You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Current 2A Cases
- Thread starter Al Norris
- Start date
Originally posted September 7, 2011 by Al Norris:
The 10th Circuit has released a Calendar for Oral Arguments. Peterson v. Kilroy is scheduled to be heard on Nov. 17th, 9:00 am in Courtroom II.
The 10th Circuit has released a Calendar for Oral Arguments. Peterson v. Kilroy is scheduled to be heard on Nov. 17th, 9:00 am in Courtroom II.
Originally posted September 12, 2011 by Al Norris:
The goings on are quite entertaining today.
In Second Amendment Arms v. Chicago, they were supposed to have filed their Second Amended Complaint, last Wed., the 7th. Yes, there was two notices of the filing, but it was not actually filed until Fri. the 9th. This won't endear them to the Judge. If you can stomach it, read it here.
In Shepard v. Madigan and in Moore v. Madigan (the SAF and NRA cases over the Il complete ban on carry), the State has made motions of supplemental authority. That authority? The NY case, Kachalsky.
Meanwhile, in Kachalsky v. Cacace, the SAF has appealed the district court opinion to the 2nd Circuit. I suspect that the appeal is already written and Alan Gura is merely waiting for the records form the district court to be formally transferred.
In Ezell v. Chicago, the defendants made their reply to the plaintiffs response on their Motion to Dismiss as Moot.
Chicago is now claiming that their most recent change in their ordinances, moots the case... This is change number 3 or 4?
The Motion to Dismiss as Moot, is based entirely upon the changed ordinance of July 6th, the same day that the 7th Circuit issued their opinion. It doesn't much matter how much else the City has changed the ordinance(s) since the motion was made. The court must rule on the ordinance as motioned:
If the City wishes its Motion to Dismiss as Moot to have any significance, it must withdraw its prior motion and refile a new motion.
I say go ahead and let Judge Kendall dismiss the case. That would constitute plain error. The panel, comprised of Circuit Judges Kanne, Rovner and Sykes, will simply impose the injunction and all further proceedings will be at the Circuit level (most likely through a Special Master). Judge Kendall will lose all control of the case; Chicago will lose control of its own legislative acts.
The goings on are quite entertaining today.
In Second Amendment Arms v. Chicago, they were supposed to have filed their Second Amended Complaint, last Wed., the 7th. Yes, there was two notices of the filing, but it was not actually filed until Fri. the 9th. This won't endear them to the Judge. If you can stomach it, read it here.
In Shepard v. Madigan and in Moore v. Madigan (the SAF and NRA cases over the Il complete ban on carry), the State has made motions of supplemental authority. That authority? The NY case, Kachalsky.
Meanwhile, in Kachalsky v. Cacace, the SAF has appealed the district court opinion to the 2nd Circuit. I suspect that the appeal is already written and Alan Gura is merely waiting for the records form the district court to be formally transferred.
In Ezell v. Chicago, the defendants made their reply to the plaintiffs response on their Motion to Dismiss as Moot.
Chicago is now claiming that their most recent change in their ordinances, moots the case... This is change number 3 or 4?
The Motion to Dismiss as Moot, is based entirely upon the changed ordinance of July 6th, the same day that the 7th Circuit issued their opinion. It doesn't much matter how much else the City has changed the ordinance(s) since the motion was made. The court must rule on the ordinance as motioned:
Response to Motion said:The introduction of yet another revision to the gun range ban is unsurprising. This new revision, like the previous one, was not proposed out of benevolence. The City plainly lacked the benefit of the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in this case when drafting the July 6 ordinance, upon which its motion to dismiss is based. Introduction of the July 28 proposal inherently concedes that the July 6 ordinance—the only one upon which the motion to dismiss must be based—was still constitutionally deficient, and that is reason enough to deny the motion.
If the City wishes its Motion to Dismiss as Moot to have any significance, it must withdraw its prior motion and refile a new motion.
