The Solicitor General's brief in response to the Masciandaro cert is in. Next up, Masciandaro's reply brief, due in 10 days.
See this thread for the link to the brief.
See this thread for the link to the brief.
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
Former SG Paul Clement (you remember him? He argued for the Feds against Heller and 2 years later argued for the NRA in McDonald) has just taken over the Peruta case. See the discussion thread for details.
NatoRepublic
Inactive
I stumbled upon another nugget of Guraism while reading the latest reply to DC's notice of supplemental authority in the Palmer case. I thought you all might get a kick out of it.
On the note of the Palmer case, DC is attempting to site the Kachalsky case. The response put forth by Grua pretty much rips that appart and he filed another Notice of Supplemental using Heller II.
The Supreme Court has rejected the Alice in Wonderland approach
to statutory interpretation.... (“‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean
neither more nor less’”)....
On the note of the Palmer case, DC is attempting to site the Kachalsky case. The response put forth by Grua pretty much rips that appart and he filed another Notice of Supplemental using Heller II.
NatoRepublic
Inactive
Thanks for the welcome Al, I have been lurking so long I figured I might be able to help catch things that fell through the cracks. With the tidal wave of cases, it would seem hard for one person to keep up with them all. I am surprised you are able to keep it all straight.
That's one of the reasons for all the links in each case.
A person can do a check of the Internet Archives for the case to see when the last update was made. If it been longer than the docket schedule shows something should have happened, then the link to the Justia Summary provides the gate into PACER for that case.
There's the added benefit that anyone who wants to volunteer, can do everything I'm doing.
Did you notice that the NC case, Bateman v. Perdue has been updated?
Nothing since last March, now all of a sudden the Judge orders discovery, despite the fact that two MSJ's (#44 and #52) are still pending! This case will get drug out, much like Chicago is doing in Benson.
Krucam, over at MDShooters, checked out that one.
Then there's a couple of folks over at CalGuns.net who are helping things out.
So what I do, is to keep a calendar filled out as to what's supposed to happen, and then check MDShooters to see if krucam has already gotten it (MD is 2 hours ahead of ID). Right now, we are both running about $100 per quarter in PACER charges.
Long story, a bit shorter... More help is always welcome!
A person can do a check of the Internet Archives for the case to see when the last update was made. If it been longer than the docket schedule shows something should have happened, then the link to the Justia Summary provides the gate into PACER for that case.
There's the added benefit that anyone who wants to volunteer, can do everything I'm doing.
Did you notice that the NC case, Bateman v. Perdue has been updated?
Nothing since last March, now all of a sudden the Judge orders discovery, despite the fact that two MSJ's (#44 and #52) are still pending! This case will get drug out, much like Chicago is doing in Benson.
Krucam, over at MDShooters, checked out that one.
Then there's a couple of folks over at CalGuns.net who are helping things out.
So what I do, is to keep a calendar filled out as to what's supposed to happen, and then check MDShooters to see if krucam has already gotten it (MD is 2 hours ahead of ID). Right now, we are both running about $100 per quarter in PACER charges.
Long story, a bit shorter... More help is always welcome!
NatoRepublic
Inactive
Found another one to add to the pile Wilson v Holder.
Personally I am not exactly enthusiastic about being dragged into this fight.
Personally I am not exactly enthusiastic about being dragged into this fight.
I ask, because (1) I don't think the SCOTUS wants criminal cases setting the bounds of the right and (2) I really don't want to clutter the list with criminal cases.
AAR, post a link.
[Emily Latilla voice] Nevermind... [/Emily Latilla voice]
NatoRepublic
Inactive
I debated if I should post it up, the case itself isn't aimed at 2A very much, however I thought I would throw it out there. Mostly because if they bungle it bad enough it could get some bad precedent our way.
I could be wrong though, your thoughts would be helpful.
I could be wrong though, your thoughts would be helpful.
The case is Winters v. Willis, 11-120.
From the Asland Daily Tidings:
Oregon Court of Appeals decision.
Oregon Supreme Court decision.
From the Asland Daily Tidings:
Winters denied Willis a concealed handgun license in 2008 on the grounds that she uses medical marijuana, considered a controlled substance by the federal government. The sheriff argued that he couldn't give the license to Willis because that would violate the Gun Control Act of 1968. Winters has lost every court case so far, including the Oregon Supreme Court.
