Current 2A Cases

Wonderful news! I'm very happy to see a CLEO in CA get the message and adapt his policy accordingly.
Thanks for the continuous updates, Al.
 
D'Cruz v. Texas and D'Crus v. BATFE

Last Wednesday, the 20th of October, D'Cruz filed an amended complaint in the State of Texas.

In this complaint, D'Cruz did everything he could to apply for his Texas CHL, but failed due to the age requirements. D'Cruz now has solid standing to file his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit.

On Thursday, the 21st, D'Curz filed an amended complaint against the BATFE. Standing here is cited as D'Cruz's attempt to purchase a handgun on Sept. 3, 2010. This complaint also adds Andrew Payne, another 18 yr.old adult suing to exercise his right.

Woodward v. Sheriden, MD CCW case.

Monday, the 25th of Oct., the State of MD filed it's reply to the Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss.

Here, the State is still arguing for Younger's Abstention, and that the SAF has no standing, even though Woodward is a member. Without any note, the State does not touch upon the fact that there are other members of the SAF in MD.

This reply is weak, at best, but will probably carry the day with the court. Get ready for an appeal to the 4th Circuit.

GeorgiaCarry, Inc. v. Georgia, Georgia Church Carry Ban.

On Monday, the 25th of Oct., the plaintiffs filed its reply to in support of their MSJ. Read it here - Go to the OP to find the link to all documents filed by GeorgiaCarry.

If you remember, the complaint argues that the Carry Ban, specific to Churches, violates both the 1st and 2nd amendments. The current filing claims State has not even made a perfunctory attempt at defending this law, rather it (the State) admits that the ban infringes the right(s).
 
Thanks for that, Maestro. When I looked Friday, none of this was showing up. I should know better, and should have looked yesterday (folks, this is why it's important to have more than one set of eyes looking at these things).

If you were to read the opinion of Judge Kendall in denying the injunction (item #77 on the docket, and at the link Maestro gave), you will see where she is implicitly siding with the City on all accounts, even to the granting of the MTD by the City (this is inherent in the way she worded her denial).

The Judge has ignored the body of case law that was presented in the briefs by the plaintiffs and the NRA amicus brief, in favor of mere (almost totally) unsupported opinion by the defendants that there is no right to bear arms, outside the house.

I believe that the 7th Circuit will overturn this decision in part, and grant a preliminary injunction.

Moving on. The opposition reply to the MTD (Item #80 on the docket) is a good read and set outs in explicit terms where the City is wrong on each and every count (and by inference, Judge Kendall herself).

As Judge Kendall has already indicated, she will nevertheless, rule against the plaintiffs, and grant the Motion To Dismiss, by the defendants. Thus, eliminating the preliminary injunction, granted by the Circuit.

This too will be appealed and overturned. Case law is against this Judge.

Should the City be as determined as D.C., they will appeal to the SCOTUS. Cert will be denied and the 7th Circuit opinion remain in force. (cert will be denied, as the issue is not ripe - that so many other cases are waiting in the wings, will not escape the notice of the Court)

All of this will happen within a years time.

What this case establishes, should I be correct, is that bearing arms outside the home is an integral part of the core right. Implicit in that right is to train. That no government can regulate training ranges, to the point they don't exist, most especially if they insist on training as a requirement to license the keeping and/or bearing of arms.

NB: OK, I'm reading this through my crystal ball. Remember, I could be very, very wrong on all accounts. I'm not an attorney, I'm not a law professor. I'm merely an amateur constitutional speculator.
 
I like it, Al. Best we could hope for under the circumstances.

I feel a little naive even saying it, but I am endlessly baffled by the built-in resistance to striking down clearly unconstitutional law. The mindset is just whacked. Doesn't everybody, especially government have a vested interest in protecting their constitution?

This judge is disappointing, but the higher up the judicial ladder, the harder to overturn later. She's probably doing us a favor, wittingly or unwittingly.
 
I haven't visited the RECAP archives pages in a few days. As I searched this morning, the Benson (NRA) case was finally viewable. I have now placed the docket info as the link to the Benson v. Chicago case. Most court documents are now viewable.

I probably won't get time to review the filings until later in the week. If anyone else cares to review and comment, feel free to open the appropriate thread.
 