I say go ahead and let Judge Kendall dismiss the case. That would constitute plain error. The panel, comprised of Circuit Judges Kanne, Rovner and Sykes, will simply impose the injunction and all further proceedings will be at the Circuit level (most likely through a Special Master). Judge Kendall will lose all control of the case; Chicago will lose control of its own legislative acts.
Originally posted September 14, 2011 by Al Norris:
Last Monday, defendants in several cases filed notices of supplemental authority, as soon as they read the dismissal in Kachalsky v. Cacase (N.Y.).
Well today, Alan Gura struck back.
In Palmer v. D.C., Alan Gura filed a reply to the defenses notice of supplemental authority (the Kachalsky case).
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.25.0.pdf
In Woollard v. Brown (was Sheridan), Gura filed a similar reply.
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772.47.0.pdf
I've attached the above file, as the Archive seems to be very slow on updating this case.
BTW, since Alan Gura has already filed with his notice of appeal in Kachalsky, what you are reading in the above responses is a preview of what he will write as an opening brief to the 2nd Circuit.
In Moore v. Madigan, David Jensen blasts the State of Illinois, and he filed it yesterday!
http://www.archive.org/uploads/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015.34.0.pdf
In Shepard v. Madigan (the NRA suit that parallels Moore), the NRA has yet to file their response to the States notice.
Last Monday, defendants in several cases filed notices of supplemental authority, as soon as they read the dismissal in Kachalsky v. Cacase (N.Y.).
Well today, Alan Gura struck back.
In Palmer v. D.C., Alan Gura filed a reply to the defenses notice of supplemental authority (the Kachalsky case).
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.25.0.pdf
In Woollard v. Brown (was Sheridan), Gura filed a similar reply.
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772.47.0.pdf
I've attached the above file, as the Archive seems to be very slow on updating this case.
BTW, since Alan Gura has already filed with his notice of appeal in Kachalsky, what you are reading in the above responses is a preview of what he will write as an opening brief to the 2nd Circuit.
In Moore v. Madigan, David Jensen blasts the State of Illinois, and he filed it yesterday!
http://www.archive.org/uploads/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015.34.0.pdf
In Shepard v. Madigan (the NRA suit that parallels Moore), the NRA has yet to file their response to the States notice.
Attachments
Originally posted September 23, 2011 by Al Norris:
Fees Will Be Paid By Chicago
On Mon. 09-19, in McDonald v. Chicago, this was filed:
The Court granted that Motion on 09-22.
The breakdown of the charges are here.
So Gura and Company will receive just short of $400K for their efforts. Seems a might short, you say?
This might well be a strategic move on Gura's part. They still haven't settled on payment with D.C. While McDonald is a landmark case, it can be argued that Heller is the more significant case, hence the higher fees that are being sought.
In addition, there are some entries not in the RECAPPED Parker docket. They fall between entry #78 and #79:
There could be any number of reasons this case has been stayed. Interesting, to say the least.
Fees Will Be Paid By Chicago
On Mon. 09-19, in McDonald v. Chicago, this was filed:
100 MOTION by Plaintiffs Illinois State Rifle Association, Colleen Lawson, David Lawson, Otis McDonald, Adam Orlov, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. for attorney fees (Unopposed) (Sigale, David) (Entered: 09/19/2011)
The Court granted that Motion on 09-22.
The breakdown of the charges are here.
So Gura and Company will receive just short of $400K for their efforts. Seems a might short, you say?
This might well be a strategic move on Gura's part. They still haven't settled on payment with D.C. While McDonald is a landmark case, it can be argued that Heller is the more significant case, hence the higher fees that are being sought.
