capacities as state officials responsible under Ridgeway law to
administer, and enforce its laws governing the bearing of common firearms for defense of self,
and other lawful pursuits. Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment that the Amended State Firearms
Act (hereinafter “S3-23” or “the Act”), and as otherwise set forth, is unconstitutional under the
Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs, in addition,
also seek injunctive relief to compel the State of Ridgeway, its employees, and its agents from
administering the invalid limitations of the act. Plaintiffs, for their claims against the State of
Ridgeway, allege the following.
INTRODUCTION
1. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees “the right of the
people to keep and bear arms.” U.S. Const. Amend. II. Under this constitutional
provision, the people of the State of Ridgeway have a fundamental, constitutionally
guaranteed right to keep and bear common firearms for the defense of self and family and
other lawful pursuits. The Supreme Court, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v.
Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), reaffirmed the text of the Second Amendment, holding
that it protects equally the right to keep arms in the home and the right to bear them in
public. “Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a home/public distinction with
respect to the right to keep and bear arms.” Id. at 2134; see also id. at 2135 (The Second
Amendment “guarantees an ‘individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of
confrontation,’ and confrontation can surely take place outside the home.”) (quoting
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592 (2008)). And if an arm is “typically
possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” then it may not be banned. Id.
That is the irreducible base of the fundamental “right of the people to keep and bear
Arms.” See U.S. Const. amend. II. A state may not “prohibit[] … an entire class of ‘arms’
that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for [a] lawful purpose.” Heller, 554
U.S. at 628.
2. The State of Ridgeway, however, has done exactly that by enacting—thus permitting the
Defendants the authority to enforce—a prohibition on the possession of magazines,
tendentiously labeled as “high-capacity” by ordinary citizens. In Duncan v. Becerra, 970
F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. 570) it was held that firearm
magazines are classified as “arms” under the Second Amendment. And as such,
magazines enjoy Second Amendment protections because “without a magazine, many
weapons would be useless, including “quintessential” self-defense weapons like the
handgun. Id. at 629, 128 S.Ct. 2783. Firearms and magazines are typically classified as
two separate components, but by analyzing them upon the principles of the Second
Amendment, they are no different from the regulation of common firearms; and are
bound to similar requisites in determining whether the regulation met the standards as set
out by the Supreme Court in Bruen.
3. The enactment of S3-23 makes it a crime for law-abiding citizens to exercise their
fundamental right to keep and bear “any magazine which is capable of containing more
than fifteen (15) rounds.” State Firearms Act Amendment, S3-23 § 3(b) (2022). The
State’s highly limited set of exemptions for persons and purposes from its blanket ban
does not allow typical law-abiding citizens to keep and bear these common magazines.
The State’s enactment, and the Defendants’ enforcement of the prohibition on these
common magazines, tendentiously and inaccurately labeled magazines arbitrarily deemed
to be of “greater than 15 rounds.”
4. To challenge the provisions of this law, there must be a demonstrated “justiciable
controversy,” as set by the Supreme Court in Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573
U.S. 149 (2014). Establishing this requisite to bring forth a suit concerns the
injury-in-fact requirement which helps to ensure that the plaintiff has a “personal stake in
the outcome of the controversy.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 498 (1975) (internal
quotation marks omitted), and that there is an injury sufficient to satisfy Article III which
must be “concrete and particularized” and “actual or imminent, not ‘conjectural’ or
‘hypothetical.’” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555. The exception to the
holding in Lujan, however, renders that an allegation of future injury may suffice if the
threatened injury is “certainly impending,” or there is a “ ‘substantial risk’ that the harm
will occur.” Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) (citing Whitmore v.
Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 158 (1990)). With the passage of S3-23, the Plaintiffs are subject
to their commonly used, and usual firearm magazines being stripped from them by the
State of Ridgeway; thus negating their Second Amendment to keep and bear arms under
the United States Constitution.
5. The plain text of the Second Amendment covers the conduct the Plaintiffs wish to engage
in because “[it] extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,
even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” Bruen, supra at 2132
(quoting District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)). The State of Ridgeway,
“[t]o justify its regulation,” must demonstrate “that the regulation is consistent with this
Nation’s tradition of firearm regulation.” Id. at 2126. Defendants simply can not
demonstrate any such tradition. Heller and Bruen have established the only historical
tradition that can remove a firearm or any associated components from the Second
Amendment’s protective scope: the tradition of banning dangerous and unusual firearms
or reliant magazines. Heller, 554 U.S. at 627; Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2143.