A small update, on the Parker v. California case. Today, Cheaper Than Dirt, filed a Declaration in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction against California. Read it here.

Anyone confirm or deny rumors that other large ammo shippers are following suit, by filing like declarations?

In Bateman v. Perdue (the NC case), Alan Gura filed a Motion for Summary Judgment today. Read it here.

New case added: 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. No docket as yet, but the complaint is here.
 
Some thoughts - like this closing sentence from Bateman - simply bear repeating:

But there is no reason to suppose that a law-abiding person, fully qualified to purchase guns and ammunition for self-defense, becomes an incipient felon, mental incompetent or other danger – beyond the reach of generally-applicable civil and criminal law – merely because the government has declared itself unable to provide police protection.
Click to expand...

Bateman represents a sympathetic case for both a broad precedent on the scope of carry as was as coverage of ammunition. With any luck, the Democratic Governor and not-too-gun-friendly Attorney General will feel obliged to contest this case to the appellate level. We can only hope that the new Republican legislature does not repeal the law before Gura can get a precedent-setting ruling in this case.
 
Al and others, this is by far the most informative collection of gun law updates I've encountered.

I feel very naive at the moment. Time to catch up on the links you've posted.

Adding this thread to my list of daily reads.

Thanks for your obviously tireless work on this.

--Wag--
 
The CRPA has made a few of the filings in Sheriff Parker v. California available, although it is still a somewhat convoluted process to read them.

The latest filing (that has come to our attention) is the Reply brief in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, which was filed on Oct. 7, 2010.

The CRPA and the NRA are keeping this entire lawsuit pretty hush-hush. After reading what filings have been made public, I'm at a loss as to explain why and no explanations are forth coming. Especially when compared to all the other lawsuits that are being reported in a timely manner and/or are RECAPped.

Currently, according to the Fresno Superior Court docket, we were to have a hearing on the MPI on Nov. 17th: Minute Order from Dept.: 97A Clerk: M.Santana Reporter: Not Reported Nature of Hearing: Motion Preliminary Injunction - The court has continued the following case. The deadlines for opposition and reply papers will remain the same as for the original hearing date. Cont. to 11/17/2010 at 3:30pm. in Dept. 97A for Motion Preliminary Injunction/Status Conference/CMC mgs

On the 8th of Nov., a docket entry was made that indicates that on Dec. 16th, we will have a hearing on the MTD by CA: Motion for judgment on the pleadings set for 12/2/10 has been continued to 12/16/10 by Peter Krouse. lp
 
Today, Monday, Nov. 15, 2010, several things occurred.

First, we had oral arguments for Dearth v. Holder and also Heller v. D.C. (Heller II) before the D.C. Circuit. Expect a decision by Jan. or Feb.

Then there were oral arguments for Peruta v. County of San Diego. The orals were on Perutas MSJ and San Diego's cross-Motion for Dismissal. The Judge has indicated that a decision will be out (written) in 3 weeks.

Last, but certainly not least, Alan Gura has filed an MSJ in Wollard v. Sheridan (the MD case).
 
Today brought another twist in the Heller II case. The D.C. Circuit issued a per curiam order:

BEFORE: Ginsburg, Henderson, and Kavanaugh, Circuit Judges

ORDER​

It is, on the court's own motion, ORDERED that the parties file supplemental briefs addressing the following questions:

(1) After the Home Rule Act, Pub. L. No. 93-198, 87 Stat. 774 (1973) (codified at D.C. Code §§ 1-201.01–1-207.71 (2001)), do gun laws passed by the District of Columbia Council have to be “usual and reasonable” within the meaning of the federal Act of June 30, 1906, Pub. L. No. 59-401, which is currently codified at D.C. Code § 1-303.43? Cf. McIntosh v. Washington, 395 A.2d 744, 749-54 (D.C. 1978); Firemen’s Ins. Co. of Washington, D.C. v. Washington, 483 F.2d 1323, 1327-28 (D.C. Cir. 1973); Maryland & D.C. Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Washington, 442 F.2d 123, 125-29 & 125 n.9 (D.C. Cir. 1971); Fulton v. District of Columbia, 2 App. D.C. 431, 438-39 (D.C. Cir. 1894).

