Current 2A Cases

Mishaga v. Monken

Illinois requires anyone who possesses a firearm or ammunition to have an FOID (Firearm Owners ID) card. Possession without an FOID is a class 3 felony. The catch here is that you must have an IL drivers license or IL ID card in order to acquire an IL FOID.

Ms. Mishaga is a resident of Ohio who visits friends in IL several times a year. Ms. Mishaga applied for an FOID on March 27, 2010 and again on May 17, 2010. Both times she was denied because she did not have (and cannot legally have) an IL DL or ID card.

Ms. Mishaga is suing to have the IL statutes on FOID overturned as they act as a functional firearms ban, thereby depriving nonresidents their 2A rights, Right to Travel and equal protection. Read more here.
 
The NRA has announced the filing of a lawsuit to overturn those sections of 18 U.S.C. § 921 and § 922 (and related CFR's) that prohibit an adult aged 18 to 20 years old from, buying handguns or handgun ammunition from licensed dealers (FFL's).

See the NRA-ILA announcement here.

Finally! It looks to me as if the NRA has rallied around to the attack plan that Alan Gura is using. Remember? this is the 5th Circuit, the first Circuit to proclaim that the 2A is an individual right... And this is Texas. Good plaintiff, good venue.

You can read the complaint here. It is only eight pages and is put together rather well.
 
There will be a new round of Oral Arguments for the Nordyke case. This is scheduled for October 19, 2010 at 1:30 PM at the James M. Browning Courthouse in San Francisco.
 
There were a couple of things that happened yesterday.

First, for all intents and purposes, the Nevada case, Baker v. Drozdoff (formerly Baker v. Biaggi), has been settled.

In a joint motion to the Court, all parties to the action have requested a preliminary injunction, enjoining all Nevada State operators from enforcing any of the contested administrative rules and regulations. This, while the Nevada Legislature starts a formal proceeding to change the rules (they have 60 days to start the process). The language is to be amended to remove the infringement of 2A rights.

Congratulations should definitely go to attorney Jim Manley of the Mountain States Legal Foundation and to the Nevada Attorney General's Office for forging an agreement that preserves our rights. You will notice, if you go back to the opening post, the entry is now green (for the win). Would that the other cases go so smoothly!


In the OOIDA v. Lindley case (AB962 - handgun ammo law), the State has filed a motion to dismiss (naturally). The motion appears on its face as a boilerplate memorandum that states no one has standing to sue; no one has suffered a harm; The court doesn't have jurisdiction and in the end, the 11th amendment bars the plaintiffs from suing the State in Federal Court. You can read it here. A hearing is set for 11-18-2010.

The motion even mentions that this case should be stayed until Parker v. California (a State court issue) has been heard.


According to No Lawyers - Only Guns and Money, there are several things happening next week, beginning on Monday.
 
After completely reading the MTD in the OOIDA case, I should have made note that CA is asking the court to stay the case, if it won't dismiss the case.

The reasoning? Because Parker v. CA is further along and if that State case is settled, it will affect OOIDA. They included the Parker complaint as an exhibit in their MTD. That was RECAPped and is now viewable. I have edited the OP to give a link to the Parker complaint.
 
There's some movement in the Woollard v. Sheridan case (MD). I've linked in the docket, where you can "see" what's going on, in the OP.

Today, on the last day to file a response, Maryland has filed a MTD. They claim that the SAF has no standing (we knew this was coming ;) ) and that Woollard didn't exhaust all States avenues of redress before filing in federal court.
 
A Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Peruta v. County of San Diego (see the OP of the Current 2A cases - Click on the Peruta link to get to the docket and scroll down to the Memo and Points of Authorities) has been filed.

Without going into detail of this motion, I wanted to highlight a specific passage:
Plaintiffs cannot obtain the permits that state law requires for concealed carry from the County, nor can they generally carry loaded handguns openly under state law. (SUF 6). In effect, they cannot bear any arms in any practical manner for the core purpose of self-defense. Little more need be said. The County has violated and continues to violate Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights, as well as the rights of thousands of similarly situated citizens. And this is true regardless of what type of heightened scrutiny this Court adopts in reviewing the County’s policies and practices. Actually, this Court need not adopt any particular standard of review for, as in Heller, the severity of the County’s restrictive policy and practices renders them void under any level of heightened scrutiny.
Click to expand...

Note the part I highlighted. This is a recurring theme in many of the suits. What is being said, is that the law, as implemented, is so bad, that the court (like Heller & McDonald) does not have to decide any level of scrutiny, because the law wouldn't pass the strictest scrutiny, let alone any lower level.