6. To be banned, a firearm or magazine must be both dangerous and unusual. Caetano v.
Massachusetts, 577 U.S. 411, 417 (2016) (Alito, J., concurring). A weapon—whether it
be a BB gun, an objectively weaker firearm, or an automatic rifle—is always inherently
dangerous. This distinctive trait, however, does not negate the right to bear arms because
the Second Amendment applies to all arms that are in common use, that are not unusual,
and that are used for lawful purposes regardless of their perceived danger. To determine
whether the magazine satisfies the historical tradition, we turn to the 4th Circuit’s ruling
in Kolbe v. Hogan, 813 F.3d 160 (2016), aff’d, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) where it was
concluded that “magazines having the capacity to accept more than ten rounds are in
common use.” Id. at 175; see also Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (Heller v. District of
Columbia, 670 F.3d 1244, 1261 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (concluding that magazines with a
capacity greater than 10 rounds “are ‘in common use’ within the meaning of Heller and,
presumably, used for lawful purposes”). The State’s ban on magazines capable of
accepting more than fifteen rounds, therefore, does not align with the historical tradition
of regulating magazines as the magazines are: (1) irrefutably in common use; and (2) are
used for a variety of lawful purposes within the State (i.e. Recreation, sport, and
proficiency training).
7. Plaintiffs are individuals and non-profit organizations whose members, and constituents
will be directly impacted by S3-23. Like the three Ridgeway National Rifle Association
plaintiffs in this case, all people who possessed an automatic firearm in the State of
Ridgeway immediately suffered harm under S3-23 in that they are not able to possess any
of their automatic firearms, and are mandated to turn such firearms into the Ridgeway
State Police or face potential prosecution. These people are also affected by S3-23 in that
it strips them of their right to bear arms freely under the Second Amendment to the
United States Constitution. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that S3-23 violates
their or their members’ constitutional and statutory rights to bear arms, as well as an
injunction preliminarily and permanently enjoining enforcement of S3-23 by Defendants.
PARTIES
8. Plaintiff Sage03x (hereinafter “Mr. Sage” or “Plaintiff one”) is a citizen of the United
States and resident of the State of Ridgeway. He is legally eligible under state law to
possess and acquire firearms. Mr. Sage is a member of the Ridgeway National Rifle
Association. He actively resides in the City of Palmer.
9. Plaintiff AnthonyPanci (hereinafter “Mr. Panci” or “Plaintiff two”) is a citizen of the
United States and resident of the State of Ridgeway. He is legally eligible under state law
to possess and acquire firearms. Mr. Panci is a member of the Ridgeway National Rifle
Association. He actively resides in the City of Palmer.
10. Plaintiff TomDonovanSmith (hereinafter “Mr. Smith” or “Plaintiff three”) is a Citizen of
the United States and Resident of the State of Ridgeway. He is legally eligible under state
law to possess and acquire firearms. Mr. Smith is a member of the Ridgeway National
Rifle Association. He actively resides in the City of Palmer.
11. Plaintiff Ridgeway National Rifle Association (hereinafter “the NRA” or “RNRA”) is a
group formed within the State of Ridgeway to defend, support, and fight for the right to
bear arms to be extended to all Residents of the State of Ridgeway. The restrictions
placed upon the possession of an automatic firearm in this case are a proximate indication
of the NRA’s core mission. The NRA's goals are bolstered with the support of hundreds
of members who actively reside in the State of Ridgeway. The Plaintiffs Sage03x,
AnthonyPanci, and TomDonovanSmith are all dedicated members of the Ridgeway
National Rifle Association, who contribute to the goals of the NRA. These three
individuals are among the hundreds who are directly affected by the enactment of S3-23,
which prohibits them from possessing any fully automatic firearm, along with any
firearm with a capacity of over 15 rounds.
12. In Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, 595 U.S. ___ (2021), the Supreme Court held that
because the Defendants in the lower court were “necessary components [of the
challenged law],” and “play[ed] a clear role in the enforcement of the law,” that they are
“proper defendants.” Id. at 42. In this case, the facts are similar; the State Firearms Act
requires integral state actors for its provisions to be fully effectuated by the State of
Ridgeway, thus situating these Defendants appropriately.
13. Defendant largeTitantic2 (“Defendant Large” or “Governor Large” or “the Governor”) is
sued in his official capacity as the Governor of the State of Ridgeway. Pursuant to Article
II, Section 3 of the State Constitution, “[t]he Supreme Executive power” is exercised by
Defendant Large in his official capacity as Governor. Article IV, Section 1 also provides
that it is the duty of Defendant Large to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”
Governor Large is a person within the meaning of 1 R. Stat. § 3201 and was acting under
color of state law at all times relevant to this complaint.
