The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 17, 2012, 11:22 AM   #301
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,308
This morning, the SCOTUS issued its orders from their Jan 13 conference. From the Orders, cert denied in Lowery v. U.S.

Thus, it is now clear that the Court is not going to take any 2A case that is also a criminal case.
Al Norris is offline  
Old January 17, 2012, 11:25 AM   #302
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,659
Quote:
Thus, it is now clear that the Court is not going to take any 2A case that is also a criminal case.
So I should hold off on building my post-1986 unregistered machinegun and sending a picture to the local DA with me in possesion of it?
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old January 17, 2012, 11:38 AM   #303
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,308
Nah. Go ahead with that plan.

I'll dutifully report all your fun!!
Al Norris is offline  
Old January 17, 2012, 01:19 PM   #304
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,225
Quote:
Thus, it is now clear that the Court is not going to take any 2A case that is also a criminal case.
A lesson I hope is learned across the board. Williams might have been better argued, but Woollard is more of a contender.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old January 27, 2012, 10:46 AM   #305
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,308
Early today (as in just after the clock turned it to today), Gray Peterson posted the following to CalGuns.net and later this morning, MDShooters.com:

Quote:
01/26/2012 [9937594] Notice of appearance submitted by Alan Gura for Amici Curiae Buckeye Firearms Foundation, Calguns Foundation, Inc., Citizens Rights Action League, Commonwealth Second Amendment, Connecticut Citizens Defense League, Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance, Hawaii Defense Foundation, Illinois Carry, Illinois State Rifle Association, Maine Open Carry Association, Maryland Shall Issue, Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation, Scope Inc., Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., Stillwater Firearms Association, Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc., West Virginia Citizens Defense League Inc. and Wisconsin Carry Inc. for court review. Certificate of Interested Parties: No. Served on 01/26/2012. Manner of Service: ECF/NDA.--[Edited 01/26/2012 by SDS to remove pdf from entry as the pleading has been filed] AG

01/26/2012 [9937605] Notice of appearance filed by Mr. Alan Gura for Wisconsin Carry Inc., West Virginia Citizens Defense League Inc., Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc., Stillwater Firearms Association, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., Scope Inc., Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation, Maryland Shall Issue, Maine Open Carry Association, Illinois State Rifle Association, Illinois Carry, Hawaii Defense Foundation, Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance, Connecticut Citizens Defense League, Commonwealth Second Amendment, Citizens Rights Action League, Calguns Foundation, Inc. and Buckeye Firearms Foundation. CERT. OF INTERESTED PARTIES: n. Served on 01/26/2012. Manner of Service: ECF/NDA.
Those are the amici that Alan Gura will represent and has been given 10 minutes of the upcoming orals in Peterson v. Martinez.

As Gray has mentioned elsewhere, those amici which are State organizations are States where CO doesn't recognize their permits!
Al Norris is offline  
Old January 29, 2012, 09:01 PM   #306
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,308
Birdt v. Beck - Update

I've taken the liberty to show what has actually been happening in Mr. Birdt's case(s) against the LACSD.

Quote:
33. Birdt v. Beck: Challenges CCW rules for the County of Los Angeles. Filed in the US District Court for the Central District of CA; October 29, 2010. Jon Birdt is an attorney and is acting pro se.
  • 01-13-2012 - Defendants MSJ granted, Plaintiffs MSJ denied.
  • 01-14-2012 - Notice of Appeal, 9th CCA. Case #12-55115
  • 01-18-2012 - Notice and Motion of related Cases by Defendants:
    • Robert Thomson v. Torrance Police Department, et al.Case No. CV 11-06154 SJO(JCx).
    • Sigitas Raulinaitis, et al. v. LACSD,Case No. CV 11-08026 JHN(JCGx).
  • 01-19-2012 - Mem P&A in opposition to relate.
  • 01-20-2012 - Reply by Defendants.
Internet Archive
The two cases that the LACSD wants to relate are cases brought by Mr. Birdt, same district court, just different Judges (they also argue the exact same points and request the same remedy). Of course, LA wants them consolidated at this stage (my quess is that they have been waiting for the first case to get dismissed)!

