On 09/08/2011, the State filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority
, citing the decision in Kachalsky.
On 09-14-2011, Alan Gura responded
On 10-03-2011, the State filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority
, citing the decision in Hightower
Alan Gura, didn't deem it necessary to respond.
Now, on 01-19-2012, the State files yet another Notice of Supplemental Authority
, citing the New Jersey Case (now named) Piszczatoski v. Filko.
Alan didn't waste any time. Today he filed a response
to all three of these notices and adds some notices of his own! Gura cites 3 decisions by the 4th Circuit (Chester, Staten
) that relates to criminal cases and how the 4th used intermediate scrutiny to decide on their possession of guns (“the core right identified in Heller
[is] the right of a law-abiding, responsible citizen to possess and carry a weapon for self-defense.”). Then Gura cites the recent 1st Circuit case, Rehlander.
Gura then goes on to describe how the cites the defense uses, are not even relevant to the issues at hand. But he starts that portion of his response with:
Defendants have taken issue with Plaintiffs’ responses to their persistent citation of supplemental authority. Plaintiffs agree there is no need for further briefing. However, it is accepted practice in many courts to offer some minimal explanation of supplemental authority so that the court is not left guessing as to the authority’s relevance, or lack thereof.
The next to last paragraph really stands out, as one of Gura's trademark zingers:
It is manifestly clear that, regrettably, many courts simply refuse to follow Heller and McDonald. They read ambiguity into Heller’s clear sources, decline to apply Heller’s constitutional definitions, declare for no logical reason that the case was limited to its facts, or outright refuse to develop the law of the Second Amendment as though the Supreme Court were, for this one Constitutional provision, the court of first resort.
Ouch! ... That was meant to hurt.