Current 2A Cases
- Thread starter Al Norris
- Start date
Yes, the Chicago gun range ban case audio file was very entertaining. Gura seemed to do a damn good job. The Chicago lawyer seemed to **** off the judges. It didn't seem he could tell the difference between regulation and prohibition. He and the judges were clearly not on the same page which was much to our advantage.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
That was a very entertaining oral argument. It also shows how shaky the arguments that have been beating us are and how easily they will fall if subjected to any real rational analysis.
Thanks for sharing the link!
Thanks for sharing the link!
From the male judge:
As hard as they were on him, two of the three judges were sympathetic to Gura's arguments. The sympathetic-sounding female judge is Diane Sykes, who wrote one of the first opinions [pdf] suggesting the application of strict scrutiny to regulations of 2nd Amendment rights.
James Feldman represents Chicago in this case. Apparently his dissembling and stammering in orals for McDonald v. Chicago weren't grim enough, and they decided to give him a second chance.
As hard as they were on him, two of the three judges were sympathetic to Gura's arguments. The sympathetic-sounding female judge is Diane Sykes, who wrote one of the first opinions [pdf] suggesting the application of strict scrutiny to regulations of 2nd Amendment rights.
James Feldman represents Chicago in this case. Apparently his dissembling and stammering in orals for McDonald v. Chicago weren't grim enough, and they decided to give him a second chance.
I just went back through the recording, and Kanne's actual wording was, "my guess is, from the reading of these briefs, a lot of people that prepared this have never been to a firing range. [28:30]"
Funny thing is, there was a time when someone could have persuaded a court with an argument like, "when people congregate with guns, things that might be…just…um…casual disagreement, or fights, can end up causing injury or harm."
The main problem for Feldman is that he kept bringing up regulatory concerns as justification for an outright ban. Judge Sykes observed that "those are regulatory concerns. This is a prohibition. This is an absolute ban. (…) This ordinance is prohibitory, it's not regulatory. That's a huge difference for 2nd Amendment purposes. [23:15]"
Feldman still didn't get it, and he kept going off on the "stray bullet" thing.
He also tried to dredge up ordinances from the Founding era that outlawed the discharge of weapons in populated areas. As the court noted, those ordinances had nothing to do with controlled ranges; they were meant to keep people from shooting in the streets. Feldman tried to equate "open discharge" of firearms with their discharge on a controlled range, but the court wasn't hearing it.
At that point, Judge Rovner observed, "you will probably have some real problems when this reaches the merits. [25:35]"
Kanne also pointed out that Federal courthouses had indoor shooting ranges in them, and from the tone of the conversation, it sounded like he (and possibly Judge Sykes) were well familiar with them.
Judge Sykes was the one to watch. She reiterated her argument from the Skoien case that the 2nd Amendment deserved strict scrutiny, and that it enjoyed the same protections as the 1st.
Funny thing is, there was a time when someone could have persuaded a court with an argument like, "when people congregate with guns, things that might be…just…um…casual disagreement, or fights, can end up causing injury or harm."
The main problem for Feldman is that he kept bringing up regulatory concerns as justification for an outright ban. Judge Sykes observed that "those are regulatory concerns. This is a prohibition. This is an absolute ban. (…) This ordinance is prohibitory, it's not regulatory. That's a huge difference for 2nd Amendment purposes. [23:15]"
Feldman still didn't get it, and he kept going off on the "stray bullet" thing.
He also tried to dredge up ordinances from the Founding era that outlawed the discharge of weapons in populated areas. As the court noted, those ordinances had nothing to do with controlled ranges; they were meant to keep people from shooting in the streets. Feldman tried to equate "open discharge" of firearms with their discharge on a controlled range, but the court wasn't hearing it.
At that point, Judge Rovner observed, "you will probably have some real problems when this reaches the merits. [25:35]"
Kanne also pointed out that Federal courthouses had indoor shooting ranges in them, and from the tone of the conversation, it sounded like he (and possibly Judge Sykes) were well familiar with them.