The Judge will grant relatedness (um, because they are the same) and consolidate the cases, with the just dismissed and appealed case as the lead case. This in effect, dismisses the other two cases and all three will go up to the 9th CCA as one case.

There is a lot of danger here. Not the least of which is the further consolidation of these cases with one of our good cases (it is within the realm of possibilities: Peruta or Richards.), now stayed at the 9th, pending Nordyke VI!

The stronger case, in my opinion, is Richards v. Prieto and is the case, if I were the CA AG, would want the Birdt cases to be related to.

This may just turn out to be a real mess, all because of a Lone Wolf, who thinks he is an experienced civil rights litigator, not listening to the major players.
Al Norris is offline  
Old January 29, 2012, 10:19 PM   #307
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,308
For those following the Peterson (CO) case (and are feeling deprived because you could not read all the pleadings), here is a run down of the actions and briefs available (thanks to Gene Hoffman for hosting these files):

Peterson Opening Brief.pdf 4.1M
Co State Reply Brief.pdf 328K
Peterson Reply Brief.pdf 217K

Notice of Denver Not To File.pdf 90K
Brady Amicus Brief.pdf 1.8M
Motion to file SAF-CGF-et-al.pdf 198K
Order to Garcia to Respond to Motion for Amicus.pdf 56K
Denver Opp to NRA Amicus.pdf 102K
SAF-CGF-et-al Amicus Brief.pdf 361K
NRA-CRDF Amicus Curiae Brief.pdf 304K
NRA-CRDF Joint Amicus to Enlarge Time 152K

Audio of Orals.mp3 3.9M
Unofficial 1st Oral Transcript.pdf 70K
Al Norris is offline  
Old February 3, 2012, 09:47 PM   #308
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,308
Today, Feb 3rd, the Cross-Appellant Westchester County filed their Reply Brief, 5 days early. Expect the State to file their Reply Brief on or about the 8th. You can read the brief in the Kachalksy thread.
Al Norris is offline  
Old February 3, 2012, 10:13 PM   #309
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,752
Al, have I said thanks for keeping us updated, recently? Seriously, thank you.
__________________
http://czfirearms.us/ same original CZForum, new location.
armoredman is offline  
Old February 4, 2012, 10:23 AM   #310
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,308
Thanks, armoredman.

Late last night, Judge Myerscough rendered her decision in Moore v. Madigan (SAF/Ill Carry). The thread discussing this case is here. See doc #38 of the Docket.
Al Norris is offline  
Old February 6, 2012, 10:48 PM   #311
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,308
Chicago has paid the SAF!
See this thread.
Al Norris is offline  
Old February 7, 2012, 11:44 PM   #312
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,308
Today, the opening brief in Hightower v. Boston was due. Krucam, over at MDShooters beat me to it and grabbed the brief. Thanks, Mark!

The brief is 141 PDF pages, but you only need to read the first 86 pages. The rest is addendum (background info). I haven't had the pleasure of reading it yet, and probably won't get to it until Thursday, sometime. If you wish to comment on this, please open a thread on this case (none have yet been opened).
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Hightower Appellant Opening Brief - CA1.pdf (1.03 MB, 15 views)
Al Norris is offline  
Old February 9, 2012, 07:01 PM   #313
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,308
In the 10th CCA Peterson case, the enlargement of time from 10 minutes to 20 minutes was granted.

