Current 2A Cases

If you didn't see it coming, you must have been asleep!

Today, the NRA filed for a preliminary injunction in their IL case, Shepard v. Madigan. Discussion thread and links to the decision are here.


There are also some filings in the Nordyke case (yes, it's still alive). Discussion here.
 
Nordyke: Appellants/Defendants Alameda County filed their response yesterday, in the 9th Circuit.

We had a major power outage last evening, so I couldn't post this, let alone read the reply. If you have a chance to read the attached file and want to comment, please do so in this thread.
 
There's been quite a bit of action in Lane v. Holder, since the first of the month. I've been preoccupied and haven't yet read all the briefs.

The docket has everything you need, if anyone wants to take a stab at reporting this.
 
I won't try to make any kind of summary, being somewhat out of my depth despite following all this for months, but Alan Gura continues to impress. Here is a snippet from his response to the Defense Opposition to the Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction:

"For the most part, Defendants’ briefs raise a wide variety of irrelevant, conflicting, and at times spurious points. According to Defendants, they have not actually done anything—the lack of interstate handgun sales is purely voluntary—yet Defendants feel very strongly that they should not be enjoined from doing whatever it is that they are not doing, and they assure the Court that they are working fast to legislatively correct the problems they are not causing."
Click to expand...

I almost snorted milk from my nose upon reading that.
 
Dan, my wife giggled for 5 solid minutes, when I read her that!
rofl.gif


We will know tomorrow on the status of D.C.'s motion for severance and venue. I don't think the court will grant it, but you never know...

More later, when I've had time to digest everything.
 
In doing some clean-up of my files at TFL**, I noticed that the docket for the GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc., et al v. State of Georgia (GA Church Carry Case) was not working. So I logged into PACER to refresh the danged docket (it now works) and then logged into the 11th Circuit to see what had been happening there.

What I found interesting was the latest filing by John Monroe, a supplemental authority (filed 07/12/2011). Not only did John list the Ezell case, but also the Puerto Rico case!

This is something that none of the other supplemental authority filings have done.

In Ex Parte Roque Cesar Nida Lanausse, the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals (their Supreme Court) ruled that the right to carry outside the home was a guaranteed part of the right.

How much weight a US Circuit Court will give to a territorial high court, remains to be seen.



** Yes, the first two posts in this thread will have a major change in format and content. I'll notify everyone when I put it in place.
 
Lane et al v. Holder et al continues to serve up real entertainment.

The District filed on 7/14 (and uploaded on the 15th) a document with the catchy title "Defendant The District of Columbia's Notice of Filing of Declarations Reflecting Current Status of District Government Efforts to Facilitate Handgun Transfers to Which Other Parties' Filings Have Referred".
(Read it here.)

In this "precious" missive they relate, almost sounding like adolescents breathlessly talking about who-said-what-to-who, that the now infamous Charles Sykes, whose on-then-off-and-(apparently)-now-on-again FFL business (DC's only, ONLY FFL) has, with the magnanimous and completely selfless and un-agenda'd help of the DC Government, apparently, suddenly, miraculously, found the previously highly elusive new locale for Mr Sykes' business - IN THE METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS itself!!!

*gorp* Excuse me, I threw up a little...

This type of transparent, unprincipled maneuvering is sooo disgusting.

Obviously this is an attempt to moot the case... the question is, will it succeed?

Any of the more legally sophisticated (meaning no insult...lol) members want to weigh in on this?
 
I've finished reformatting the case list. It now comprises the first three posts of this thread.

There are a couple of things I could use some help on, though....

1) If you see any errors in the format or spelling, please PM me with the corrections, and

2) If you find the TFL thread discussing a particular case, PM me with the case and the link... otherwise, I'll get to them when I get to them. :p
 
There may finally be movement in the long awaited Palmer v. D.C. case.

Yesterday (07-18-2011), this case (along with some others) was reassigned to Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr., Northern District for New York, by Chief Justice John Roberts. This is not good for Judge Kennedy, who has held this case for well over a year after oral arguments.

The same day, Alan Gura filed a notice of supplemental authority, Ezell. Docket.
 
I've just gone through the older threads and I've linked every thread to its appropriate case filing that I could find.

So.... If you have comments or questions about any particular case, please look in the first 3 posts of this thread and see if the thread is already there. If so, open that thread and make your comments or questions in that thread, please.

If the thread is not the right one (yes, I do make mistakes), PM me, please.
 
OK, this one escaped me. On 03-18-2011, Tom Scocca, the Madison Society and Calguns Foundation filed suit against Sheriff Laurie Smith and County of Santa Clara, CA., in the US District Court for the Northern District of CA. Donald Kilmer and Jason Davis are the attorneys for the plaintiffs. This is a case based solely upon Equal Protection of the Law (14th Amendment).

The complaint is a very brief 9 pages, explaining how the conduct of Sheriff Smith has denied Mr. Scocca a permit on the same basis that many other permits by this Sheriff were granted.

Now here's the twist! Instead of answering the compliant, the Sheriff and County filed a Motion to Dismiss on 05-27-2011. Why is this a twist? The defendants spend the majority of their 22 page brief addressing various 2A defenses!

Sorry Charlie! This is a 14th Amendment EP case. It is not based upon the 2A at all!

On 07-22-2011, the plaintiffs respond by blasting the defendants for arguing to dismiss on grounds that were never before the Court. Then they make an argument to the Judge, basically telling him that even if he is against 2A rights, the correct thing to do is to judge the case on the Law and not his personal politics.