14. Defendant Techiey (“Defendant Techiey” or “Attorney General Techiey” or “Attorney
General”) is sued in his official capacity as the Attorney General of the State of
Ridgeway. As Attorney General, he is responsible for enforcing the State’s laws and has
concurrent authority within the State Attorney’s Office to initiate prosecutions on behalf
of the People of Ridgeway. See 2 R. Stat. § 2101. This authority includes the authority to
enforce the State’s general prohibition on the possession of common automatic firearms
and ammunition magazines.
15. Defendant Aerium (“Defendant Areium” or “Lieutenant Colonel Aerium” or “Lieutenant
Colonel of the State Police”) is sued in his official capacity as Lieutenant Colonel of the
Ridgeway State Police. As the Lieutenant—but at the time of this filing—Acting Colonel
of the State Police, Aerium is responsible for managing and controlling enforcement of
the State’s criminal laws by the State Police, see 6 R. Stat. § 1107, including the State’s
general prohibition on the possession of common automatic firearms and ammunition
magazines.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
16. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Article V, Section IV of the Constitution of the
State of Ridgeway.
17. Venue is proper in this Court because the incident took place within Ridgeway County.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
I. The Plaintiffs
18. Plaintiff Ridgeway National Rifle Association is a licensed corporation within the State
of Ridgeway, formed as a medium for all persons who engage similar interests in
defending their constitutional right to bear arms under the State of Ridgeway.
19. The NRA is a reputable organization that has seasoned firearm advocacy in the State of
Ridgeway since its humble beginnings, attaining over one hundred supporters, and
members of the organization.
20. The NRA represents the interests of its members in all disputes of firearm rights,
defending their constitutional rights through thick and thin. To rise to its defensive status,
the NRA filed suit alongside several of its members to challenge the constitutionality of
S3-23.
21. Plaintiff Sage03x is a leading member of the Ridgeway NRA.
22. Up until the passage of S3-23, Mr. Sage was a zealous advocate for the possession of
automatic firearms and magazines and amassed a crowd with similar advancements.
23. Mr. Sage, as a licensed firearm holder, legally possessed several automatic weapons (and
ammunition required) prior to the passing of S3-23.
24. With the enactment of the Act, however, Mr. Sage’s goals—alongside his constituents'
goals—were practically shattered. Their constitutional right to bear arms is now bare–and
essentially baseless.
25. To date, Mr. Sage—nor his fellow advocates, can possess any weapon (including an
automatic rifle) with a single magazine capacity greater than 15 rounds.
26. Plaintiff AnthonyPanci and TomDonovanSmith are members of the Ridgeway NRA.
27. Mr. Panci and Mr. Smith have continuously possessed and advocated the ownership of all
weapons in the State of Ridgeway—including automatic firearms.
28. Mr. Panci and Mr. Smith are similarly situated with the repercussions of the regulation of
automatic firearms and magazines. They now, along with countless others, have to turn in
their firearms or face the consequences of criminal charges.
29. S3-23 prevents Mr. Panci and Mr. Smith from purchasing, owning, or using automatic
firearms with a magazine capacity of over 15 rounds, even if they were used for lawful
purposes such as proficiency training or self-defense.
30. S3-23 also limits their ability to participate in shooting competitions or other events
where automatic firearms are used.
31. Mr. Panci and Mr. Smith are targeted and discriminated against as responsible gun
owners, who are being punished for the actions of criminals who misuse firearms.
32. S3-23 exhibits no impact on the criminal use of automatic firearms, as criminals have a
tendency to disobey the law notwithstanding.
33. S3-23 is an infringement of their constitutional rights and a form of government
overreach.
34. The act has led Mr. Panci and Mr. Smith to file a suit to challenge the constitutionality of
the Act and fight against further gun and magazine control measures.
II. Ridgeway’s Unconstitutional Magazine Ban
35. On January 24, 2023, the Ridgeway State Senate passed the Amended State Firearms
Act. This act prohibits the possession of “any magazine which is capable of containing
more than fifteen (15) rounds of any kind.” S3-23, supra at 2.
