Current 2A Cases

This morning, the SCOTUS issued its orders from their Jan 13 conference. From the Orders, cert denied in Lowery v. U.S.

Thus, it is now clear that the Court is not going to take any 2A case that is also a criminal case.
 
Thus, it is now clear that the Court is not going to take any 2A case that is also a criminal case.
Click to expand...
A lesson I hope is learned across the board. Williams might have been better argued, but Woollard is more of a contender.
 
Early today (as in just after the clock turned it to today), Gray Peterson posted the following to CalGuns.net and later this morning, MDShooters.com:

01/26/2012 [9937594] Notice of appearance submitted by Alan Gura for Amici Curiae Buckeye Firearms Foundation, Calguns Foundation, Inc., Citizens Rights Action League, Commonwealth Second Amendment, Connecticut Citizens Defense League, Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance, Hawaii Defense Foundation, Illinois Carry, Illinois State Rifle Association, Maine Open Carry Association, Maryland Shall Issue, Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation, Scope Inc., Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., Stillwater Firearms Association, Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc., West Virginia Citizens Defense League Inc. and Wisconsin Carry Inc. for court review. Certificate of Interested Parties: No. Served on 01/26/2012. Manner of Service: ECF/NDA.--[Edited 01/26/2012 by SDS to remove pdf from entry as the pleading has been filed] AG

01/26/2012 [9937605] Notice of appearance filed by Mr. Alan Gura for Wisconsin Carry Inc., West Virginia Citizens Defense League Inc., Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc., Stillwater Firearms Association, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., Scope Inc., Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation, Maryland Shall Issue, Maine Open Carry Association, Illinois State Rifle Association, Illinois Carry, Hawaii Defense Foundation, Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance, Connecticut Citizens Defense League, Commonwealth Second Amendment, Citizens Rights Action League, Calguns Foundation, Inc. and Buckeye Firearms Foundation. CERT. OF INTERESTED PARTIES: n. Served on 01/26/2012. Manner of Service: ECF/NDA.
Click to expand...

Those are the amici that Alan Gura will represent and has been given 10 minutes of the upcoming orals in Peterson v. Martinez.

As Gray has mentioned elsewhere, those amici which are State organizations are States where CO doesn't recognize their permits!
 
Birdt v. Beck - Update

I've taken the liberty to show what has actually been happening in Mr. Birdt's case(s) against the LACSD.

33. Birdt v. Beck: Challenges CCW rules for the County of Los Angeles. Filed in the US District Court for the Central District of CA; October 29, 2010. Jon Birdt is an attorney and is acting pro se.
  • 01-13-2012 - Defendants MSJ granted, Plaintiffs MSJ denied.
  • 01-14-2012 - Notice of Appeal, 9th CCA. Case #12-55115
  • 01-18-2012 - Notice and Motion of related Cases by Defendants:
    • Robert Thomson v. Torrance Police Department, et al.Case No. CV 11-06154 SJO(JCx).
    • Sigitas Raulinaitis, et al. v. LACSD,Case No. CV 11-08026 JHN(JCGx).
  • 01-19-2012 - Mem P&A in opposition to relate.
  • 01-20-2012 - Reply by Defendants.
Internet Archive
Click to expand...

The two cases that the LACSD wants to relate are cases brought by Mr. Birdt, same district court, just different Judges (they also argue the exact same points and request the same remedy). Of course, LA wants them consolidated at this stage (my quess is that they have been waiting for the first case to get dismissed)!

The Judge will grant relatedness (um, because they are the same) and consolidate the cases, with the just dismissed and appealed case as the lead case. This in effect, dismisses the other two cases and all three will go up to the 9th CCA as one case.

There is a lot of danger here. Not the least of which is the further consolidation of these cases with one of our good cases (it is within the realm of possibilities: Peruta or Richards.), now stayed at the 9th, pending Nordyke VI!

The stronger case, in my opinion, is Richards v. Prieto and is the case, if I were the CA AG, would want the Birdt cases to be related to.

This may just turn out to be a real mess, all because of a Lone Wolf, who thinks he is an experienced civil rights litigator, not listening to the major players.
 