Oregon Court of Appeals decision.
Oregon Supreme Court decision.
Attachments
Today in Richards v. Prieto, Alan Gura has filed their reply to the defendants response. See the thread for details and discussion.
Also today, Chicago makes it (final?) reply in its Objection to the PI. See this thread for details.
Also today, Chicago makes it (final?) reply in its Objection to the PI. See this thread for details.
Today, Alan Gura filed the Notice of Appeal in Hightower v. Boston. Don't get to uptight about this, as it will be at least 1 to 2 months before we see the first brief.
Yesterday, Herschel Smith (Captains Journal) wrote up a very good analysis of the Governments Opposition to the Masciandaro petition for cert. Worth reading, here.
Yesterday, Herschel Smith (Captains Journal) wrote up a very good analysis of the Governments Opposition to the Masciandaro petition for cert. Worth reading, here.
Muller v. Maenza (SAF New Jersey), today:
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.njd.249720/gov.uscourts.njd.249720.36.0.pdf
New Jersey Coalition for Self Defense (on Facebook) It appears the Judge is of the same opinion as the rest of the judges we've seen to date.
10/27/2011 36 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge William H. Walls: Motion Hearing held on 10/27/2011 re 25 Cross MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint filed by EDWARD A. JEREJIAN, RUDOLPH A. FILKO, RICK FUENTES, THOMAS A. MANAHAN, PAULA T. DOW, PHILIP J. MAENZA, 12 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by JOHN M. DRAKE, SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC., FINLEY FENTON, LENNY S. SALERNO, GREGORY C. GALLAHER, ASSOCIATION OF NEW JERSEY RIFLE & PISTOL CLUBS, INC., JEFFREY M. MULLER, DANIEL J. PISZCZATOSKI. (DECISION RESERVED) (Court Reporter/Recorder Yvonne Davion.) (lm2, ) (Entered: 10/27/2011)
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.njd.249720/gov.uscourts.njd.249720.36.0.pdf
New Jersey Coalition for Self Defense (on Facebook) It appears the Judge is of the same opinion as the rest of the judges we've seen to date.
Yesterday, Oct 27, Pltf Mishaga filed a response to defdnt MSJ.
If you recall, back on the beginning of Oct, the State filed its MSJ and made several assumptions on how the Il FOID Act operated. In this brief, attorney James Manley pokes holes large enough to drive a tractor-trailer rig through.
If you recall, back on the beginning of Oct, the State filed its MSJ and made several assumptions on how the Il FOID Act operated. In this brief, attorney James Manley pokes holes large enough to drive a tractor-trailer rig through.
FYI
I'm a big fan of browsing SSRN (Social Science Research Network) for scholarly papers that deal with the RKBA.
I have long opined what the holding in both Heller and McDonald said about the right to bear for self defense. It seems that at least one scholar agrees with my layman's assumptions. Associate Professor Michael O'Shea, OK City University School of Law, has written an in-depth paper that will be published in the American University Law Review (Vol. 61 - 2012).
Modeling the Second Amendment Right to Carry Arms (I): Judicial Tradition and the Scope of ‘Bearing Arms’ for Self-Defense, is excellent reading and an excellent reference... Be warned, at 107 pages, this is not "light hearted" reading.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1949477
I'm a big fan of browsing SSRN (Social Science Research Network) for scholarly papers that deal with the RKBA.
I have long opined what the holding in both Heller and McDonald said about the right to bear for self defense. It seems that at least one scholar agrees with my layman's assumptions. Associate Professor Michael O'Shea, OK City University School of Law, has written an in-depth paper that will be published in the American University Law Review (Vol. 61 - 2012).
Modeling the Second Amendment Right to Carry Arms (I): Judicial Tradition and the Scope of ‘Bearing Arms’ for Self-Defense, is excellent reading and an excellent reference... Be warned, at 107 pages, this is not "light hearted" reading.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1949477
There are a couple of things that are happening at the moment. As you know, the Masciandaro case was distributed for the Nov 22 conference, on Tuesday, Nov 1. Also distributed, for the same conference, was the CA case, Chein v. California.