36. In repeating firearms, a magazine is a main component that stores the ammunition that
has not yet been fired. A magazine has a holding capacity of how many rounds of
ammunition it can bear. The prohibited magazines—any magazine that has a capacity of
over 15 rounds—are also the exact magazines equipped with a Micro and a Solami, two
automatic firearms in common use.
37. The ban on magazines with a capacity of over 15 rounds is also a ban on these two key
weapons.
38. Without the magazines, firearms can not operate, and self-defense is not a probable
option in life-threatening situations.
39. The right to keep and bear arms necessarily includes the right to keep and bear
components such as ammunition and magazines that are necessary for the firearm to
operate
40. The State’s ban on magazines with a capacity of over 15 rounds is unlawful as it
forecloses the ability to operate the firearms, use the firearms for means of self-defense,
or use the firearms for other lawful purposes.
A. The Firearms/Magazines Banned by the Act are Not Unusual
41. Among several underlying components of S3-23, the Act explicitly prohibits “dangerous
weapons” and bans both automatic firearms and firearms with the capacity to accept a
magazine holding more than fifteen rounds of ammunition.
42. S3-23 forbids Residents from possessing or carrying specific magazines as distributed
throughout the State, which is defined to include:
a. Firearms that operate with a magazine with a capacity of over 15 rounds:
i. The Solami;
(I) 30 Bullets of .45 ACP
ii. Micro;
(I) 30 Bullets of .45 ACP
43. The State’s ban is subject to review because it broadly prohibits common magazines that1
have—since the origin of the State of Ridgeway—been commonly used for lawful
purposes (e.g., self-defense, range shooting, etc.)
44. The magazines classified as “high-capacity” are all ordinary magazines. Insomuch that
they differentiate from other magazines on automatic rifles (e.g., a Stetson M2-A), their
distinguishable traits make them easier, more reliable, and safer to use. All things
considered, even if the magazines are classified from a separate group of “high-capacity,”
they simply can not be prohibited because they are not dangerous, nor unusual.
45. Magazines classified, and banned as “high-capacity magazines” through S3-23 are—for
lack of better terms—common on several aspects: (1) The magazines are categorically
common, as they are equipped with over 10 rounds (the minimum) in all automatic
firearms; (2) they are characteristically common, provided that the magazines are a
component of all firearms in the State—automatic or not; and (3) the firearms are
jurisdictionally common, lawful to use in the bulk of most states and throughout the
relevancy of its history, for a wide range of previously aforementioned purposes.
46. The relative dangerousness of a magazine is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a
class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. The sole purpose of the Ridgeway
National Rifle Association is to advocate and espouse for the Residents of Ridgeway that
lawfully possess and utilize firearms and magazines. The entire purpose of the Act, which
is to suppress criminals from obtaining firearms and magazines, will be moot against
those who already seek to violate the law.
47. S3-23’s ban on delivering, selling, or purchasing a weapon with a magazine capable of
holding over 15 rounds is, consequently, a ban on keeping and bearing magazines that are
commonly possessed and used for lawful purposes, including self-defense in and outside
of the home.
1 The Washington Post, The history of magazines holding 11 or more rounds: Amicus brief in 9th Circuit. Available
at:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/05/29/the-history-of-magazines-holding-11-o
r-more-rounds-amicus-brief-in-9th-circuit/ (accessed January 24, 2022) (internal footnotes omitted)
B. The State Firearms Act Imposes Inconsistent Firearm Regulations of
Historical Tradition
48. S3-23 bases its regulations on providing the inconsistency of statutes surrounding
firearms and the clear demand for solutions to solve the rising usage of deadly weapons
in crime. The act, however, refuses to acknowledge historical dilemmas that are
contradictory to its’ regulations put forth.
49. The right to bear arms, as provided in the Second Amendment, for the sole purpose of
self-defense is proven to be protected by the Constitution even if the arms provided are
not consistent with the provisions of the Second Amendment.
50. Instead of acknowledging exceptions for self-defense, S3-23 insists on the ban of
firearms and magazines that can be intended for the protection of the safety and defense
of the citizens of the State.
C. The Statute Criminalizes Chronic and Important Means of Self-Defense
51. S3-23’s ban on automatic firearms and firearms with a capacity of over 15 rounds
engages in a clear conflict with the Second Amendment to the United States, and the
basic means of self-defense.
52. Criminalizing the possession of magazines with a capacity of over 15 rounds would
disproportionately affect law-abiding citizens while doing little to prevent criminals from
obtaining these weapons through illegal means.
53. The prohibited magazines are not only a component of a firearm to make it function, but
also a crucial element to self-defense. Without the magazine, the firearm can not
function–and as such, the gun can not be operational for self-defense and other lawful
purposes.