For those following the Peterson (CO) case (and are feeling deprived because you could not read all the pleadings), here is a run down of the actions and briefs available (thanks to Gene Hoffman for hosting these files):

Peterson Opening Brief.pdf 4.1M
Co State Reply Brief.pdf 328K
Peterson Reply Brief.pdf 217K

Notice of Denver Not To File.pdf 90K
Brady Amicus Brief.pdf 1.8M
Motion to file SAF-CGF-et-al.pdf 198K
Order to Garcia to Respond to Motion for Amicus.pdf 56K
Denver Opp to NRA Amicus.pdf 102K
SAF-CGF-et-al Amicus Brief.pdf 361K
NRA-CRDF Amicus Curiae Brief.pdf 304K
NRA-CRDF Joint Amicus to Enlarge Time 152K

Audio of Orals.mp3 3.9M
Unofficial 1st Oral Transcript.pdf 70K
 
Today, Feb 3rd, the Cross-Appellant Westchester County filed their Reply Brief, 5 days early. Expect the State to file their Reply Brief on or about the 8th. You can read the brief in the Kachalksy thread.
 
Thanks, armoredman.

Late last night, Judge Myerscough rendered her decision in Moore v. Madigan (SAF/Ill Carry). The thread discussing this case is here. See doc #38 of the Docket.
 
Chicago has paid the SAF!

IMG_2237.jpg

See this thread.
 
Today, the opening brief in Hightower v. Boston was due. Krucam, over at MDShooters beat me to it and grabbed the brief. Thanks, Mark!

The brief is 141 PDF pages, but you only need to read the first 86 pages. The rest is addendum (background info). I haven't had the pleasure of reading it yet, and probably won't get to it until Thursday, sometime. If you wish to comment on this, please open a thread on this case (none have yet been opened).
 

Attachments

In the 10th CCA Peterson case, the enlargement of time from 10 minutes to 20 minutes was granted.

What this means is that the Brady's will have 10 minutes and the NRA and SAF will split 10 minutes.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff and Defendant will each have 15 minutes, now.
 

Attachments

Jennings v. McCraw (TX CCW restrictions on 18 - 20 yr olds), has been renamed: NRA v. McCraw. The opening brief has been scheduled:

02/10/2012 Open Document BRIEFING NOTICE ISSUED A/Pet's Brief Due on 03/21/2012 for Appellants Brennan Harmon, Rebekah Jennings, National Rifle Association of America, Incorporated, Andrew Payne. [12-10091] (SAT)
Click to expand...
 
The case was: Gonzalez v. Omaha. Case 8:2011cv00335, filed 09-27-2011.

Mr. Gonzalez was a legal resident alien who was denied a firearms registration permit because he was not a U.S. citizen. A member of both the Nebraska Firearms Owners Association and the SAF, Mr. Gonzalez sued the city with the NFOA and SAF as plaintiffs.

In late 2011, the Federal Judge granted a preliminary injunction against the City of Omaha, the city changed its ordinance and mooted the case.

Coming on the heels fo the payout by Chicago, the SAF was presented a check for $12K from the City. Reported here by Seattle Gun Rights Examiner, David Workman.

This was a case simialr to a WA State case from 2 years ago and a SD federal case, last year. We have a similar MA case (Fletcher et al v. Haas #41 in the lineup) currently waiting for rulings on the plaintiffs MSJ and the defendants MTD's.
 
DC is appealing legal fees in Heller

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...-dc-gun-case/2012/02/23/gIQA2H5MWR_story.html

I'm interested in this development because in Illinois, the politicians in Oak Park are acutely aware of the political dangers of spending tax payer money on losing gun rights cases and continued litigaton.

For instance - the mayor of Oak Park has never released to the public what Oak Park's share of the MacDonald case they were required to pay.


.
 
Last edited:
In addition to the Woollard courts holding that the 2A exists outside the home, on Tuesday, Mar. 6, a Federal Court in the District of West Virginia (another 4th Circuit court) held the same. http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.wvsd.63229/gov.uscourts.wvsd.63229.2906.0.pdf

This was a criminal case that for all other purposes, is negligible to our 2A rights. Here's what the Judge had to say:

While it is true that the Fourth Circuit has so far stopped short of expressly recognizing a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms outside the home,5 this Court has no such hesitation. The Supreme Court itself has acknowledged a Second Amendment right to protect oneself not only from private violence, but also from public violence. See Heller, 554 U.S. at 594 (stating that, by the time of the founding, the right to have arms was “fundamental” and “understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.”). . .