After stating this, most of the suits go immediately to strict scrutiny in their arguments, as does this one.

I could go back, quote and highlight each and every like passage in most all of the 22 complaints. They are there. The major theme: The laws are so invasive as to fail any level of judicial scrutiny, therefore, the court need not decide what level at this time. But if the court should feel the need to decide, then strict scrutiny because ...

I first noticed this in Alan Gura's earlier case writings. This strategy has been "picked up" by the other attorneys involved in these suits. Yes, they are all communicating and cooperating with each other.
 
By the way, anyone notice the Federal District Court judge in the D'Cruz cases? It is Judge Sam Cummings. You may know him better as the author os the U.S. vs. Emerson decision :D
 
Bart, I thought the name sounded familiar, but couldn't place it.

Anyone know if the D'Cruz docket has been RECAPped? Shoot me a PM and I'll change the link.
 
Added another lawsuit, Wisconsin Carry v. City of Madison.

Did a bit of cleanup. Added several dockets that are now available, thanks to the users of RECAP on CalGuns. For those of you wondering, hit the link (hint, it's a FireFox add-on).

In other news, there is action in Ezell v. Chicago. See the discussion thread.

In Jackson v. San Francisco, the City has made a motion to relate another case (by attorney and lone wolf, Gorsky). By combining the cases, the NRA can "silence" the case and avoid yet another embarrassment by Gorsky.
 
Dearth v. Holder

While there has been no movement in the case Dearth v. Holder, I have the initial briefs handy for you to read.

1. DC Circuit Appeals brief

2. US AG's Response brief.

3. Reply brief.

As yet, orals have not been scheduled. The most current 60-day calendar can be viewed here. Keep checking that link for updates as to when any orals might be scheduled.
 
Case #24

Bonidy v. U.S.P.S.: Debbie and Tab Bonidy and the National Assoc. Gun Rights have sued the Postal service for violation of their 2A rights. Filed 10-04-2010 in the US District Court for the District of Colorado. Attorney James Manely (Mountain States Legal Foundation) for the plaintiffs.

The Bonidy's have no delivery service and must go to the P.O. in order to get their mail. They want to be able to drive to the P.O., leave their lawfully concealed firearms, secured in their vehicle and retrieve their mail. Postal regulations make it a felony to carry on any Postal property, even the parking lot.

The entire complaint is only 7 pages, so it is a short read.

Now, in case you missed it, this is the NAGR that is a party to this lawsuit. If you will remember, I and some others have virtually called the NAGR a front for the anti-gun lobby, at worst, or a GOA sock puppet, at best.

If this suit is an actual change for them, I may have to eat my words.
 
Heller II has been scheduled for oral argument on November 15, 2010, at 9:30 A.M., before Circuit Judges Ginsburg, Henderson and Kavanaugh.
 
Things are heating up in Wisconsin.

Clark County Judge Jon Counsell has ruled, in an MTD by the plaintiff, that Wisconsin's ban on concealed carry is overly broad, violates the 2A and the 14A, and is therefore unconstitutional. Read about it here.

I have no pointers to the first item (it is not yet on the PACER system). Since this case is essentially a county magistrates case, it is noteworthy, but unless appealed and upheld, is not yet citable as persuasive authority. It is notable in that this may cause the Wisconsin legislature to enact a workable CC statute.

In other news, Wisconsin Carry has filed another federal lawsuit. This one is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action that demands damages suffered by the plaintiff from the individual officers and to erase the records of her arrest. Read about this one at Wisconsin Carry, Inc.

This case, since it is at the federal level, may become citable if upheld. It has been included in the OP.

In other news, the SAF has filed another lawsuit. This one is in Georgia. It seems that in 1968, a man was convicted of a misdemeanor assault charge, fined $100 and court costs of $9 dollars. This in the State of MD, which until recently, did not have a statutory limitation on misdemeanor sentencing.

In 2008, Jefferson Wayne Schrader of Cleveland, GA (an honorably discharged Vietnam era Naval vet), was denied the opportunity to receive a shotgun as a gift. Again, denied in 2009 to purchase a handgun for self defense. These denials were based upon the new MD law that set a statutory limitation for any misdemeanor at 2 years incarceration. The feds are using that to deny firearms to a 1968 misdemeanor conviction. Read the SAF press release, here.

This lawsuit has not yet been made public and will be added to the case list, when available. (hint: someone post the link if you find it before I do)
 
Heller II has been scheduled for oral argument on November 15, 2010, at 9:30 A.M., before Circuit Judges Ginsburg, Henderson and Kavanaugh.
Click to expand...

The judges are Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 appointees, although Henderson dissented in Parker v. DC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top