Judge Sykes was the one to watch. She reiterated her argument from the Skoien case that the 2nd Amendment deserved strict scrutiny, and that it enjoyed the same protections as the 1st.
Another Case Just Popped Up Today
SAF joined in a lawsuit with the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association and five individual New York City residents. They have sued New York City, Mayor Bloomberg and the NY AG Eric Schneiderman to invalidate the City's $340 dollar fee for a 3 year premises permit (on top of a 94.25 fee for processing the applicants fingerprints and the State criminal background investigation).
The suit alleges that the fee impermissibly burdens the Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Additionally, the suit alleges that the State law, by exempting NYC (from the maximum $10 fee in the rest of the State), fails on equal protection grounds.
The SAF announcement is here and the complaint is here.
The attorney is David D. Jensen, PLLC, New York and New Jersey. This is the attorney handling the Muller v. Maenza (NJ) case. He has separated from his former law offices (Duane Morris LLP) and has a (limited) website here.
SAF joined in a lawsuit with the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association and five individual New York City residents. They have sued New York City, Mayor Bloomberg and the NY AG Eric Schneiderman to invalidate the City's $340 dollar fee for a 3 year premises permit (on top of a 94.25 fee for processing the applicants fingerprints and the State criminal background investigation).
The suit alleges that the fee impermissibly burdens the Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Additionally, the suit alleges that the State law, by exempting NYC (from the maximum $10 fee in the rest of the State), fails on equal protection grounds.
The SAF announcement is here and the complaint is here.
The attorney is David D. Jensen, PLLC, New York and New Jersey. This is the attorney handling the Muller v. Maenza (NJ) case. He has separated from his former law offices (Duane Morris LLP) and has a (limited) website here.
maestro pistolero
New member
Here's Gura's hit-list in the text:
Back on March 21, in Bonidy v. USPS, the district court granted the Motion to Dismiss (MTD) by the defendant, USPS. This was done with a stipulation that the Plaintiffs could file a second amended complaint.
That was filed, last week and can be read here (item #15 on the docket).
Last time, the Bonidy's had only a single complaint that included both the interior of the Post Office and the parking lot. This time, they have separated the two areas. The parking lot comprises one complaint and the interior comprises the second complaint.
Because of the nature of the parking lot being the only place that the public can park, during the winter months, they may win that aspect. I believe the court will still rule that the interior is still a "sensitive place."
That was filed, last week and can be read here (item #15 on the docket).
Last time, the Bonidy's had only a single complaint that included both the interior of the Post Office and the parking lot. This time, they have separated the two areas. The parking lot comprises one complaint and the interior comprises the second complaint.
Because of the nature of the parking lot being the only place that the public can park, during the winter months, they may win that aspect. I believe the court will still rule that the interior is still a "sensitive place."
In the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Dearth v. Holder has been reversed and remanded back to the District Court. The panels decision is here.
The opinion is a brief 8 pages where Judge Ginsburg (not Justice Ginsberg) lays it all out. Expect the District Court to apply the 2A two-step and/or 2A Containment. It will be back to the Circuit regardless of who wins at the District level.
The opinion is a brief 8 pages where Judge Ginsburg (not Justice Ginsberg) lays it all out. Expect the District Court to apply the 2A two-step and/or 2A Containment. It will be back to the Circuit regardless of who wins at the District level.
Not much attention has been paid to the civil rights lawsuit by Georgia Carry against the State of Georgia, concerning Georgia's ban of firearms in churches. Georgia Carry lost at the District level (final dismissal was on Jan. 25, 2011). Appellants filed notice of appeal on Jan. 26 and their brief was filed back on Mar. 14th.
The brief is 29 PDF pages and may be read here. This case hinges on both 1st and 2nd amendment issues.