What this means is that the Brady's will have 10 minutes and the NRA and SAF will split 10 minutes.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff and Defendant will each have 15 minutes, now.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf EnlargementOrder.pdf (14.9 KB, 4 views)
Al Norris is offline  
Old February 11, 2012, 11:36 AM   #314
jonbirdt
Member
 
Join Date: November 24, 2010
Posts: 24
Motion to conslidate was denied and MSJ proceeds in Thomson on 2/27/12:
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Thomson MSJ.pdf (26.6 KB, 8 views)
File Type: pdf Opp LASD MSJ.pdf (188.7 KB, 4 views)
File Type: pdf reply filed.pdf (21.5 KB, 2 views)
jonbirdt is offline  
Old February 13, 2012, 09:05 PM   #315
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,308
Jennings v. McCraw (TX CCW restrictions on 18 - 20 yr olds), has been renamed: NRA v. McCraw. The opening brief has been scheduled:

Quote:
02/10/2012 Open Document BRIEFING NOTICE ISSUED A/Pet's Brief Due on 03/21/2012 for Appellants Brennan Harmon, Rebekah Jennings, National Rifle Association of America, Incorporated, Andrew Payne. [12-10091] (SAT)
Al Norris is offline  
Old February 19, 2012, 07:06 PM   #316
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,308
The case was: Gonzalez v. Omaha. Case 8:2011cv00335, filed 09-27-2011.

Mr. Gonzalez was a legal resident alien who was denied a firearms registration permit because he was not a U.S. citizen. A member of both the Nebraska Firearms Owners Association and the SAF, Mr. Gonzalez sued the city with the NFOA and SAF as plaintiffs.

In late 2011, the Federal Judge granted a preliminary injunction against the City of Omaha, the city changed its ordinance and mooted the case.

Coming on the heels fo the payout by Chicago, the SAF was presented a check for $12K from the City. Reported here by Seattle Gun Rights Examiner, David Workman.

This was a case simialr to a WA State case from 2 years ago and a SD federal case, last year. We have a similar MA case (Fletcher et al v. Haas #41 in the lineup) currently waiting for rulings on the plaintiffs MSJ and the defendants MTD's.
Al Norris is offline  
Old February 24, 2012, 07:55 AM   #317
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,308
Heller District Court docket at the Internet Archive


Filed yesterday. Gura and Nealy are appealing the $1.17M award by the court in Heller. http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/20...gal-fees-.html

Here's the notice: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.....1785.92.0.pdf
Al Norris is offline  
Old February 28, 2012, 09:11 AM   #318
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
DC is appealing legal fees in Heller

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...MWR_story.html

I'm interested in this development because in Illinois, the politicians in Oak Park are acutely aware of the political dangers of spending tax payer money on losing gun rights cases and continued litigaton.

For instance - the mayor of Oak Park has never released to the public what Oak Park's share of the MacDonald case they were required to pay.


.

Last edited by C0untZer0; February 28, 2012 at 09:19 AM.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old March 9, 2012, 09:19 PM   #319
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,308
In addition to the Woollard courts holding that the 2A exists outside the home, on Tuesday, Mar. 6, a Federal Court in the District of West Virginia (another 4th Circuit court) held the same. http://www.archive.org/download/gov....229.2906.0.pdf

This was a criminal case that for all other purposes, is negligible to our 2A rights. Here's what the Judge had to say:

Quote:
While it is true that the Fourth Circuit has so far stopped short of expressly recognizing a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms outside the home,5 this Court has no such hesitation. The Supreme Court itself has acknowledged a Second Amendment right to protect oneself not only from private violence, but also from public violence. See Heller, 554 U.S. at 594 (stating that, by the time of the founding, the right to have arms was “fundamental” and “understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.”). . .

. . . The Court joins in Judge Niemeyer’s conclusion and holds that the Second Amendment, as historically understood at the time of ratification, was not limited to the home.7


5 In fact, the Fourth Circuit has expressly declined to address the first step in the Chester analysis at least four times. See Carter, 2012 WL 207067, at *4 (summarizing the Fourth Circuit’s deferral in reaching any conclusion about the scope of the Second Amendment’s protection under step one in Chester, 628 F.3d 673, Masciandaro, 638 F.3d 458, and Staten, 666 F.3d 154). Despite those declinations, this Court is in agreement with Judge Niemeyer’s statements in Masciandaro that such constitutional avoidance is inappropriate when, as here, a federal court is directly confronted with the contention that a firearm regulation violated a defendant’s Second Amendment rights. See 638 F.3d at 468 n.* (Niemeyer, J., writing separately as to Part III.B.).