Doing a little research on this particular Judge reveals that he was appointed to Santa Clara Superior Court by "Moonbeam" Brown and later appointed to the US District Court by Clinton. He is a solid liberal judicial appointment. This must be why the Defendants declined to have the Magistrate Judge Paul Singh supervise this case until trial and went directly to the District Judge Jeremy Fogel to manage the case. It was a tactical move on their part (anyone care to comment if this is at all unusual?).

This one will be interesting to watch.
 
In Peterson v. Garcia (was LaCabe - Colorado non-resident carry case), the Brady bunch filed an amicus brief for the apellee's (defendants) on 7-21-2011. The appellee's answering brief was due today (07-25-2011) - nothing yet on PACER.

In Bateman v. Perdue (NC State of Emergency case), Alan Gura filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority, last week, 07-18-2011 -- care to guess what authority?

In Shepard v. Madigan (IL carry case - NRA), the Brady's filed a motion for their attorney to appear. This is a preamble to filing an amicus brief.

In Moore v. Madigan (Il carry case - SAF), last Friday, Magistrate Judge Charles Evans recused himself and transferred the case to Magistrate Judge Byron Cudmore. Today, the State's answer to the amended complaint and Response/Reply to 13 Motion for Preliminary Injunction was due. Filed was an uncontested 2 day extension for time to file. We'll look again Wednesday.
 
Today, Stephan Halbrook filed the reply in the Williams cert case. See the associated thread for the attached brief.
 
I've just updated several docket entries (they were getting old and I just had to see if there was movement on them), when I came across this one from the Second Amendment Arms v. Chicago case.

First there was this response by the Court on 07-12, after the plaintiff filed a Motion for Additional Authority and For Finding of Estoppal (The Ezell opinion):

MINUTE entry before Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr: The Court has before it Plaintiffs motion for leave to file and cite supplemental authority in opposition to Defendants motion to dismiss and for a finding of collateral estoppel 37 . The Court is aware of the Ezell decision and thus grants the motion in part as to the filing and citation of supplemental authority. In regard to the other relief requested a finding of estoppel the Court enters and continues the motion to the next status hearing, which is set for 7/27/2011 at 10:30 a.m. At the status hearing, the Court would like the parties to be prepared to discuss, among other things, the first amended complaint, the pending motion to dismiss, the Ezell case, and the recent amendment to the Citys gun ordinance. The notice of motion date of 7/13/2011 is stricken and no appearances are necessary on that date. Notices Mailed by Judge's Staff (tbk, ) (Entered: 07/12/2011)
Click to expand...

OK... So then we have an entry for yesterday's hearing:

MINUTE entry before Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr: Status hearing held on 7/27/2011. As discussed on the record, Plaintiffs are given to and including 8/17/2011 to file an amended complaint. Defendants are given until 9/14/2011 to file responsive pleading to amended complaint. MOTION by Defendants to dismiss 18 Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint is stricken as moot. Notices Mailed by Judge's Staff (tbk, ) (Entered: 07/27/2011)
Click to expand...

The very last entry (immediately after the above) was the Court granting an Oral request to file a Second Amended Complaint (SAC).

So unless you were at the hearing, the above is rather cryptic!

Krucam, over at MDShooters had linked the following from Todd Vandermyde of Illinois Carry, the NRA Rep in IL:

Court was interesting today for the challenge to the gun shop ban in Chicago.

· The judge opened op with having some thoughts about how to proceed. Later he made it clear that the case was put on hold while the Court of Appeals sorted out Ezell.

· The judge said he had read Ezell, and either implied thoroughly or a couple times.

· He said that anyone paying attention to Ezell’s oral arguments it was clear that a lot of guidance seemed to be on its way from the Court. And he wanted to give that Court time to act before hearing this case.

· He said the plaintiffs should file an amendment complaint that “tightens” up the facts they are pleading and issues they raise. It would be helpful to the court in deciding the case in a way that makes sense.

· He asked them to identify each specific section of the Ordinance they seek to challenge, by whom, on what grounds and the specific relief sought.

· He gave them three weeks to file an amended complaint. The City will reply by 8/28.



To the City:

· When a judge (the Ezell court) says your thumbing your nose at the Court, take note of it.

· You may want to think about if you really want to move to dismiss every count.

· Reevaluate the organizational standing arguments.

· Think seriously about whether you have grounds to diss each count.

· Made note about Easterbrook’s ruling on fees in McDonald and how the city has acted. Capitulating in light of judgment and modifying ordinances

· Judge says Ezell is a very important decision. He looks to other courts for their decisions, but when the 7th circuit says something and when the Supreme Court says something, it’s important for me to consider and look at.

· He also said that he could not remember any law professor using the Second and Amendment in the same sentence.



The city said it was interesting that something written in 1787 is now “new” in 2011.

Observations, the City’s legal team, two of them were very accommodating and humble. Not like Mara Gorges before.

The Judge was versed in Ezell and had spent some time studying it. He also took note of the way Easterbrook read them the riot act in the fees decision in McDonald. And that the Court had taken notice of the City thumbing their nose at the McDonald decision.

The judge wants an amended complaint cleaned up and this case is going forward. He seemed to admonish the City that their past absolute positions as in Ezell and McDonald didn’t seem like they were going to carry weight and that it was a new day.

I think he was actually hinting at the City that if they were going to change the ordinance, they should do so before the court rules. The Easterbrook comment seemed to be aimed at this.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted August 4, 2011 by Al Norris:

You might take notice that there are now 55 cases being tracked.

You will have to go back to the first page of this thread to see what has been added.

As far as updates go, I think it more constructive to make such announcements in the applicable thread (you may have been noticing this), if there is one, here at TFL. Rest assured, that if you do have questions or comments and place them in this thread, I (or someone else) will be glad to answer.

For the most part, direct your responses to the TFL thread that is now linked to the specific case (again, back on page 1 of this thread).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top