The big news of this week, was that on the 18th, the Fresno Superior Court judge in the Clay Parker v. CA case, determined that the language in AB 962 was unconstitutionally vague and voided the entire law. A big win for gun rights in CA. See this
thread for the announcement.
Because the Judge ruled from the bench, we don't have his written opinion to read. Yet. It's coming. California cannot appeal until the written opinion is out (you can't appeal if you don't know exactly what the judge said). The legislature is in the same bind. While they can certainly pass a law to amend the "vague" portions, until the Judges opinion has been published, they will have no guidance as to what exactly was vague and how to avoid it.
What is hoped for, is that the Judge includes language that would strike any ammo bans, that were not backed up by authoritative research as to what is handgun ammo and what isn't. The good news is that no such studies currently exist.
On 01-14-2011, in Bonidy v. USPS, the plaintiffs filed their opposition
to defendants MTD. Here, attorney James Manley (NAGR), uses several tactics to derail the MTD by the government. Citing the cases from the 7th, 3rd and 4th Circuits, Manley also cites Peruta,
as standing for permitted open carry when opposed to regulated CCW. Well argued, IMO, but of course, I don't count.
On 01-18-2011, in Bateman v. Perdue (NC), the defendants asked for an extension of time to file its reply to Gura's response to their MSJ. Given were two reasons. The first? They were too busy with other cases. The second reason? Well, read the following (and read between the lines):
In addition, nineteen days ago, the Fourth Circuit issued a decision in United States v. Chester, __ F.3d __, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 26508, which represents its most definitive interpretation of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, __ U.S. __, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008), the case that lies at the heart of the Second Amendment claims being asserted by Plaintiffs in the present lawsuit. The undersigned counsel needs additional time to prepare a reply brief that fully takes into account the decision in Chester;
The plaintiffs agreed to the motion.
On 01-19-2011, in Nordyke v. King, Donald Kilmer filed a supplemental brief citing Chester
as the authority, not Williams
(the MD State case, not to be confused with the 7th Circuit case, as Alameda cited in its last brief):
This letter is filed in response to Docket Entry # 174 filed by the Appellees on January 10, 2011, calling to this Court’s attention the case of Williams v. Maryland.
The difference between the Maryland case and United States v. Chester; 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 26505, is that the Maryland Court failed to conduct the historical analysis of the scope of the Second Amendment outside the home. That historical analysis is briefed and already before the Court in this case. Furthermore the type of analysis necessary for Second Amendment adjudication was conducted by the Chester Court. Therefore Chester is the more persuasive case.
On 01-21-2011, in Heller v. D.C. (Heller II), the Appellants (Heller) filed their reply to the Supplemental briefing (attached). This completes the per curiam order by the D.C. Circuit.
This is a step-by-step refutation of the appellees contention that D.C. can enact whatever gun laws they want, barring the narrow ruling of guns in the home (the original Heller).
Should the Circuit rule in favor of Heller on statutory grounds, then the district MSJ's will be reversed and the arguments on 2A grounds will really commence.
On 01-21-2011, in Wollard v. MD, the amended complaint
, an expansion of the Equal Protection Clause (Count II), was filed. Read the following very carefully:
U.S. CONST., AMEND. XIV, EQUAL PROTECTION, 42 U.S.C. § 1983
32. Paragraphs 1 through 31 are incorporated as though fully stated herein.
33. Maryland Public Safety Code § 5-306(a)(5)(ii)’s requirement that handgun carry permit applicants demonstrate cause for the issuance of a permit impermissibly classifies individuals with respect to the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right. The provision creates two classification of individuals. Applicants who have demonstrated to Defendants’ satisfaction that a handgun carry permit is “necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger,” or that they face a greater than average level of danger, are given permits; applicants who cannot satisfy that burden are not given permits. The classification system is inherently arbitrary, irrational, and deprives individuals of their fundamental right to bear arms based on criteria that cannot be justified under any means-ends level of scrutiny for the security of a fundamental constitutional right. The provision thus violates Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of the law, damaging them in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to permanent injunctive relief against the enforcement of this provision.
At this point, the defendant should be writing the answer to Wollard's MSJ (which has yet to be answered by the defendant), and thus, addressing the 2A component (finally!).
On 01-21-2011, in Peterson v. LaCabe (CO non-resident CCW), John Monroe filed his Opposition to 34 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment
. If you read last weeks take-down of CO AG Suthers, this one is certainly a little added frosting.