View Single Post
Old March 20, 2011, 04:36 PM   #135
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,315
Weekly Update 03-20-2011

On 03-10-2011, Kalchalsky v. Cacace (NY), (recap is still not working correctly) there was 72(RECAP), Supplemental Memorandum of Law in support of 33 MTD and 73(RECAP) Response in support of 42 Cross-MSJ. Both filed by defendants (at least the filings are showing up, as the docket info is not being updated).

#72 is the County saying that it is the State that should be sued, not them, therefore the MTD should be granted.

#73 is the State responding to the Amicus for the plaintiffs (did I say that this was a stupid brief?), saying that regulations on concealed carry are numerous, throughout the US.

On 03-15-2011, in Peterson v. LaCabe, the final judgment was entered. #46 on the docket. Appeal to the 10th Circuit is next. This is the second case to reach this point. Peruta was first (9th Circuit), but does not contain the issues presented by Peterson.

On 03-16-2011, in Muller v. New Jersey, the defendants (finally) filed their Opposition & Cross-Motion to Dismiss. They start their brief in the (now) expected manner:
New Jersey’s requirement that one qualify for a license in order to carry a handgun beyond one’s home is a constitutionally permissible, reasonable regulatory measure that does not implicate the right to possess a handgun in one’s home for purposes of self-defense.
Taking the course that even if carrying outside the home, actually implicates the 2A, that the State has a narrowly tailored law to protect all of its citizens (compelling interest) and therefore passes any level of constitutional muster as the least burdensome manner of regulating guns, beyond the home.

In plain language, New Jersey is saying that there is no right to self-defense, by carrying firearms, beyond the home, and in the alternative that if there was such a right, their laws pass strict scrutiny.

On 03-16-2011, in Benson v. Chicago, the City has filed its reply in support of the MTD Count V (#103 on the docket). The next day (03-17) the Court granted the extension for discovery by the City (#109) and has taken under advisement the MTD (#111). Status hearing is now set for June 6.

Consolidated Report: Second Amendment Arms v. Chicago. I've really had a hard time with this particular case. The attorney is clearly out of his depth here. Briefs are filed with clear grammatical and spelling errors. Chicago is pullings its normal "stall" and the plaintiff is not filing on time. Here is a timeline on what has been happening:

Quote:
12/08/2010 23 MINUTE entry before Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr: Status hearing held on 12/8/2010. MOTION by Defendants Mara Georges, Jody P. Weis, Miguel del Valle, Richard M. Daley, City Of Chicago to dismiss 18 Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint is taken under advisement; Plaintiffs' given leave to file a 20 page response to motion to dismiss by 1/21/2011; Defendants are given leave to file a 20 page reply by 2/16/2011; ruling on motion to dismiss will be by mail. Mailed notice (tbk, ) (Entered: 12/08/2010)

02/04/2011 24 MOTION by Plaintiff Second Amendment Arms to file instanter Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Maksym, Walter) (Entered: 02/04/2011) <--Um, notice this is 14 days after the date to file?

02/04/2011 25 NOTICE of Motion by Walter Peter Maksym, Jr for presentment of motion to file instanter 24 before Honorable Robert M. Dow Jr. on 2/9/2011 at 09:15 AM. (Maksym, Walter) (Entered: 02/04/2011)

02/07/2011 26 MINUTE entry before Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr: MOTION by Plaintiff Second Amendment Arms to file 24 instanter Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted. Defendants' time to file reply brief is extended to 3/7/2011. Notice of Motion date of 2/9/2011 is stricken and no appearances are necessary on that date. Mailed by Judge's Staff notice (tbk, ) (Entered: 02/07/2011)

02/09/2011 27 RESPONSE by Second Amendment Armsin Opposition to MOTION by Defendants Mara Georges, Jody P. Weis, Miguel del Valle, Richard M. Daley, City Of Chicago to dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint 18[RECAP] filed on behalf of all Plaintiffs (Maksym, Walter) (Entered: 02/09/2011) <--OK... You just received an extension to file, but you went and filed a month early???

02/09/2011 28 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs re response in opposition to motion, 27 (Maksym, Walter) (Entered: 02/09/2011)

02/10/2011 29 MEMORANDUM by Second Amendment Arms in Opposition to motion to dismiss 18[RECAP] filed on behalf of all Plaintiffs (Maksym, Walter) (Entered: 02/10/2011)

03/04/2011 30 REPLY by City Of Chicago, Richard M. Daley, Mara Georges, Miguel del Valle, Jody P. Weis to memorandum in opposition to motion 29 to dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (Aguiar, William) (Entered: 03/04/2011)

03/04/2011 31 NOTICE by City Of Chicago, Richard M. Daley, Mara Georges, Miguel del Valle, Jody P. Weis re reply to response to motion 30 (Aguiar, William) (Entered: 03/04/2011)
The most I will say is that this case is on life support and I really wish someone would pull the plug....
Al Norris is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.05534 seconds with 7 queries