(2) What does the term “usual” mean in this statute? Cf. Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005); Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002); Firemen’s Ins. Co., 483 F.2d at 1327-28; Glover v. District of Columbia, 250 A.2d 556 (D.C. 1969); Filippo v. Real Estate Comm’n of the District of Columbia, 223 A.2d 268 (D.C. 1966); Black’s Law Dictionary (2d ed. 1910) (defining usual to mean “ordinary” or “customary”). Is the canon of constitutional avoidance relevant to that question? Cf. Fulton, 2 App. D.C. at 438-39.

(3) Are the challenged D.C. laws “usual” within the meaning of this statute?

(4) Does the D.C. Court of Appeals’ interpretation of the congressionally enacted Act of June 30, 1906, or of similarly worded federal statutes, receive deference from the federal courts? Cf. Bliley v. Kelly, 23 F.3d 507, 511 (D.C. Cir. 1994). If so, under what circumstances?

The following briefing format and schedule will apply:

Supplemental Brief for Appellants: 12/01/10
(not to exceed 20 pages)

Supplemental Brief for Appellees: 12/08/10
(not to exceed 20 pages)

Reply Brief for Appellants: 12/13/10
(not to exceed 10 pages)

The United States is invited to file a brief, not to exceed 20 pages, on any or all of these questions by Friday, December 3, 2010.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with others (around the net), that this is a vehicle by which the Circuit can avoid the Constitutional questions and rule on statutory law.

A win is a win, but under this approach, the case will mean next to nothing for the build-up of 2A case law.
 
Sheriff Clay Parker v. California

http://www.calgunlaws.com/http://www.calgunlaws.com/

On November 17, 2010, the Foundation's lawyers at Michel & Associates, P.C. in Long Beach appeared in Fresno court for the Plaintiffs on their hearing for a Motion for Preliminary Injunction and related case management and scheduling conferences. During the hearing, the Court expressed concerns over the amount of “irreparable harm” to plaintiffs if an injunction was not issued at this stage, and whether that harm couldn’t simply be “repaired” with money damages. The Court encouraged the parties to focus on the underlying substantive issue, and to reach agreement on how to expedite a decision on the merits prior to the effective date of February 1st for the major components of AB 962. In doing so, the court noted that although trials are now being set for 2012, the Court would grant the plaintiffs a rare trial setting preference. The Court then assisted the parties in negotiating a briefing schedule for an unusual and extremely expedited joint Motion for Summary Judgment/Trial by brief.

The hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Trial are set for January 18, 2011. The Court, noting that “time was of the essence” for Plaintiffs, ensured a ruling would either be made the date of the hearing or within a few days to ensure this case is resolved in its entirety prior to February 1st. In light of the Court’s willingness to rapidly expedite this litigation and reach a final decision on the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims, Plaintiffs opted to withdraw their Motion for a Preliminary Injunction rather than protracting the litigation by arguing and requesting supplemental briefing on Plaintiffs’ irreparable harm claims. Plaintiffs' need for a preliminary injunction to issue were alleviated in many regards by assurances from both opposing counsel and the Court that this case will in fact be resolved prior to February 1st. The Foundation’s lawyers are now working tirelessly to prepare for Summary Judgment, and if needed, trial.
Click to expand...

Full notification of yesterdays hearing at the link, above.

This is actually fairly good news. Instead of moving forward on a supplemental briefing schedule on the injunction, the plaintiffs now have an expedited case schedule for summary judgment and trial, set to conclude before the law goes fully into effect.
 
D'Cruz v. McCraw

That's the NRA case in the State of Texas to allow CCW for 18-20 yr olds.

In an unusual twist of events, on Wed. the 17th, the Brady Bunch filed an amicus curiae brief in the case, D'Cruz v. McCraw (do I need to state who they filed against?).

While the brief hasn't been actually RECAPped, it is listed as Item #24 on the docket (see the OP for a link), but can be found here. I suggest getting a copy before the Brady's remove it.