In another case that wasn't followed (much) by 2A enthusiasts, was Hall v. Garcia. This was a pro se case that tied to get the 1000 foot school zone law in CA overturned. On Mar. 16, 2011, Judge Seeborg granted the defendant his MJP (#21 on the docket). You can read it here.
Bad cases make bad caselaw. Such was this case. Because this gentleman (who is not an attorney), decided he couldn't wait while other cases got lined up, it will now be harder to challenge GFSZ's.
I RECAPed the docket and the Court's Opinion on the MJP. It should be viewable shortly. It doesn't appear that Mr. Hall will be filing an appeal. Which leaves this at the District level and not the Circuit level.
The brief is 29 PDF pages and may be read here. This case hinges on both 1st and 2nd amendment issues.
In another case that wasn't followed (much) by 2A enthusiasts, was Hall v. Garcia. This was a pro se case that tied to get the 1000 foot school zone law in CA overturned. On Mar. 16, 2011, Judge Seeborg granted the defendant his MJP (#21 on the docket). You can read it here.
Bad cases make bad caselaw. Such was this case. Because this gentleman (who is not an attorney), decided he couldn't wait while other cases got lined up, it will now be harder to challenge GFSZ's.
I RECAPed the docket and the Court's Opinion on the MJP. It should be viewable shortly. It doesn't appear that Mr. Hall will be filing an appeal. Which leaves this at the District level and not the Circuit level.
Some updating on Chicago v. Benson is in order.
A Supplemental Brief by Defendants in Support of their MTD was submitted on 3/24. The Illinois Association of Firearms Retailers filed a a Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants MTD on 3/29.
There is a curious docket entry:
A Supplemental Brief by Defendants in Support of their MTD was submitted on 3/24. The Illinois Association of Firearms Retailers filed a a Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants MTD on 3/29.
There is a curious docket entry:
I wasn't aware that anyone still used WordPerfect. But after Googling, I see that the US DOJ is still a major user. Ah Well!
A large number of other attorneys still use WordPerfect, including myself. I won't go into nauseating detail but let's just say that in producing paper documents (or the PDF equivalent), WordPerfect is easier to work with and is more intuitive. In addition, very long documents are more stable in WordPefect, especially when using it's master document/subdocument features.
You happened to hit on my other love, besides guns.
Spats McGee
Administrator
I still use it at home and would use it at work, if I could. KyJim has hit the nail on the head. That "Reveal Codes" function rocks! (at least, it does if you're as big a geek about your word processing as I am)KyJim said:
[sidetrack]
Back in the late 80's, I used to teach several computer classes. One of them was WordPerfect. So yeah, I remember (vividly) how much better document handling was with Reveal Codes. IIRC, macros were another feature that hasn't been duplicated, as successfully.
Quite frankly, it is still better at editing (especially with styles) than any other processor around. I just didn't know it was still being produced (sigh ... wish the linux version was still in development).
At any rate, I'll opt for LibreOffice (a recent fork of Open Office). Mostly because of the ease it handles documents in all the other formats. Including PDF. WP X5 however, is not enough reason to put the MS OS back on my system.
[/sidetrack]
OK then. does anyone but me think that the D.C. Circuits opinion in Dearth will be a win, not just for citizens living outside the US, but in an equal protection sense, all citizens?
Back in the late 80's, I used to teach several computer classes. One of them was WordPerfect. So yeah, I remember (vividly) how much better document handling was with Reveal Codes. IIRC, macros were another feature that hasn't been duplicated, as successfully.
Quite frankly, it is still better at editing (especially with styles) than any other processor around. I just didn't know it was still being produced (sigh ... wish the linux version was still in development).
At any rate, I'll opt for LibreOffice (a recent fork of Open Office). Mostly because of the ease it handles documents in all the other formats. Including PDF. WP X5 however, is not enough reason to put the MS OS back on my system.
[/sidetrack]
OK then. does anyone but me think that the D.C. Circuits opinion in Dearth will be a win, not just for citizens living outside the US, but in an equal protection sense, all citizens?