7 The fact that courts may be reluctant to recognize the protection of the Second Amendment outside the home says more about the courts than the Second Amendment. Limiting this fundamental right to the home would be akin to limiting the protection of First Amendment freedom of speech to political speech or college campuses.
You may have noticed that this Judge cites Judge Niemeyer from Masciandaro? So did Judge Legg in Woollard.

So, while we expect every single carry case to cite Woollard, we can now expect all of them to cite Weaver as well. Think I'm wrong?

Quote:
2012-03-08 29 NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY by GEORGE LYON, AMY MCVEY, TOM G. PALMER, EDWARD RAYMOND, SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Woollard v. Sheridan, # 2 Exhibit B: US v. Weaver)(Gura, Alan) (Entered: 03/08/2012)
The above is the latest docket entry for the Palmer (D.C. carry) case.
Al Norris is offline  
Old March 11, 2012, 12:29 AM   #320
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,308
I'm a tad late in reporting on the Kachalsky case. The response brief by the State of NY was filed on the 8th of Feb. It is attached. Below is a current docket and briefing schedule.

Quote:
02/08/2012 78 BRIEF, on behalf of Appellee Susan Cacace, Jeffrey A. Cohen, Robert K. Holdman and Albert Lorenzor, FILED. Service date 02/08/2012 by CM/ECF. [521465] [11-3642]

02/10/2012 79 SCHEDULING NOTIFICATION, on behalf of Appellant-Cross-Appellee Eric Detmer, Alan Kachalsky, Anna Marcucci-Nance, Johnnie Nance, Christina Nikolov and Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., informing Court of proposed due date 04/03/2012, RECEIVED. Service date 02/10/2012 by CM/ECF.[522926] [11-3642]

02/14/2012 82 SO-ORDERED SCHEDULING NOTIFICATION, setting Appellant-Cross-Appellee Eric Detmer, Alan Kachalsky, Anna Marcucci-Nance, Johnnie Nance, Christina Nikolov and Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. Appellant-Cross-Appellee reply brief due date as 04/03/2012; FILED.[524254] [11-3642]

02/22/2012 84 ORAL ARGUMENT STATEMENT LR 34.1 (a), on behalf of filer Attorney Mr. Simon Heller for Appellee Jeffrey A. Cohen, Susan Cacace, Albert Lorenzor and Robert K. Holdman, FILED. Service date 02/22/2012 by CM/ECF. [532253] [11-3642]

02/22/2012 85 ORAL ARGUMENT STATEMENT LR 34.1 (a), on behalf of filer Attorney Mr. Alan Gura for Appellant-Cross-Appellee Alan Kachalsky, Christina Nikolov, Johnnie Nance, Anna Marcucci-Nance, Eric Detmer and Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. in 11-3642, 11-3962, FILED. Service date 02/22/2012 by CM/ECF. [532659] [11-3642, 11-3962]
Expect Alan Gura to cite both Woollard and Weaver in reply to NY's assertion that no court has found for the right to exist outside the home.

In other news, the NRA case, Benson v. Chicago took a little twist! Chicago playing games with the Court and the Court not liking it one bit!

Quote:
2012-03-07 161 MINUTE entry before Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The Clerk's Office informed the Court that Defendant filed only a paper version of its summary judgment filings, including the exhibits, and did not file electronically. Although the Court understands the potential time and expense of electronically scanning the box-full of exhibits, Defendant (like every other litigant) must electronically file all of its filings (even sealed or partially-sealed documents are filed electronically). And feeding the pages into a scanner can be accomplished without extraordinary effort. The electronic filing shall be completed on or before 03/14/12. Mailed notice (slb, ) (Entered: 03/07/2012)
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Kachalsky State Appellee Response.pdf (263.9 KB, 5 views)
Al Norris is offline  
Old March 11, 2012, 06:52 PM   #321
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,308
I just finished an update of all the 2A cases. As there are many additions to the various dockets, I refer everyone to the first page where these dockets are posted.

