National Rifle Association,
Plaintiff,
Olympic Arms, a Washington Corporation, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Bradley A. Buckles, Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; United States of America,
Defendants-Appellees.
6th Circuit Ct case about the assault weapons ban.
"The latter question need not long detain us long. The First Amendment claim was not included in the complaint or in the amended complaint filed in this action. Indeed, the plaintiffs' only mention of a free speech argument was made in passing in their brief in opposition to the defendants' motion for summary judgment. For this reason, the district court declined to rule on the issue, characterizing it as "underdeveloped." As a general rule, we would likewise decline to review the issue, there being no decision to sustain or reject on appeal. See, e.g., Taft Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 929 F.2d 240, 243-44 (6th Cir. 1991). We have taken exception to this general rule, however, "where the errors or omissions are obvious, unfair or undermine the integrity or public confidence of judicial proceedings." Brown v. Crowe, 963 F.2d 895 (6th Cir. 1992). That cannot be said to be the case here, especially in view of the fact that the "prior restraint" cases cited in the plaintiffs' appellate briefs simply are not applicable to the facts of this case. Hence, even if the issue had been squarely presented, we could not find in the plaintiffs' favor based on the authority submitted on appeal."
That means this most liberal of the circuits (even more so than the 9th) think this issue is a winner. Somebody needs to sue on it ASAP.