54. Plaintiffs, who possess a Micro or Solami, are now in a constant state of concern; they
have no reasonably adequate means to protect themselves against criminals who manage
to gain access to overpowering weapons with a much higher potential to inflict serious
harm when compared to the weapons Plaintiffs are legally allowed to possess.
55. Plaintiffs are now prohibited from bearing arms freely without ramifications from the
State of Ridgeway, its employees, agents, or officers.
56. The very goal that the Ridgeway National Rifle Association was advocating for has been
encroached upon with the passage of S3-23. Their hundreds of members—including the
plaintiffs—are now without any adequate means of self-defense, and are now separated
from their Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights to the United States Constitution.
D. Plaintiffs Are At Imminent Threat of Enforcement of the Act
57. Plaintiffs, who are gun-owning citizens of the State of Ridgeway, file this suit not only to
challenge S3-23 but to prevent the threat of its enforcement.
58. The passing of S3-23 was followed by a subsequent forty-eight-hour amnesty for all
persons to turn in any firearms or magazines that are classified as illegal under the Act.
59. Any person who has failed to adhere to the mandate is found to be “committing a
criminal offense,” and as such, “may be charged with the appropriate crime.” State
Firearms Act, S3-23S3-23 § 6(d) (2022).
60. The plaintiffs, as immense advocates for firearms, continue to possess the prohibited
automatic rifles and magazines, as is their constitutional right.
61. The plaintiffs are vested in using these firearms and magazines for proficiency training
and self-defense, and the State Firearms Act unjustly restricts their ability to do so.
62. The plaintiffs are—according to S3-23—in the sphere of many individuals who have
refused to yield their Second Amendment rights to an unjustified and unconstitutional
seizure of firearms and magazines; subjecting them to dire repercussions.
63. Plaintiffs are essentially classified and treated as habitual criminals for simply exercising
their Second Amendment right to bear arms.
64. The immediate threat of criminal charges or prosecution for possessing the firearms or
magazine poses a significant threat to their constitutionally protected rights.
65. No individual's right, including the plaintiff’s, should be violated before they can seek
redress in a court of law.
66. So while it is true that the plaintiffs have not been fully subject to the reverberations of
S3-23; the harm is certainly imminent and forthcoming.
67. The consequential and instantaneous effect of S3-23 not only poses impending harm to
the plaintiffs, but to all citizens of the State of Ridgeway who possess an automatic
firearm and the prohibited magazines.
68. The State Firearms Act does not adequately consider the Plaintiffs' rights and interests
under both the State and Federal Constitutions, and thus should be eliminated of any
ability to enforce its unconstitutional provisions to the law-abiding citizens of the State of
Ridgeway.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(1 R. Stat. § 3201 - Deprivation of Rights)
U.S. Const. Amend. II and XIV
69. Plaintiffs' reallege and incorporate by reference all of the allegations contained in all of
the preceding paragraphs.
70. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: “A well-regulated
Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and
bear Arms shall not be infringed.”
71. The Second Amendment is fully applicable to the States through the Fourteenth
Amendment. McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 750 (2010); id. at 805
(Thomas, J., concurring).
72. The magazines that S3-23 bans are indisputable “arms” within the meaning of the Second
Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms encompasses the right to keep and bear
components such as ammunition and magazines that are necessary for the firearm to
operate at all. See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 180 (1939) (citing
seventeenth-century commentary recognizing that “[t]he possession of arms also implied
the possession of ammunition”). As the Ninth Circuit has placed it, “without bullets, the
right to bear arms would be meaningless.” Jackson v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 746
F.3d 953, 967 (9th Cir. 2014).
73. The magazines that S3-23 bans are also indisputably in “common use” today. See Heller,
553 U.S. at 624-25 (the “arms” protected by the Second Amendment are those “typically
possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes”). It is not a coincidence that these
magazines are in common use, and are in fact far from a “close call.” Many—if not all of
the firearms—come equipped with a magazine over the minimum of 10 rounds; with two
of the firearms equipped with a magazine of over 15 rounds. These firearms have become
renowned in the Ridgeway community for their precision and accuracy. Hundreds of
Ridgeway residents own these magazines for lawful purposes, including self-defense,
sporting, and proficiency training.
74. Because magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds (i.e. the prohibited magazine
of holding more than 15 rounds) are arms in common use, they are protected by the
Second Amendment, full stop, rendering Ridgeways’ effort to ban them blatantly
unconstitutional. Bruen, 142 S.Ct. at 2134.