Of interest are the following:

In Peterson v. Martinez (was Kilroy, was Garcia, originally LaCabe) (10th Circuit) attorney John Monroe did not waste any time! The supplemental authorites listed, below, are first Woollard, then Weaver.
Quote:
03/07/2012 [9948049] Supplemental authority filed by Gray Peterson. Served on 03/07/2012. Manner of Service: ECF/NDA. [11-1149] JM
03/08/2012 [9948772] Supplemental authority filed by Gray Peterson. Served on 03/08/2012. Manner of Service: ECF/NDA. [11-1149] JM

In Schrader v. Holder (D.C. Circuit), the following docket is updated:
Quote:
02/29/2012 CLERK'S ORDER filed [1361092] setting briefing schedule: APPELLANT Brief due 04/20/2012. Appendix due 04/20/2012. APPELLEE Brief due on 05/21/2012. APPELLANT Reply Brief due 06/04/2012 [11-5352]

In Piszczatoski v. Philip Maenza (New Jersey - 3rd Circuit), the following briefing schedule was noted:
Quote:
02/27/2012 BRIEFING NOTICE ISSUED. Brief on behalf of Appellants Assn of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs Inc, John M. Drake, Finley Fenton, Gregory C. Gallaher, Daniel J. Piszczatoski, Lenny S. Salerno, Second Amendment Foundation Inc due on or before 04/09/2012. Appendix due on or before 04/09/2012. (TMK)

In Bauer v. Harris (CA), a case that challenges the various fees imposed in firearms transfers, a First Amended Complaint (FAC) and a response by CA (denying everything, natch) has been filed. See that docket for the filings.


And finally, in Silvester v. Harris, another CA case that seeks to overturn the 10 wait on subsequent firearms purchases, the case has been sealed and I have no other information as to why.
Al Norris is offline  
Old March 13, 2012, 10:19 AM   #322
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,308
It seems I have made an error.

In my previous report, I had listed the Silvester case as being sealed.

My error was in not discovering that the case was filed twice. I had this case listed:

Docket #: 1:11-at-00818
PACER case #: 233330
Date filed: 2011-12-23

While Krucam over at MD Shooters found this case:

Docket #: 1:11-cv-02137
PACER case #: 233362
Date filed: 2011-12-23

Note the differences in the case numbers?

Thanks to Krucam for uncovering my mistake and for getting the correct listing. I've changed the corresponding entry (#67) in the 2A Cases logs. You will now see an amended complaint as being filed on Feb. 24th (doc #10).
Al Norris is offline  
Old March 15, 2012, 04:27 PM   #323
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,308
Monday the 19th of March, will be an important day at Court.

First we have the en banc orals at the 9th Circuit, for the long running Nordyke Case. I wish Don Kilmer all the good that I can, for his efforts in that Case.

Then we have the second round of orals at the 10th Circuit in Denver. The case is entitled, Peterson v. LaCabe (actually, Martinez is the current officeholder), #14 in the line-up. Here is a brief idea of what this case is about:

Gray Peterson is a resident of WA. He holds a WA concealed permit. Colorado does not recognize reciprocity with WA. He also has a non-resident permit for FL. Colorado does not recognize non-resident permits. Gray applied for and was denied a non-resident Colorado permit in Denver. Colorado, by statute, does not offer non-resident permits.

Open Carry is lawful in Colorado, but is unlawful in the city and county of Denver, without having a concealed permit (Denver is known as a "Home Rule" city/county and as such does not have to follow all the statutes of the State). Gray often travels to Denver for business and is denied his right armed self defense by action of City, County and State law.