In addition, there are some entries not in the RECAPPED Parker docket. They fall between entry #78 and #79:
03/17/2011 MINUTE ORDER. The Court, sua sponte, schedules a hearing on 65 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Seek Discovery of Defendants' Billing Records for March 23, 2011 at 1:00 p.m. in Courtroom 24A. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 17, 2011. (lcegs1) (Entered: 03/17/2011)
03/17/2011 Set/Reset Hearings: Motion Hearing set for 3/23/2011 01:00 PM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (clv, ) (Entered: 03/17/2011)
03/23/2011 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Motion Hearing held on 3/23/2011 re 65 MOTION Leave to Take Discovery filed by DICK ANTHONY HELLER. Order to be presented. (Court Reporter CRYSTAL PILGRIM.) (clv, ) (Entered: 03/23/2011)
03/24/2011 MINUTE ORDER. For the reasons stated on the record during the motions hearing held on March 23, 2011, the District is hereby directed to provide plaintiff and the Court with the range of standard billing rates for the pro bono attorneys who assisted the District in this litigation (the "requested information"). The District is directed to file the requested information with the Court by no later than April 6, 2011. In the event that any of the law firms who provided pro bono representation to the District are unwilling to voluntarily provide the Court with the requested information, the District shall promptly notify the Court by filing an appropriate notice. Upon receipt of the requested information, the Court will issue an appropriate order directing supplementary briefing on an expedited basis. This case is hereby temporarily stayed pending receipt of the requested information. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 24, 2011. (lcegs1) (Entered: 03/24/2011)
03/24/2011 Set/Reset Deadlines: The District is directed to provide plaintiff and the Court with the range of standard billing rates for the pro bono attorneys by 4/6/2011. (clv, ) (Entered: 03/24/2011)
03/24/2011 Case Stayed (clv, ) (Entered: 03/24/2011)
There could be any number of reasons this case has been stayed. Interesting, to say the least.
In other news today, in Lane v. Holder, the appellees (plaintiffs) filed their opening brief in the 4th Circuit.
While the PDF is 74 pages in length, about 22 pages are headers and appendices. So in roughly 52 pages, Mr. Gura sets out a very well reasoned argument in favor of doing away with the ban on interstate handgun transfers. A copy of the brief is in this thread.
Back on 09-14, the defendant was given an extension of time to reply to the Second Amended Complaint in Enos v. Holder. The expected result of todays filing? A MTD. See this thread.
While the PDF is 74 pages in length, about 22 pages are headers and appendices. So in roughly 52 pages, Mr. Gura sets out a very well reasoned argument in favor of doing away with the ban on interstate handgun transfers. A copy of the brief is in this thread.
Back on 09-14, the defendant was given an extension of time to reply to the Second Amended Complaint in Enos v. Holder. The expected result of todays filing? A MTD. See this thread.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
The D. C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Heller 2 is out today:
http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/intern...C748525791F004D84F9/$file/10-7036-1333156.pdf
The court of appeals upheld D.C.'s registration requirements and prohibitions on semi-autos 2-1. Lengthy dissent.
http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/intern...C748525791F004D84F9/$file/10-7036-1333156.pdf
The court of appeals upheld D.C.'s registration requirements and prohibitions on semi-autos 2-1. Lengthy dissent.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/us/in-georgia-a-lawsuit-over-guns-in-church.html?ref=us
Case stating that laws banning carry in religious places violate constitutional protections of worship.
Interesting, I've always thought this. Bans should be based on some demonstration of harm by the firearm. The only ones I would support are technical such as the gun by MRI and the like.
A ban because a place is holy is making a religious statement for that congregation.
Case stating that laws banning carry in religious places violate constitutional protections of worship.
Interesting, I've always thought this. Bans should be based on some demonstration of harm by the firearm. The only ones I would support are technical such as the gun by MRI and the like.
A ban because a place is holy is making a religious statement for that congregation.
thomas2011
Inactive
It amazes me that it is very often in Christian circles wherein one hears arguments for law that somehow saves people. When you read the pastors comments in this article they somehow really believe that a law prohibiting the activity of carrying in a Church actually does something other than provide a mechanism for a judicial penalty to be imposed. They find their beliefs assaulted on every front, doctrines that are foundational for American jurisprudence itself, and then turn around and stand against the very principles they claim to believe in. Its just so sad that Churches that should be equipping Christian soldiers to do spiritual battle don't see the necessity for sustaining the ability to engage physical self defense once those spiritual forces break out into overt violence. There's been numerous instances over the years where gunmen have entered Churches and shot people - I would hope there would be a parishioner or two in every congregation that has the effective means of employing defense against that potential threat.
