November 24, 2010, 12:18 PM | #101 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
http://www.jonbirdt.com/images/Birdt...FAC-_final.pdf
Excellent! Well written, and directly to the heart of the matter. Welcome, Jon Birdt. You, sir, are no Gary Gorski! (FYI: That's a good thing) -MP |
November 24, 2010, 12:23 PM | #102 |
Member
Join Date: November 24, 2010
Posts: 24
|
Thank you very much!!!
|
November 24, 2010, 05:47 PM | #103 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Jon, in case you didn't notice, I did update your case in the OP. Welcome to the Firing Line.
|
November 28, 2010, 12:29 AM | #104 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Weekend Update
04 Nov. 2010: Richards v. Prieto (Yolo Cnty) (was Sykes v. McGuiness), filed their 2nd amended complaint. On 18 Nov. 2010, Yolo Cnty Sheriff filed his answer.
22 Nov. 2010: In Kachalsky v. Cacace (New York), the Brady Campaign filed an amicus brief for the State. This brief is essentially word for word what they filed (and then removed - in a snit, I would add) in D'Cruz v. McCraw! If ever a court should take cognizence, it is this. 22 Nov. 2010: In Mishaga v. Monken, Judge McClusky has denied the State its motion to dismiss. The opinion states that the State has not met any burden to prove the complaint is invalid in any manner. The State is directed to answer the complaint by 17 Dec. 2010. In his opinion, the Judge has directed the plaintiff to further the argument that a guest (in another's house) has the same rights as the homeowner has. 22 Nov. 2010 (filed 26 Nov.): In Woolard v. Sheridan, the judge confirmed that the defendant need not answer the plaintiffs MSJ until the Judge has ruled on the defendents MTD. 23 Nov. 2010: In D'Cruz v. McCraw, the State of Texas has filed its answer to the complaint. They deny everything and move to dismiss with prejudice. 23 Nov. 2010: In Bateman v. Perdue, the State, the County of Stokes and the City of King have asked for and been granted an extension of time to file their responses. Replies are now due on 16 Dec. 2010. 23 Nov. 2010: In Ezell v. Chicago, records were officially transmitted to the 7th Circuit. 25 Nov. 2010: In Wisconsin Carry v. Wray, the defendants (Chief Wray & City of Madison) filed their response to the complaint. There's a bit of humor in this response, as while the defendants admit what occurred at the restaurant, they deny that the 4 plaintiffs were ever there! |
December 5, 2010, 12:30 PM | #105 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Weekend Update 12-05
The RECAPped dockets are now in place for the Birdt (LA County) case, the Muller (New Jersey) case and the Wisconsin Carry v. Brookfield case (Karen Sutterfield).
On 11-24-2010, the City of Chicago filed their MTD in the Second Amendment Arms v. Chicago case. Motion briefing now due on 12-08-2010 (this, despite the fact that the City was still pressing to consolidate this case with Benson). The MTD is well written and spells doom for this case. On 11-29-2010, in Jackson v. San Francisco, an order extending time for defendants file their response was issued. Defendant San Francisco has 20 days to file after the motion to consolidate (Pizzo v. Newsom) is heard on 12-09-2010. On 11-29-2010, in Benson v. Chicago, the City filed its response and reaffirmed its motion to consolidate Second Amendment Arms (SAA). On 12-01-2010, in Wisconsin Carry v. Brookfield, documents were filed on stipulated agreement on times of discovery and possible settlement options. On 12-02-2010, Judge Morrison C. England, Jr dismissed both OOIDA v. Lindley and State Ammunition v. Lindley as not being ripe. The order in both are almost identical. On 12-02-2010, in D'Cruz v. McCraw, an agreed stipulation of dismissal of defendants was submitted. The remaining defendant in this case is Steven MCCraw. On 12-03-2010, in Benson v. Chicago, the Judge denied the City's motions to consolidate Ezell and SAA:
On a side note. I did not anticipate (I guess I should have - hindsight) that the number of cases would exceed the character limit for a single post. I should have reserved a couple of posts to hold this. I didn't and can no longer update the OP. sigh. I will have to figure out a way to do this, in a more efficient manner.... Edited to add: Problem solved by a very simple means that I didn't come close to thinking of... Thank you Mal! |
|
December 12, 2010, 03:00 PM | #106 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Weekly Update - 12-12-2010
On 12-06-2010, in the Bonidy v. USPS, the government has filed a MTD.
