View Single Post
Old March 14, 2011, 07:33 AM   #130
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,277
Upadate

Woollard v. Sheridan (MD CCW) SAF/Gura: Defendant response to SAF Motion for Summary Judgment due 03/07/2011. Rescheduled to 03/14.

Muller v. Maenza, (NJ CCW) SAF: Defendants will submit a reply in support of their cross-motion no later than 03/09/11. Rescheduled to 03/16.

Richards v. Prieto (CA CCW) SAF/Gura: Oral Arguments Scheduled 03/10/2011. Arguments made and case submitted.

On 03-11-2011, in Schrader v. Holder, Memorandum in opposition to re 5 MOTION to Dismiss and in Support of Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment 8. Below is the Table of Contents of the brief to give you the highlights of the argument in favor of Schrader (in case you don't wish to read the 60+ pages):
Quote:
II. FEDERAL LAW DOES NOT PROHIBIT ORDINARY COMMON LAW MISDEMEANANTS FROM POSSESSING FIREARMS
A. The Text Of The Federal Felon-In-Possession Statute Demonstrates That Uncodified Common Law Misdemeanor Offenses—Which Are Not “Punishable” By Any Specified Statutory Criteria—Do Not Constitute Disqualifying Offenses
B. The Government’s Reading Of The Felon-In-Possession Statute Fundamentally Alters Its Structure
C. Legislative History Confirms That The Government’s Reading of the Felon-In-Possession Statute Was Not Contemplated By The Enacting Congress
D. The Fourth Circuit’s Approach
E. The Rule Of Lenity Further Confirms That Common Law Misdemeanor Convictions Do Not Trigger The Felon-In-Possession Statute
F. Even Assuming The Government’s Reading, Schrader’s Federal Prohibition Was Lifted When Maryland Statutorily Restored His State Civil Rights
III. THE IMPOSITION OF A FIREARMS BAN ON ORDINARY COMMON LAW MISDEMEANANTS VIOLATES THE SECOND AMENDMENT
A. Heller Changed The Doctrinal Framework For Analyzing Government Action Implicating The Right To Keep And Bear Arms
1. The Supreme Court’s decisions in Heller and McDonald
2. The applicable doctrinal framework
B. Schrader’s Core Second Amendment Rights Are Implicated By The Government’s Application Of The Felon-In-Possession Ban
C. The Application Of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) To Schrader Cannot Survive Independent Review Under Any Appropriate Level Of Scrutiny
1. A complete firearms ban applied to an ordinary common law misdemeanant like Schrader cannot survive strict scrutiny—the appropriate level of Second Amendment scrutiny
a. The core of the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental and entitled to strict scrutiny review
b. Violent felons were historically outside the protective scope of the right to keep and bear arms; Heller’s dictum concerning the presumed constitutionality of felon dispossession laws is entirely consistent with strict scrutiny
c. A complete firearms ban applied to an ordinary common law misdemeanant like Schrader cannot survive strict scrutiny review
2. A complete firearms ban applied to an ordinary common law misdemeanant like Schrader also fails review under intermediate scrutiny
Al Norris is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04342 seconds with 7 queries