Gray seeks to invalidate the Colorado laws (and by reference, City and County of Denver laws) to the extent that they deny a non-resident the same rights and privileges as a resident.

At district court, the State entered in an Intervenor capacity. On Mar. 8, 2011, the complaint was dismissed and the defendants MSJ was upheld. Appeal was filed with the 10th Circuit on Apr. 8th.

Three amicus curiae (friends of the court) briefs were filed. For the defendants, the Brady Center. For the plaintiffs, the SAF and the NRA.

At appeal, defendant Denver failed to respond, thus rendering them effectively shut out of any further proceedings at this level. Oral arguments were heard on Nov. 7, 2011.

After the orals were made, but before the court recessed, the circuit panel ordered a second round of briefings and oral arguments. This was highly unusual, but not unprecedented.

A further order came from the court, indicating that the panel was taking this very seriously, that an additional 10 minutes would be granted to hear the amici. This is also very unusual.

The amici conferred and motioned the court for an additional 10 minutes (20 minutes total) be set aside for briefing by the amici. The time to be divided for 10 minutes for the States amici and 10 minutes for the plaintiffs amici. The court granted this request.

Brady Center Attorney: Jonathan Lowry (10 minutes)
SAF Attorney: Alan Gura (5 minutes)
NRA Attorney: Matthew Bower (5 minutes)

The opposing counsel have 15 minutes, each, for their arguments. Arguments will be in Courtroom 3, at 2:00pm.

I will probably have more to say about this, when I get back from Denver. Yes, that means I will be there.
Al Norris is offline  
Old March 24, 2012, 10:50 PM   #324
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,308
We will have the audio of the orals, when the court clerk decides to make them available. Unlike the 9th Circuit, they are not made public for immediate download. Once the clerk makes them available, you must pay in advance to receive the file.

OK then, we have the cast of "characters" at the orals, in order of appearance:

The panel:
Judge Lucero
Judge Hartz
Judge Baldock

Peterson Attorney: John Monroe
SAF Attorney: Alan Gura, amici for Peterson.
NRA Attorney: Matthew Bower, amici for Peterson.
Defendant/Intervenor State: Matt Grove
Brady Center Attorney: Jonathan Lowry, amici for defendant.
[As I don't know which Judge was which, I'm not going to identify them further.]

John Monroe started off by quoting from Heller and predicating what the State might do, as regards regulating the bearing of arms.

He was then asked by a Judge as to whether or not he was arguing the Denver ordinances, because he doesn't find any arguments in the briefs.

Mr. Monroe says that the arguments were briefed,

The Judge says that he can find nothing in the briefs that directly address (complain about) the Denver codes.

Mr. Monroe says that PP 8 of the amended Complaint is where they start the discussion of the Denver codes.

Judge says that nowhere in the claims for relief does it address the Denver codes. That in lieu of a specific claim for relief, the court was not going to "reach out" to give such relief.

Mr. Monroe then argues that it is the totality of the regulations that require relief.

Judge esquires as to whether or not the plaintiff is stating that he is entitled to a right to carry concealed. That's what the complaint is about, yes?

Judges then begin to focus upon C.C. vs. O.C. as the proper manner of the right. That the Complaint only addresses C.C.

Monroe then tries to distinguish the two, in light of the restrictions. Monroe argues that Plaintiff simply desires to carry, in whatever manner the State permits but is constrained by the restrictions of the State and by the restrictions of Denver.

Judges are having none of it. The Complaint is about C.C. and that is not a right. Judges refuse to loose focus on the C.C. question. The Complaint does not specify O.C. as a relief.

Monroe reserves 3 minutes for rebuttal.

-----

Alan Gura is next and "Hammers" on Heller's "right to carry/bear arms."

Judges dismiss Gura's arguments as dicta.