On 12-07-2010, in Parker v. California, Plaintiffs filed a MSJ and/or summary adjudication of issues. Hearing is set for 01-18-2011. Of the various declarations filed in support of the MSJ, was that of Tom Allman, Mendicino County Sheriff-Coroner; Larry Potterfield, CEO Midway Arms Inc, dba Midway USA; and Michael Tenny dba Cheaper Than Dirt. On 12-08-2010, in Second Amendment Arms v. City of Chicago, a joint status hearing was held wherein City of Chicago moved to dismiss. Plaintiffs response due 01-21-2011 and defendants reply is due on 02-16-2011. Ruling will be by mail. On 12-08-2010, in the Muller v. Maenza case (NJ), an agreed to by both parties letter was submitted to Judge Walls. Should the Judge agree to the proposed schedule, then the case is now fast tracked. See Item #9 on the docket. On 12-09-2010, in Jackson vs. San Francisco, the Judge denied the City's Motion to Consolidate (Pizzo). Plaintiffs will now move forward by filing an MPI. On 12-09-2010, in Peterson v. LaCabe, the Colorado AG files his response to the plaintiff and at the same time, files a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. On 12-10-2010, in Peruta v. San Diego, Judge Gonzales denied the plaintiffs Partial Motion for Summary Judgment and granted the defendants Motion for Summary Judgment. |
December 20, 2010, 09:29 AM | #107 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Weekly Update 12-19-2010
On 12-14-2010, in Pertuta v. San Diego, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the 9th Circuit. 10-56971 Docketed: 12/16/2010
On 12-15-2010, in Bateman v. Perdue (NC), the State filed it's response to plaintiffs MSJ... Surprise!... It's the defendants MSJ! Here, the defendants try to twist Gura's as-applied challenge into a facial challenge. Oh, and it's not ripe because there is no emergency about to be declared (forgetting to mention that an emergency declaration was issued, just after the filing of the complaint). On 12-16-2010, in Benson v. Chicago: MINUTE entry before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: Motion hearing held on 12/16/2010. Motion by Plaintiffs for extension of time to complete discovery is granted. See item 62 on the docket. On 12-16-2010, in Bateman v. Perdue (NC), the Brady bunch has filed an amicus brief. I don't have a link to the brief, but here is the press release. On 12-17-2010, in Mishaga v. Monken (IL), the defendant has filed his response to the complaint. If you have read the majority of complaints and their responses, this is a good one to read side by side. IMO, it is hilarious. |
December 25, 2010, 03:22 PM | #108 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Weekend Upadte - 12-25-2010
On 12-20-2010, in Peterson v. McCabe (CO CCW residency), the Plaintiff asked for an extension of time to file the response to intervener s MSJ due to questions not raised by defendant McCabe. Time was granted on 12-21-2010. Response now due by 01-12-2011.
On 12-20-2010, in Muller v. Maenz (facial challenge to NJ carry law), the plaintiffs filed a MSJ. See this thread for discussion. On 12-22-2010, in Heller II, the appellants(Heller) filed their supplemental brief. From a reading, it appears the case may be decided on statutory grounds instead of constitutional grounds. If it is, it will not do any good as a cite in other cases. |
December 30, 2010, 01:33 PM | #109 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Weekly update - 12-30-2010
A new case has been added to the list. Since character limitations have been exceeded in the OP, this case was added to post #2:
Hall v. Garcia. Kevin Hall is not an attorney, but has filed this case, pro se. Filed in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of San Francisco, on 08-26-2010. Hall is suing for an exemption signed by the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD), to be able to carry an unloaded handgun openly. Carlos Gracia, defendant, is the Superintendent of the SFUSD. The plaintiff has all but called the 1000 foot Gun Free School Zone law, unconstitutional. He makes several very well argued points. But this is not what the plaintiff is suing over. However, because he is not an attorney, he has misapplied the rules and procedures for federal evidence. The latest filing by the School, shows this. The judge can either claim an exemption (Hall not being well versed in the law) and take the pleadings under advisement, or he can simply dismiss the plaintiffs pleadings and grant the defendants MSJ. Care to guess what the Court will do? On 12-13-2010, in Ezell v. Chicago, an amicus brief was filed in the 7th Circuit by the Illinois Association of Firearms Retailers (ILAFR). ILAFR is also a Plaintiff in the Benson case. I have attached the brief to this post. On 12-16-2010, in D'Cruz v. McCraw, the judge has set an expedited hearing schedule (item #36 on the docket). On 12-22-2010, in D'Cruz v. BATF, the government has filed (item #21 on the docket) its Motion To Dismiss (surprise, surprise!). On 12-28-2010, the Brady's have filed (item #23 on the docket) a motion to file an amicus brief. Attached to the motion, is exhibit "A," which is the proposed brief. |
December 30, 2010, 11:59 PM | #110 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Another civil rights case has just been added: Hightower v. Boston. While the case was brought back in 2008, Alan Gura was added as lead attorney with SAF backing in early 2009.