So what's the twist? Yesterday, after noticing that the State has made a motion to request more time to answer the amended complaint (10-20-2010 - item #20), the Brady's moved to withdraw their amicus brief for the following reasons:

In light of the fact that defendants have not moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint and have instead requested additional time to respond to the Amended Complaint, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Mothers Against Teen Violence, and Texas Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, through undersigned counsel, move to withdraw their application for leave to file a brief as amici curiae.
Click to expand...

They go on to say that they intend to file again, after one or both parties have made dispositive filings on the amended complaint.... "Well, uh, your Honor, were not sure what the State may now say and, um, we may want to change what we say, um, can we have a do-over? Please?" :rolleyes:
 
Weekend Update

Peterson v. LaCabe
When I last looked, on 10-20-2010, the Judge dismissed Peter Weir (Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Public Safety), and enjoined the Colorado AG, John Suthers, to act as an intervenor party to the case. The AG was to file his response to the plaintiffs MSJ against defendant LaCabe (who's cross-MSJ was denied).

Since then, the AG has requested (and was unopposed) for an extension in time to file. The AG further requested leave to file a cross-motion at the same time. On 11-19-2010 the Court agreed:

The Attorney General’s Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Response Brief to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [filed November 17, 2010; docket #28] is granted. The Attorney General shall respond to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment on or before December 10, 2010. Plaintiff may reply within fourteen days of the Attorney General’s response.
Click to expand...

So now we will get to see how the State will argue that there is in fact Equal Protection (14th amendment) between residents and non-residents as regards the 2A claim of self-defense.​

Benson v. Chicago
Earlier, I hinted that the NRA was behind the City of Chicago's claim (and motion) that Ezell was related to Benson. To be blunt, I was entirely wrong! It now appears that the NRA is indeed "playing by the rules" in the litigation strategy of the SAF and CGF.

After filing briefs, showing conclusively that Ezell and Benson are not related, Chicago is now trying to relate the Second Amendment Arms v. Chicago case to Benson. On 11-12-2010, the NRA filed a brief in opposition to Chicago's motion to relate.

The practical purpose of Chicago is clear. If it can relate the cases to a single judge, and then consolidate all three cases, it will be years before any resolution can be reached.... Delay, delay, delay!​

Ezell v. Chicago
On 11-02-2010, Chicago requested a motion to stay further proceedings until after the 7th Circuit has ruled on the appeal of the denial of the preliminary injunction. On 11-16-2010, the judge has effectively granted that motion.​

D'Cruz v. BATFE
ORDER GRANTING Unopposed MOTION to set briefing schedule. It is therefore ORDERED that the following schedule is established in this matter: 12/17/2010: Defendants' Answer and/or dispositive motion due; 1/14/2011: Plaintiffs' response to Defendants' dispositive motion due; Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment due; 2/14/2011: Defendants' reply in support of dispositive motion due; Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment due; 3/11/2011: Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion for summary judgment due. It is further ORDERED that while no discovery will proceed at this time, Plaintiffs reserve the right to seek discovery after Defendants file a dispositive motion or a response to Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. Defendants reserve the right to oppose any such discovery. Plaintiffs' willingness to agree to this schedule at this time will not be a legitimate basis for resisting later discovery. (Ordered by Judge Sam R Cummings on 11/8/2010) (lkw) (Entered: 11/08/2010)

* While filed on 11-08-2010, it was not added to the docket until 11-11-2010. Docket was then RECAPped this morning.​

D'Cruz v. McCraw
The motion to withdraw the amicus brief was granted by Judge Cummings.​

After this, I will probably only update these posts on a weekly basis, unless something really good (or bad) happens....
 
Great work, Al. I'm only beginning to try to understand all of this and greatly appreciate you keeping the updates coming.

--Wag--
 
Thank you, karcirate. I've updated the OP to reflect the new case.

The one thing that is front and center in this particular case, as opposed in all the other cases, is that this is a facial challenge to the handgun permitting laws of New Jersey (granted an as-applied challenge is used as a fall-back, but...). This is saying that the New Jersey laws are wrong in all cases. This is not easy to do, as the defendents need merely show that the law is valid in a single case to have your suit thrown clear out of the ballpark.

While I think this particular case might have a chance, perhaps one of our attorneys can actually tell us why this is a tough row to hoe (as opposed to all the other cases which are as-applied).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top