. . . The Court joins in Judge Niemeyer’s conclusion and holds that the Second Amendment, as historically understood at the time of ratification, was not limited to the home.7


5 In fact, the Fourth Circuit has expressly declined to address the first step in the Chester analysis at least four times. See Carter, 2012 WL 207067, at *4 (summarizing the Fourth Circuit’s deferral in reaching any conclusion about the scope of the Second Amendment’s protection under step one in Chester, 628 F.3d 673, Masciandaro, 638 F.3d 458, and Staten, 666 F.3d 154). Despite those declinations, this Court is in agreement with Judge Niemeyer’s statements in Masciandaro that such constitutional avoidance is inappropriate when, as here, a federal court is directly confronted with the contention that a firearm regulation violated a defendant’s Second Amendment rights. See 638 F.3d at 468 n.* (Niemeyer, J., writing separately as to Part III.B.).

7 The fact that courts may be reluctant to recognize the protection of the Second Amendment outside the home says more about the courts than the Second Amendment. Limiting this fundamental right to the home would be akin to limiting the protection of First Amendment freedom of speech to political speech or college campuses.
Click to expand...

You may have noticed that this Judge cites Judge Niemeyer from Masciandaro? So did Judge Legg in Woollard.

So, while we expect every single carry case to cite Woollard, we can now expect all of them to cite Weaver as well. Think I'm wrong?

2012-03-08 29 NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY by GEORGE LYON, AMY MCVEY, TOM G. PALMER, EDWARD RAYMOND, SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Woollard v. Sheridan, # 2 Exhibit B: US v. Weaver)(Gura, Alan) (Entered: 03/08/2012)
Click to expand...

The above is the latest docket entry for the Palmer (D.C. carry) case.
 
I'm a tad late in reporting on the Kachalsky case. The response brief by the State of NY was filed on the 8th of Feb. It is attached. Below is a current docket and briefing schedule.

02/08/2012 78 BRIEF, on behalf of Appellee Susan Cacace, Jeffrey A. Cohen, Robert K. Holdman and Albert Lorenzor, FILED. Service date 02/08/2012 by CM/ECF. [521465] [11-3642]

02/10/2012 79 SCHEDULING NOTIFICATION, on behalf of Appellant-Cross-Appellee Eric Detmer, Alan Kachalsky, Anna Marcucci-Nance, Johnnie Nance, Christina Nikolov and Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., informing Court of proposed due date 04/03/2012, RECEIVED. Service date 02/10/2012 by CM/ECF.[522926] [11-3642]

02/14/2012 82 SO-ORDERED SCHEDULING NOTIFICATION, setting Appellant-Cross-Appellee Eric Detmer, Alan Kachalsky, Anna Marcucci-Nance, Johnnie Nance, Christina Nikolov and Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. Appellant-Cross-Appellee reply brief due date as 04/03/2012; FILED.[524254] [11-3642]

02/22/2012 84 ORAL ARGUMENT STATEMENT LR 34.1 (a), on behalf of filer Attorney Mr. Simon Heller for Appellee Jeffrey A. Cohen, Susan Cacace, Albert Lorenzor and Robert K. Holdman, FILED. Service date 02/22/2012 by CM/ECF. [532253] [11-3642]

02/22/2012 85 ORAL ARGUMENT STATEMENT LR 34.1 (a), on behalf of filer Attorney Mr. Alan Gura for Appellant-Cross-Appellee Alan Kachalsky, Christina Nikolov, Johnnie Nance, Anna Marcucci-Nance, Eric Detmer and Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. in 11-3642, 11-3962, FILED. Service date 02/22/2012 by CM/ECF. [532659] [11-3642, 11-3962]
Click to expand...

Expect Alan Gura to cite both Woollard and Weaver in reply to NY's assertion that no court has found for the right to exist outside the home.

In other news, the NRA case, Benson v. Chicago took a little twist! Chicago playing games with the Court and the Court not liking it one bit!

2012-03-07 161 MINUTE entry before Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The Clerk's Office informed the Court that Defendant filed only a paper version of its summary judgment filings, including the exhibits, and did not file electronically. Although the Court understands the potential time and expense of electronically scanning the box-full of exhibits, Defendant (like every other litigant) must electronically file all of its filings (even sealed or partially-sealed documents are filed electronically). And feeding the pages into a scanner can be accomplished without extraordinary effort. The electronic filing shall be completed on or before 03/14/12. Mailed notice (slb, ) (Entered: 03/07/2012)
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top