July 20, 2010, 09:51 AM | #1 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Current 2A Cases
A brief note of explanation on the format I am now using.
All cases being tracked are of national importance, as they define the parameters (scope) of the Second Amendment after Heller and McDonald. These cases ultimately become citable precedent to the various courts and persuasive precedent in the event they are decided in the Circuit Courts of Appeals. Links to the individual Internet Archive Dockets are provided by action of a FireFox plugin called, RECAP. RECAP allows individuals with PACER accounts (PACER = Public Access to Court Electronic Records) to retrieve the Dockets of the case and download the various pleadings. These are all transferred to a publicly accessible archive (the Internet Archive) that anyone may access for free (PACER costs money to use). The obvious benefit is that only the person using the PACER system pays, all others can access the same documents at the Internet Archive, for free. Cases that have moved from District Court to Circuit court will not have Internet Archive documents. This is a limitation of the RECAP capability within PACER. PDF’s for Circuit Court Cases will be available within the appropriate thread here at TFL, if the thread exists, within this thread if a specific thread does not exist, or at another website external to TFL. The Justia Summary links give an overview of the case and are excellent portals into the PACER system itself. Justia provides the links to the Circuit Courts as well, if the case has moved there. Many thanks to numerous individuals who have helped this list by reporting cases I was either not aware of or couldn't immediately find. Special thanks go to Mark (krucam), over at MDShooters for the basic idea in this reformat. |
July 20, 2010, 09:51 AM | #2 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Current 2A Cases
|
July 20, 2010, 09:51 AM | #3 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Current 2A Cases
|
July 20, 2010, 09:51 AM | #4 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Current 2A Cases
|
July 20, 2010, 09:51 AM | #5 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Current 2A Cases
|
July 21, 2010, 02:41 PM | #6 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
|
July 21, 2010, 02:41 PM | #7 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Quote:
The case you might be thinking of is the Peruta case. He has a "colorful" past, but was finally convinced to take some help (Chuck Michel - NRA/CRPA). Hence his amended complaint. As for Gura and the SAF, yes there is a strategy. Yes it is sorta, kinda secret (and I'm not in the know - way above my paygrade ). What I think their plan may be is that besides picking the low-hanging fruit, they are anticipating the anti-gun objections and heading them off. But, in locations that are easier to win than the places the anti's thought they would attack. Before we all get caught up in "Gura-worship," I would remind everyone of the work that Don Kates, Don Kilmer and Chuck Michel are doing for 2A advancement. UPDATE: The State Ammunition v. Lindley case was voluntarily dropped and refiled in federal district court in light of McDonald. |
|
July 21, 2010, 04:36 PM | #8 |
Member
Join Date: February 6, 2009
Location: Southern NJ
Posts: 27
|
Yes, the supremes have let this one be 'fleshed' out in the court systems. It is frustrating and infuriating at the same time.
It just drags it out. I guess it is what we have to expect. It they had more justices on line in the decision, it would have made it much easier for the court to set the framework of the scope of the 2nd amendment. But it still gave us the most important decisions. That it is a right of the individual, and that it is incorporated. |
July 21, 2010, 06:38 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, WA
Posts: 1,466
|
This thread deserves a sticky, if any one does! Thanks, Antipitas!
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own craven apathy; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the valor of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill) |
July 21, 2010, 11:11 PM | #10 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Another Update
Dearth v. Holder (was Hodgkins v. Holder)
Alan Gura continues the fight to invalidate the federal restriction on buying firearms out of state. Mr. Hodgkins has decided to move back to the United States so he is no longer a qualified plaintiff and has moved to be dismissed. With that change the case is now captioned Dearth v. Holder. The appellant's opening brief was filed today in the DC Federal Court of Appeals. -Gene Hoffman |
July 22, 2010, 03:06 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,747
|
Thanks Al, This is what I was looking for in a previous thread and trying to get in the big one.
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearms Safety, Pistol and Rifle Instructor “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life......” President John F. Kennedy |
July 22, 2010, 05:21 PM | #12 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
You're welcome CowTowner.
