Current 2A Cases

While waiting for Judge Scullins to render a ruling, the Palmer Plaintiffs file supplemental notices of Morris v. US Army Corps of Engineers and more importantly, Peruta v. County of San Diego.

See the Docket.
 
Orders from the Conference last Friday, Feb 21, 2014 are out.

CERTIORARI DENIED
12-1401 LANE, MICHELLE, ET AL. V. HOLDER, ATT'Y GEN., ET AL.
13-137 NRA, ET AL. V. ATF, ET AL.
13-390 NRA, INC. V. McCRAW, STEVEN C.
 
For #84, NSSF vs Malloy in Connecticut,

http://ia600906.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ctd.101409/gov.uscourts.ctd.101409.docket.html

RULING granting 16 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; granting 16 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Janet C. Hall on 12/2/2013. (Malone, P.)

The PDF: http://ia600906.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ctd.101409/gov.uscourts.ctd.101409.27.0.pdf

Because the pecuniary injury asserted as the basis for NSSF‟s standing is unrelated to the rights of democratic participation in the legislative process that NSSF seeks to vindicate, the court lacks the authority to adjudicate the claims put forward in this case. Accordingly, the case must be dismissed for lack of standing.
 
Thank you SamNavy. That was one that fell through the cracks. Meaning: I plain forgot about it. :o

I did log in PACER and recapped the docket. It appears that the NSSF did not appeal. The case has been updated, accordingly.
 
H/T to Maestro Pistolero for calling and alerting me.

With today's win in Baker, we now have 3 cases from the 9th circuit that were held in favor of the second amendment and the right to carry outside the home.

I have updated this and several other files to reflect current events.
 
Appeal filed in #88, Shew v. Malloy (Connecticut). I'm not sure it's correct to refer to this case as an "NRA" case. The NRA is providing some behind-the-scenes assistance, but the Connecticut Citizens Defense League and the Coalition of Connecticut Sportsman are doing the heavy lifting. The CCDL alone has contributed "significant" money toward the legal expenses (as in upper six figures significant) and continues to raise funds.

Link to appeal: http://ccdl.us/blog/uploads/2014/05/...late-Brief.pdf
 
From Orders dated 06/02/2014:

CERTIORARI DENIED​
13-731 MORRIS, JARRETT, ET AL. V. GEORGE, CAROL A.
13-933 CAMPBELL-PONSTINGLE, PATRICIA V. KOVACIC, KATHERINE, ET AL.
13-993 KWONG, SHUI W., ET AL. V. DE BLASIO, MAYOR, ET AL.
Click to expand...

Davey said:
Kwong out of New York was denied cert. Onto the Supremesupreme Court now.
Click to expand...

Not sure if this was in jest or not.

This case is now dead.
 
New case attacking 922(o): Hollis v. Holder. The link takes you to the complaint but the basic case is someone noticed that 922(o) doesn't prevent a trust from making a post-1986 machinegun and filed a Form 1, which the ATF approved and then revoked after they had approved the stamp.

The suit attacks 922(o) on Second, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth Amendment grounds.
 
Judge Scullin's order denying D.C.'s motion to reconsider is here.

And, if D.C. did not get the message:

As the Court explained at oral argument (October 17, 2014), if and when Defendants present this Court with a statute that provides some limitations on the carrying of handguns in public, rather than a total ban on such activity, the Court will then be required to determine whether to apply strict or intermediate scrutiny to those limitations in order to decide whether they passed constitutional muster under the appropriate level of scrutiny.
Click to expand...
 
Ancillary case:
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/perez-v-mortgage-bankers-association/

The case above has zero to do with the Second Amendment directly; but instead challenges the government's power to regulate via interpretive rulemaking in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act. As such, the outcome has the potential to affect such issues as the current ATF 41P proposal, import of 922(r) items, straw purchase rules from Abramski, etc.

It is headed to SCOTUS this December.
 
Kamala Harris files for en banc on Peruta intervention ruling

February, 9th rules that Peruta wins.

AG Harris and Brady Campaign and CA Police Chiefs Association petition to intervene, even though not being involved before.

Nov 12, 9th ruled Harris and others could not intervene.

Nov 26 those hopefuls file for en banc reconsideration of the intervention ruling.

9th doesn't have the doc on its website yet - http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000722

http://michellawyers.com/guncasetracker/perutavsandiego/ has both the petition from Harris and from Brady.

9th did not issue the mandate to the lower court, so apparently this move was expected.

So, net is that things are delayed yet again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top