View Single Post
Old October 25, 2011, 10:54 PM   #34
Al Norris
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
Today in Richards v. Prieto, Alan Gura has filed their reply to the defendants response (we've been waiting for this since they asked for an extension after the signing of AB 144).

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/ric...2011-10-25.pdf

This is a terrific rebuttal in light of the passage of AB 144 - the ban on Unloaded Open Carry.

Quote:
Defendants invoke figures ranging from Aphrodite to Procustes to Johnny Ringo, persistently tempting the line between clever and flip. Yet the answers to the questions posed by this litigation have always been found not in the mythology of Ancient Greece or the Wild West, but in the pages of the United States and Federal Reporter series, and California’s Penal Code. To these texts, California’s government added another since the filing of Defendants’ brief. By Defendants’ logic, this new legal text mandates reversal. Indeed, had more time remained in the briefing schedule, Plaintiffs could have moved for summary reversal.4

4 See Ninth Cir. R. 3-6(a) (summary disposition “[a]t any time prior to the completion of briefing in a civil appeal if the court determines: (a) that . . . recent legislation requires reversal or vacation of the judgment or . . . a remand for additional proceedings. . .”).
This case is now on a much stronger foothold than it's "sister" case, Peruta.
Al Norris is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.03870 seconds with 8 queries