The cases just keep piling up! |
January 6, 2011, 01:13 PM | #111 |
Member
Join Date: November 24, 2010
Posts: 24
|
Birdt V. Baca
MSJ now confirmed for 4/4/11.
|
January 10, 2011, 09:25 AM | #112 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Weekly Update 01-10-2011
On 12-29-2010, in Wollard v. Sheridan, the Judge ruled on the defendants MTD. Granted dismissal of Count II but denied Count I. The court denied the Youger abstention claim. Granted the plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint to further make the Equal Protection claim.
On 12-30-2010, in Wisconsin Carry and Krysta Sutterfield v. City of Brookfield, Krysta Sutterfield settled for a disclosed sum of $7500 on Dec. 30, 2010. See, Brookfield pays woman who brought gun to church $7,500. On 01-06-2011, in Birdt v. Beck a MSJ was filed by plaintiff. Immediately, the plaintiff was ordered to lodge the appropriate proposed order for judgment by the court (minute order of 01-07-2011). Reading through the docket, there are several procedural problems with the plaintiff in this case. |
January 15, 2011, 11:45 PM | #113 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Weekly Update 01-15-2011
As you may remember, the 4th Circuit very recently came out with their opinion in U.S. v Chester, in which they sent back to the district court with instructions to look at 922(g)(9) with intermediate scrutiny and demanded the government to justify the Lautenberg Act. Albeit dicta, the Circuit strongly implied that laws that conflict with the RKBA, as regards law-abiding people, the standard would be strict scrutiny. Their opinion is included as an exhibit, here.
On 01-05-2011, in Nordyke v. King (9th Circuit), the appellants (Nordyke) filed a notice of citation of supplemental authorities (Chester). On 01-07-2011, in Benson v. Chicago, there has been a flurry of activity which started with a transfer of the case to a newly appointed District Judge, Edmund E. Chang (an Obama appointee). This was effective on 01-10-2011. On 01-07-2011, while still in the discovery phase, motions to compell discovery and cross-motions to protect from discovery were filed by the plaintifs and defendants.On 01-10-2011, in Nordyke v. King, the appellees (Alameda) filed their notice of citation of supplemental authorities (Williams!?!). I have to note here, that in the 4th Circuit, Chester is now the controlling federal case. Williams was a MD State case before the MD Supreme Court (Williams lost on rational basis). I can only guess that Alameda is grasping at whatever straws it can find.On 01-10-2011, in Bateman v. Perdu, Alan Gura has filed his Opposition to the States Motion for Summary Judgment. Go to the docket and scroll down to item #73 to read it. On 01-12-2011, in Heller v. D.C. (aka Heller II), the appellees (D.C.) filed their supplemental brief to the per curiam questions. That file is attached to this post for those that wish to read it. The Appellants reply brief is due on 01-21-2011.On 01-12-2011, in Peterson v. LaCabe, the plaintiffs have filed their reply to Colorado AG Suthers response to the complaint and MSJ. What makes this particularly interesting is that they use the AG own amicus curiae brief in McDonald, against him. To paraphrase, either he was disingenuous in writing to the Supreme Court or he is disingenuous to this court. Can't have it both ways. On 01-13-2011, in Richards et al v. Prieto et al (was Sykes v. McQuiness), The plaintiffs have filed their MSJ brief. Read it here. The one thing all of these latest plaintiff filings have in common? They are using the cases decided earlier in the 7th Circuit, the 3rd Circuit (both criminal cases), and most particularly, Chester (another criminal case), from the 4th Circuit to achieve Strict Judicial Scrutiny when applying 2A harms to lawful and responsible citizens. While the criminals in these cases will most likely lose, the cases have all been good as they affect law-abiding folk. We now have persuasive precedent. |
January 16, 2011, 12:42 AM | #114 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,902
|
Quote:
|
|
January 22, 2011, 11:19 PM | #115 | |||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Weekly Update 01-22-2011
The big news of this week, was that on the 18th, the Fresno Superior Court judge in the Clay Parker v. CA case, determined that the language in AB 962 was unconstitutionally vague and voided the entire law. A big win for gun rights in CA. See this thread for the announcement.