Also on Nov 1 in the New Jersey Case, Muller v. Maenza, Muller was dismissed as a plaintiff, as well as his defendant, Judge Maenza. Last any of us heard was that Muller had an appeal in State Court (along with this federal complaint), and won his permit. So it makes sense that he is now dismissed. The case will be renamed, and will proceed... Since Muller was dismissed with prejudice, it's entirely possible the defendant Judge complained that Muller had indeed received his permit and Muller's claim was therefore moot.
Nothing on that docket shows where the Court was notified of this. At any rate, the case should now proceed with the cross motions for summary judgment.
Then there is something going on with the Moore v. Madigan, Il carry case. From the Docket:
According to Krucam (MDShooters), the highlighting you see above is just what was found at PACER. Something is shaking in this case, we just don't know what. Yet.
Also on Nov 1 in the New Jersey Case, Muller v. Maenza, Muller was dismissed as a plaintiff, as well as his defendant, Judge Maenza. Last any of us heard was that Muller had an appeal in State Court (along with this federal complaint), and won his permit. So it makes sense that he is now dismissed. The case will be renamed, and will proceed... Since Muller was dismissed with prejudice, it's entirely possible the defendant Judge complained that Muller had indeed received his permit and Muller's claim was therefore moot.
Nothing on that docket shows where the Court was notified of this. At any rate, the case should now proceed with the cross motions for summary judgment.
Then there is something going on with the Moore v. Madigan, Il carry case. From the Docket:
11/02/2011 35 TEXT ORDER: The Court has received a letter in reference to this case that it has forwarded by United States Postal Service mail to the Parties. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 11/2/2011. (VM, ilcd) (Entered: 11/02/2011)
11/02/2011 36 +++ SEALED DOCUMENT - ORIGINAL DOCUMENT UNREDACTED Letter. (VM, ilcd) (Entered: 11/02/2011)
According to Krucam (MDShooters), the highlighting you see above is just what was found at PACER. Something is shaking in this case, we just don't know what. Yet.
In Lane v. Holder, responses were filed by the VA AG and the US AG at the 4th Circuit.
See this thread.
See this thread.
11/09/2011 50 BRIEF & SPECIAL APPENDIX, on behalf of Appellant-Cross-Appellee Eric Detmer, Alan Kachalsky, Anna Marcucci-Nance, Johnnie Nance, Christina Nikolov and Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. in 11-3642, 11-3962, FILED. Service date 11/09/2011 by email, CM/ECF. [443302] [11-3642, 11-3962]
In case you don't recognize any of the above, today Alan Gura filed his opening brief in Kachalsky v. Cacase in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Supreme Court has always accepted that the Second Amendment’s guarantee extends beyond the threshold of one’s home. As early as 1857, the infamous Dred Scott case reasoned that no Southern state would have adopted a constitution obligating it to respect privileges and immunities of citizenship held by African-Americans, including “the full liberty . . . to keep and carry arms wherever they went.” Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 417 (1857) (emphasis added).
While Scott’s odious holding was never correct, the opinion’s recognition of the fact that citizens enjoy a personal right carry arms was no aberration...
Mr. Gura goes on to list a few other historic cases and then add from Heller:
Having defined the Second Amendment’s language as including a right to “carry” guns for self-defense, the Court helpfully noted several exceptions that prove the rule. Explaining that this right is “not unlimited,” in that there is no right to “carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose,” Heller, 554 U.S. at 626 (citations omitted), the Court confirmed that there is a right to carry at least some weapons, in some manner, for some purpose. The Court then listed as “presumptively lawful,” Heller, 554 U.S. at 627 n.26, “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places,” id., at 626, confirming both that such “presumptions” may be overcome in appropriate circumstances, and that carrying bans are not presumptively lawful in non-sensitive places.
Alan Gura then cites and explains the 4 cases, Nunn; Andrews; Reid and Chandler that the Heller Court viewed as favorable, as well as several others, to further emphasize that individual carry is a right that extends outside the home.
Alan Gura emphasizes that while the State may regulate the form of carry, it cannot leave unbridled discretion, by a State actor, to deny the people of that right.
Alan Gura thoroughly attacks each and every aspect of the lower courts decision. In this, his opening salvo, it is anything but "brief." Sixty-seven pages long (not counting TOC and appendices), but still a very good read.
If I had anything else to add, it would be that Judge Legg (Woolard v. Brown (Maryland)) take a long hard look at this brief, before making his decision, especially if he bases it on the Kachalsky opinion.