In the last 2 days, a fairly new member over at MDShooters opined on a couple of subjects. MirandaB claims to be a former civil rights attorney, in private practice for 10 years before starting another business, Just Right Carbines.
First MirandaB explained what was wrong with the Williams case and why the Supreme Court probably denied cert.
Then today, this person explained the Masciandaro case and why it might be granted cert.
The explanations go into a bit of depth on both cases, but this gentleman uses plain (non-legalese) language to get his points across. If you are at all interested in this stuff, I believe it is worth your while to read these explanations.
On Williams, see this post.
On Masciandaro, see this post.
If these won't show, try this thread. Williams is post #14 (page 1) and Masciandaro is post #22 (page 2).
I'm sure our resident attorneys can read this man's posts and glean from them whether or not the guy is being truthful. Just because they ring right to my ears, doesn't mean a thing. I'm not an attorney, just a somewhat knowledgeable commentator.
First MirandaB explained what was wrong with the Williams case and why the Supreme Court probably denied cert.
Then today, this person explained the Masciandaro case and why it might be granted cert.
The explanations go into a bit of depth on both cases, but this gentleman uses plain (non-legalese) language to get his points across. If you are at all interested in this stuff, I believe it is worth your while to read these explanations.
On Williams, see this post.
On Masciandaro, see this post.
If these won't show, try this thread. Williams is post #14 (page 1) and Masciandaro is post #22 (page 2).
I'm sure our resident attorneys can read this man's posts and glean from them whether or not the guy is being truthful. Just because they ring right to my ears, doesn't mean a thing. I'm not an attorney, just a somewhat knowledgeable commentator.
Now that the case is back in the D.C. District court, Alan Gura filed his opening brief (an MSJ) in Dearth v. Holder.
Another case has surfaced in the Supreme Court.
No. 10-1474
Edmund Chein v. State of California
Petition was filed on June 3rd, 2011. On Sep 15th, a response was requested, which was due yesterday (Oct. 17th).
Supreme Court Docket is here. The petition is here.
Dr. Chein's attorney, Tarik S. Adlai, goes into detail on how the circuits are split in applying scrutiny (in 2A cases), in an attempt to further his clients case.
No. 10-1474
Edmund Chein v. State of California
Petition was filed on June 3rd, 2011. On Sep 15th, a response was requested, which was due yesterday (Oct. 17th).
Supreme Court Docket is here. The petition is here.
The question presented is whether a state court can impose a categorical weapons ban – forbidding use, possession and even ownership of a firearm – as a condition of probation for a nonviolent misdemeanor offense without engaging in any level of constitutional means-end scrutiny of the restriction on the Second Amendment right.
Dr. Chein's attorney, Tarik S. Adlai, goes into detail on how the circuits are split in applying scrutiny (in 2A cases), in an attempt to further his clients case.
Petitioner Edmund Chein’s case presents a good vehicle for resolving this issue. A 59 year old medical doctor with no prior criminal record, Dr. Chein was convicted of misdemeanor vandalism after he used a folding pocket knife to deflate the tires of an automobile that had repeatedly trespassed on his property, before calling for the assistance of the authorities. When sentencing him to a three-year term of probation, the California trial court imposed a categorical ban forbidding Dr. Chein to “own, use or possess any dangerous or deadly weapons, including any firearms” during the term of probation for his nonviolent misdemeanor offense. App. 3a, 8a. As the owner of several handguns kept for self-defense – as well as irreplaceable rare, antique or collectible firearms – Dr. Chein is being deprived of his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and other lawful purposes while this condition remains in effect.