75. Such arms are “presumptively protect[ed]” by the Second Amendment, so the State
would have to “affirmatively prove that its [magazine ban] is part of the historical
tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.” Id. at 2126.
76. The State can not satisfy anything close to this requirement to surmount these claims. At
the time in which the Second and Fourteenth Amendments were ratified, there were no
prohibitions on firing or magazine capacity. The State’s enactment of S3-23 departs from
that tradition; contravening the provisions of the United States Constitution.
77. In essence, there is no enduring “American tradition of state regulation” forbidding the
purchase or possession of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds by
law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. Bruen, 142 S.Ct. at 2135. To the contrary, the
enduring American tradition is one of protecting the right of the people to possess arms
that, like these common magazines, are “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for
lawful purposes.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 624-25. Because the State cannot “affirmatively
prove that its … regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds
of the right to keep and bear arms,” Bruen, 142 S.Ct. at 2127, the magazine ban
unconstitutionally infringes upon Second Amendment rights, id. at 2130.
78. 1 R. Stat. § 3201 creates a cause of action against state officials who deprive individuals
of their federal constitutional rights under the color of state law.
79. Plaintiff’s Ridgeway National Rifle Association, through its members Sage03x,
AnthonyPanci, and TomDonovanSmith are law-abiding, upstanding Residents of the
State of Ridgeway who wish to exercise their Second Amendment right to purchase,
possess, and sell firearms that are now prohibited by state law as “automatic firearms.”
80. Defendants have violated Plaintiffs’ right to keep and bear arms by precluding them from
being able to sell, purchase, transfer, or possess such firearms because Defendants
enforce S3-23.
81. Defendants’ enforcement of S3-23, and all related regulations, policies, and/or customs
designed to enforce or implement the same thereto, impede upon and create a forbidden
burden on Plaintiffs’ right to keep and bear arms under the Second and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution
82. Defendants’ enforcement of S3-23, and all related regulations, policies, and/or customs
designed to enforce or implement the same thereto force the Plaintiffs to comply with the
forty-eight hour Gun & Weapons amnesty—thereupon being prevented from exercising
their rights under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution—or being subjected to criminal prosecution.
83. As a direct and proximate result of the infringement and forbidden burden on Plaintiffs’
Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights, Plaintiffs have suffered—and continue to
suffer—the unlawful and irreparable deprivation of their—and, in the case of the
Ridgeway National Rifle Association, their member’s fundamental constitutional right to
keep and bear arms.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
84. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that the court grant relief as follows:
A. Declaratory relief that the bans on commonly possessed automatic firearms and
ammunition magazines consisting of the Amended State Firearms Act, S3-23 and all
related laws, regulations, policies, and procedures, violates the right to keep and bear
arms, as guaranteed under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution;
B. Preliminary and Permanent injunction against each Defendant, each Defendant’s
respective employees, officers, agents, and representatives, and all those acting in concert
or participation with him or her, from enforcing the Ridgeway ban on “high capacity
magazines,” consisting of the Amended State Firearms Act, S3-23, and all related
regulations, policies, and/or customs designed to enforce or implement the same;
C. Award the Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs;
D. Any other and further legal and equitable relief against Defendants as necessary to
effectuate the Court’s judgment, or as the Court otherwise deems just and proper.
Dated: January 24, 2023 Respectfully submitted.
STICKZA
Managing Partner
COHN, CICERO, & GOODRICH, LLC
Suite 3B, Palmer Apartments
Palmer, RW 33328
D: stick#0677
E: [email protected]
ELLOM8HOWAREYOU
Partner
COHN, CICERO, & GOODRICH, LLC
Suite 3B, Palmer Apartments
Palmer, RW 33328
D: ello ! #2023
E: [email protected]
BOBFOGARTY
Senior Associate
COHN, CICERO, & GOODRICH, LLC
Suite 3B, Palmer Apartments
Palmer, RW 33328
D: bob.#4225
E: [email protected]
Counsel of Record
Document record
File size
206.2 KB
Uploaded
Jan 20, 2023 12:00 PM
Filed
Jan 20, 2023 12:00 PM
Filing code
COMPLAINT
Uploaded by
stickza
Notes
Rid1Cty20Firearm23Lawsuit11AmendedComplaint_ver1.0.pdf — archived from the Trello docket (https://trello.com/c/QjNUUVlJ)