While I'm trying to round up all the cases I can find, if anyone has links to other cases (especially the case documents), please post them and I will add them to the opening post. I know that the NRA has challenged the recent Chicago laws, but I can't seem to find the info I need to fill in that gap. Anyone? Tennessee, in my previous reply to you, I forgot to add that I don't think the NFA will ever be seriously challenged. The Hughes amendment however, may well be... but that's way down the line. My best guess (at this writing) is that such a challenge is at least 10 years out. Gary has made the suggestion that this thread be stickied. PM me or any other L&CR mod if you think it should or shouldn't be stickied. |
July 22, 2010, 05:28 PM | #13 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
|
|
July 22, 2010, 09:30 PM | #14 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Thanks to gc70 for PMing the links to Benson and Heller II. Updated the OP.
|
July 24, 2010, 10:04 AM | #15 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Some small amount of discussion of the individual cases are on topic. Discussion about anything else should go to their own thread, not here.
Four posts were removed as being off topic. |
July 24, 2010, 10:10 AM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,903
|
Antipitas,
Could you identify the cases by Federal Court district. |
July 24, 2010, 12:19 PM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 447
|
Any rough idea of the timeline of some of these cases - as in initial decisions or appeals?
|
July 24, 2010, 02:19 PM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,199
|
Which of these cases do you think would be likely to establish a standard of review or could raise the question to the SCOTUS level?
Heller II seems like it might. The Nordyke case seriously considered it. Which other cases seem like good vehicles? |
July 24, 2010, 04:44 PM | #19 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
What raises a case to the Supreme Court level is when someone appeals it to that level. The SCOTUS does not accept every case for review. The best assurance that they WILL take a case is when different Federal districts have rendered conflicting decisions based on the same law -- that pretty much ensures that the SCOTUS will have to decide which view is correct and will be "the law of the land."
|
July 24, 2010, 10:03 PM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,199
|
True. The Sykes case had an interesting multi-standard. Heller II used intermediate, if I remember correctly. It is quite likely, IMO, that we will get some conflicting standards within a couple years. Then, it becomes a question of which case presents the appropriate argument for our side...hopefully.
|
July 24, 2010, 10:52 PM | #21 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
gc70, I added the locations of the courts in the cases. Thanks for suggesting that.
|
July 28, 2010, 10:17 PM | #22 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Another Update
The third and final prong against California's AB936 (the ammunition "ban") was filed today by Onwer-Operator Independent Drivers Association, Erick Royce, Brandon Elias, Folsom Shooting Club, Inc., the CalGuns Foundation, Inc. (all represented by Jason Davis), and the National Rifle Association (Represented by C.D. (Chuck) Michel), against Steve Lindley; The State of California; The California Department of Justice and Does 1-10.
The Complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division. The case is titled: OOIDA v. Lindley. You may read the 15 page complaint here. The complaint alleges that AB962 unlawfully interferes with interstate commerce and is pre-empted by Federal laws regulating interstate commerce. Lawsuit seeks to block enforcement of the law. A preliminary injunction request is said to be filed, shortly. In other news, the Peruta case is scheduled for a mandatory settlement conference on August 11th. |
July 29, 2010, 08:01 AM | #23 | |
Junior member
Join Date: April 16, 2009
Location: Brooksville, FL
Posts: 161
|
Quote:
|
|
July 29, 2010, 08:44 AM | #24 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
There are 3 major issues, as I see it, that must be staked out by judicial means, so that future legislators cannot interfere with our rights, before even thinking about the Hughes amendment.
1. The cases must be established that protect the right to arms (and ammunition). Keeping and bearing arms must be recognized beyond the threshold of the home. 2. The right must be expanded beyond mere self-protection/defense, to include the various sporting uses - of what use is the keeping and bearing, if you cannot practice proficiency? 3. The "list" of lawful arms must be established. So called "assault weapons" must be established as normal and usual firearms, in order to challenge the various assault weapons bans in several States. This is just my take on what's going on with the current litigation strategy. I'm no lawyer, so take that for what it's worth! |
July 29, 2010, 10:38 AM | #25 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
The problem you will have with Hughes is the common use test which I think the AR-15 has become. FA is not in common use (please don't use the circularity argument it won't work) and so it might be hard to do. I guess they would argue that Hughes is a de facto ban but so what? The court will say they are dnagerous and unusual and so not protected. I see legislative action before the court throws it out. My .02.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
|
|
|