Because the Judge ruled from the bench, we don't have his written opinion to read. Yet. It's coming. California cannot appeal until the written opinion is out (you can't appeal if you don't know exactly what the judge said). The legislature is in the same bind. While they can certainly pass a law to amend the "vague" portions, until the Judges opinion has been published, they will have no guidance as to what exactly was vague and how to avoid it.On 01-14-2011, in Bonidy v. USPS, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to defendants MTD. Here, attorney James Manley (NAGR), uses several tactics to derail the MTD by the government. Citing the cases from the 7th, 3rd and 4th Circuits, Manley also cites Peruta, as standing for permitted open carry when opposed to regulated CCW. Well argued, IMO, but of course, I don't count. On 01-18-2011, in Bateman v. Perdue (NC), the defendants asked for an extension of time to file its reply to Gura's response to their MSJ. Given were two reasons. The first? They were too busy with other cases. The second reason? Well, read the following (and read between the lines): The plaintiffs agreed to the motion. On 01-19-2011, in Nordyke v. King, Donald Kilmer filed a supplemental brief citing Chester as the authority, not Williams (the MD State case, not to be confused with the 7th Circuit case, as Alameda cited in its last brief): On 01-21-2011, in Heller v. D.C. (Heller II), the Appellants (Heller) filed their reply to the Supplemental briefing (attached). This completes the per curiam order by the D.C. Circuit. This is a step-by-step refutation of the appellees contention that D.C. can enact whatever gun laws they want, barring the narrow ruling of guns in the home (the original Heller).On 01-21-2011, in Wollard v. MD, the amended complaint, an expansion of the Equal Protection Clause (Count II), was filed. Read the following very carefully: At this point, the defendant should be writing the answer to Wollard's MSJ (which has yet to be answered by the defendant), and thus, addressing the 2A component (finally!). On 01-21-2011, in Peterson v. LaCabe (CO non-resident CCW), John Monroe filed his Opposition to 34 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment. If you read last weeks take-down of CO AG Suthers, this one is certainly a little added frosting. |
|||
January 23, 2011, 12:16 AM | #116 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 22, 2010
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 986
|
Outstanding and creative use of the 14th amendment (equal protection clause). I like it!
Thanks, as always for the updates. --Wag--
__________________
"Great genius will always encounter fierce opposition from mediocre minds." --Albert Einstein. |
January 24, 2011, 09:37 AM | #117 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Yes, appreciate all the work! In somewhat minor news, it appears the district court in McDonald has denied SAF their attorney's fees for that case because "they were not the prevailing party."
Dave Hardy discusses it more here: http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/20...ty_fees_to.php |
January 24, 2011, 02:15 PM | #118 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
An appeal has already been filed, my sources tell me.
Kind of ludicrous, if you were to ask me. This is more like the district court Judge giving Gura and the SAF the Flying Fickle Finger of Fate. The Judge has to know that he will be overturned, but just doesn't care. |
January 29, 2011, 10:16 PM | #119 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Weekly Update 01-29-2011
On 01-24-2011, in Georgia Carry v. State of Georgia (Church Carry), the district court upheld the State law that bans firearms at "churches or church functions." You can read the decision and Eugene Volokh's commentary, here.
On 01-24-2011, in Parker v. California (ammunition), the Judge issued his decision. The Judge permanently enjoins CA from enforcing CA penal code sections 12060, 12061, and 12318 (AB962). Read it here. On 01-24-2011, in Heller v. D.C. (Heller II), the Brady Center was granted leave to file a supplemental amicus brief (attached). The appellants (Heller) requested to file a seperate reply brief to the amicus, and it was granted. This seems to be a trend with the Brady Center - file an amicus brief after all the other pertinent briefs have been filed. This one comes [u]after[/i] the orals and after the per curiam supplemental briefs. On 01-26-2011, in Muller v. New Jersey, the defendant has filed their opposition to the plaintiffs MSJ (item #25-1 on the docket). Here, the defendant uses pre-Heller state cases and many of their own State cases (again, pre-Heller) to make their case to deny plaintiffs MSJ and advance their own MTD. Two new lawsuits have been added: West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. v. City of Martinsburg: Filed on 01-24-2011 in the US District Court for the Northern District for West Virginia. Complaint is here. Challenges the constitutionality and statutory validity of a Martinsburg ordinance prohibiting carrying a firearm in city-owned buildings. James M. Mullins, Jr. attorney for the plaintiffs. West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. et al v. City of Charleston et al: Filed on 01-24-2011 in the US District Court for the Southern District for West Virginia. Challenges the constitutionality and statutory validity of ordinances in each of those cities prohibiting carrying a firearm on city-owned property. Additionally, WVCDL is challenging the constitutionality of Charleston's restrictive handgun sales ordinances. James M. Mullins, Jr. attorney for the plaintiffs. |
February 5, 2011, 11:16 PM | #120 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Weekly Update 02-05-2011
|
February 6, 2011, 12:45 PM | #121 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Updating the Update
I had forgotten about the filing deadline for the State in Bateman v. Perdue. On 02-02-2011, the State filed its response to the plaintiffs MSJ and includes the States MTD. More about this in the NC thread.