Gura responds with Seminole to explain that the right to carry is not dicta, as it goes to the immediate prayer for relief - to be able to carry a functional firearm in the home, which was prohibited in D.C. without a license that wasn't being issued.

-----

Mr. Bower is up next. He argues the various licensing schemes used by the State and by Denver in particular. How Denver, as a "Home Rule" city and County, have exercised their discretion to violate the rights of their citizens.

Judge argues back that no right is violated. You can carry in your home, as being in accord with Heller. Further, that the Complaint does not ask for the Denver codes to be stricken. Only State Statutes are being attacked and only those that deal with C.C.

Judge asks where in the complaint are the claims for relief for general carry?

-----

Matt Grove, for the State, begins arguments dealing with how the State cannot track non-resident permits.

Judge interrupts to ask why Denver isn't there, defending their own codes.

Grove answers that they are not at court because they believe they cannot issue the permits. The State says that they can. That reciprocity is up to the individual Sheriffs.

Judge responds that didn't the District Court find that the State codes prevented the County from issuing?

Grove then begins to argue what Denver should be there to argue.

Judges stop him. Judge then asks if it is rational to disarm visitors to the State.

Grove responds that since they cannot track visitors, yes, it is rational.

-----

Mr Lowry for the Brady Campaign spends his 10 minutes dispensing what we have come to see as the traditional Brady rhetoric.

Lowry agrees with the State that if the State cannot track/check visitors like they can residents, then they cannot be trusted to bring in weapons.

As a possible parting shot, one of the Judges points out that taken at face value, the State cannot track/check those visitors that actually have reciprocity, how then can a visitor (without reciprocity, but having a resident permit or non-resident permit, be any different? How is this scheme even rational? The Judge then thanks Mr. Lowry for his thoughts.

-----

At Mr. Monroe's rebuttal, the panel basically hammers the Plaintiff on the carry issue. Where in the claims or the prayers for relief are the references to to carry openly or concealed? All the prayers are for issuance of the C.C. permit. Nowhere does a prayer for relief claim that the Denver ordinances are unconstitutional. In fact, there are no prayers for relief against Denver at all.

-----

At the end of this report, I have included what I believe the Judges are worried about. I reviewed all the available documents, but it seems to all come down to what was written in the actual Complaint.

While a lot of inference can be made about Denver, it is not specifically spelled out. This is going to be a problem for Peterson, should the panel actually rule.

It is my sense of the oral arguments that the panel will remand with instructions to file a Second Amended Complaint and to brief the Denver codes in full.



From the Factual Background of the Amended Complaint:
Quote:
8. When he visits Denver, Peterson wishes to exercise his right to keep and bear arms by carrying a functional handgun for self defense.

10. Denver Ord. § 38-117(a) prohibits the carrying of a concealed firearm outside one’s dwelling or place of business without a CHL.

11. Denver Ord. § 38-117(b) prohibits the carrying of a firearm outside one’s dwelling or place of business without a CHL.

12. C.R.S. § 18-12-203(1)(a) prohibits issuing a CHL to a non-resident of Colorado.

13. C.R.S. § 18-12-203 vests the sheriffs of the several counties with authority to issue CHLs.

15. Denver Ord. § 38-117.5 vests Defendant LaCabe or his designee with authority to issue CHLs.
Amended Complaint, Prayers for Relief:
Quote:
61. A declaration that C.R.S. § 18-12-203(1)(a) is unconstitutional to the extent it does not allow nonresidents of Colorado to apply for and obtain a CHL, because it violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, the Second Amendment right to bear arms, and the Fourteenth Amendment right to bear arms, of the Constitution of the United States.

62. An injunction prohibiting Defendants from denying nonresidents of Colorado the right to apply for and obtain a CHL, solely on account of their nonresident status.
Al Norris is offline  
Old March 29, 2012, 02:16 PM   #325
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,308
We have just had our third win! This time at district court in N.C.

See the Batemen v. Perdue thread for details.
Al Norris is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.21467 seconds with 10 queries