In the case of
NRA v. BATF, Stephan Halbrook wrote an article to Jurist Magazine, in which he categorizes the mistakes made by that panel:
NRA v. BATFE: A Misinterpretation of History
So it seems that the NRA will shortly be filing a petition for an
en banc hearing.
We know that the State case,
NRA v. McCraw, is scheduled for orals on Monday, Dec. 3rd. But, in the current docket we have:
Quote:
11/01/2012 Open Document ORAL ARGUMENT panel has requested of the parties the following: supplemental letter briefs on the similarities/distinctions between the issues in the case #'s 12-10091 Natl Rifle Assn of America Inc, et al v. Steven McCraw and 11-10959 - National Rifle Association, et al v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, et al. The letter briefs should be no more than three pages in length. Miscellaneous (SUPPLEMENTAL LETTER BRIEFS) due for electronic filing by Appellants Brennan Harmon, Rebekah Jennings, National Rifle Association of America, Incorporated, Andrew Payne and Appellee Steven C. McCraw by Friday, November 9, 2012. [12-10091] (SMH)
11/09/2012 Open Document APPELLANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF filed by Appellants Mr. Brennan Harmon, Ms. Rebekah Jennings, National Rifle Association of America, Incorporated and Mr. Andrew Payne referencing OA Panel Request [7219701-2]. Date of Service: 11/09/2012 via email - Attorney for Amicus Curiae: Medlock; Attorney for Appellants: Bustos, Cooper, Koukoutchos, Patterson, Thompson; Attorney for Appellees: Davis, Harris, Mitchell [12-10091] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED.
. # of Copies Provided: 0. Paper Copies of Brief due on 11/19/2012 for Appellants Brennan Harmon, Rebekah Jennings, National Rifle Association of America, Incorporated and Andrew Payne. [12-10091] (Charles Justin Cooper )
11/09/2012 Open Document APPELLEE'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FILED by Appellee Mr. Steven C. McCraw Appellee's Supplemental Brief Filed Date of Service: 11/09/2012 via email - Attorney for Amicus Curiae: Medlock; Attorney for Appellants: Bustos, Cooper, Koukoutchos, Patterson, Thompson; Attorney for Appellees: Davis, Harris, Mitchell [12-10091] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED. # of Copies Provided: 0 Miscellaneous deadline satisfied. Paper Copies of Brief due on 11/19/2012 for Appellee Steven C. McCraw. [12-10091] (Bill L. Davis )
|
We know that the two cases were similar, only the means of attack differed. The Court has certainly noticed this and has asked for a short, concise supplemental briefing.
The State now argues that the other case is controlling and that oral arguments are no longer necessary.
The Appellants/Plaintiffs argue that the State cannot make the same arguments they made at the other case, as they do issue permits to 18-20 year olds who are military. They briefly state that the other panel was wrong (see Halbrook's article, linked above).
Thanks for this update go to Krucam (MDShooters), as I completely missed it.