Thanks to Krucam, over at MDShooters.com |
February 6, 2011, 07:41 PM | #122 |
Member
Join Date: September 21, 2010
Posts: 26
|
Thank YOU Al for the wonderful work here....
__________________
Mark C. DFW, TX |
February 7, 2011, 11:05 PM | #123 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
This padawan is humbled.
|
February 11, 2011, 10:31 PM | #124 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Weekly Update 02-11-2011
On 2-10-2011, in Richards v. Prieto (was Sykes v. McGuiness), the County filed its MSJ. Doc #59 on the docket. Also, Doc. #64 is an application for amicus curiae by (Drum Roll, please....) The Brady Center (they really should change their tactics)!
Grey Peterson feels left out! The Brady's haven't filed in his case, Peterson v. LaCabe. Update on the Heller II case. You remember that I reported that the Brady Center filed an amicus brief on 01-24? Well, Krucam caught that Stephan Halbrook filed a reply to that specific brief, four days later on 01-28. |
February 18, 2011, 10:31 PM | #125 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Weekly Update 02-18-2011
On 02-10-2011, in Richards v. Prieto (was Sykes v. McGuiness), the County filed its MSJ. Doc #59 on the docket. Also, Doc. #64 is an application for amicus curiae by (Drum Roll, please....) The Brady Center (they really should change their tactics)!
Grey Peterson feels left out! The Brady's haven't filed in his case, Peterson v. LaCabe.On 02-11-2011, in Jennings v. BATFE (was D'Cruz v. BATFE (18-20 ye old handgun purchases)), James D'Cruz is being replaced as the lead plaintiff. D'Cruz has moved, with his parents to Florida (I expect the change to be made to D'Cruz v. McCraw, shortly). Replacing him will be Rebekah Jennings and Brennan Hannon. The Court has allowed a second amended complaint to be filed. Full story at Only Guns and Money. Amended complaint is #39 on the docket. On 02-16-2011, in Bonidy v. USPS, the Government filed their response in support of their MTD. Item #11 on the docket. RECAP failed to process this. See attached file. On 02-17-2011, in Benson v. Chicago, the defendants have filed their memorandum for a partial MTD on count V fo the plaintiffs second ammended complaint. Count V of the complaint asks for injunctive relief against the City/County ordinance that prohibits a citizen to carry an operable firearm in public. The City argues that the plaintiffs have no standing to sue for relief, as if the city ordinance would fail, then Illinois State law would prevail. Illinois State law prohibits the same exactly thing, therefore any such relief would be a moot point.On 02-18-2011, in Muller v. New Jersey, plaintiffs filed their reply brief in support of their own MSJ and opposition to the defendants MSJ. It's #29 on the docket. It's also a 60 pg PDF, full of good stuff. On 02-18-2011, in Peterson v. LaCabe (CO non-resident), intervenor AG Suthers files his response to the cross-MSJ. #44 on the docket. sigh. See attached. Update on Ezell v. Chicago (Gun Range Prohibition - 7th Circuit). Appellee's brief is due today (02-18-2011), but has yet to appear. What has happened is that Chicago has hired another attorney, James Feldman (lives in D.C. and teaches at Georgetown - Heavy Hitter). Originally due on 01-07, extension granted to 02-07, extension granted to 02-18. New attorney cannot do orals in April. And appellants can't do mid-March thru mid April. Here's a recap (not RECAP - the plugin doesn't yet work with the circuit courts) of what has happened at the circuit level, to date: Quote:
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|