September 24, 2010, 10:25 AM | #51 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Let me add my thanks as well, you are covering this better than any of the professional legal sites out there.
|
September 24, 2010, 01:32 PM | #52 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Um Shucks, folks... Just trying to do my small part in keeping us informed, but you're all welcome.
|
September 24, 2010, 02:23 PM | #53 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
By the way, anyone notice the Federal District Court judge in the D'Cruz cases? It is Judge Sam Cummings. You may know him better as the author os the U.S. vs. Emerson decision
|
September 24, 2010, 09:25 PM | #54 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Bart, I thought the name sounded familiar, but couldn't place it.
Anyone know if the D'Cruz docket has been RECAPped? Shoot me a PM and I'll change the link. |
October 1, 2010, 11:06 PM | #55 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Added another lawsuit, Wisconsin Carry v. City of Madison.
Did a bit of cleanup. Added several dockets that are now available, thanks to the users of RECAP on CalGuns. For those of you wondering, hit the link (hint, it's a FireFox add-on). In other news, there is action in Ezell v. Chicago. See the discussion thread. In Jackson v. San Francisco, the City has made a motion to relate another case (by attorney and lone wolf, Gorsky). By combining the cases, the NRA can "silence" the case and avoid yet another embarrassment by Gorsky. |
October 3, 2010, 02:30 PM | #56 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Dearth v. Holder
While there has been no movement in the case Dearth v. Holder, I have the initial briefs handy for you to read.
1. DC Circuit Appeals brief 2. US AG's Response brief. 3. Reply brief. As yet, orals have not been scheduled. The most current 60-day calendar can be viewed here. Keep checking that link for updates as to when any orals might be scheduled. |
October 6, 2010, 11:01 PM | #57 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Case #24
Bonidy v. U.S.P.S.: Debbie and Tab Bonidy and the National Assoc. Gun Rights have sued the Postal service for violation of their 2A rights. Filed 10-04-2010 in the US District Court for the District of Colorado. Attorney James Manely (Mountain States Legal Foundation) for the plaintiffs.
The Bonidy's have no delivery service and must go to the P.O. in order to get their mail. They want to be able to drive to the P.O., leave their lawfully concealed firearms, secured in their vehicle and retrieve their mail. Postal regulations make it a felony to carry on any Postal property, even the parking lot. The entire complaint is only 7 pages, so it is a short read. Now, in case you missed it, this is the NAGR that is a party to this lawsuit. If you will remember, I and some others have virtually called the NAGR a front for the anti-gun lobby, at worst, or a GOA sock puppet, at best. If this suit is an actual change for them, I may have to eat my words. |
October 11, 2010, 08:57 PM | #58 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Heller II has been scheduled for oral argument on November 15, 2010, at 9:30 A.M., before Circuit Judges Ginsburg, Henderson and Kavanaugh.
|
October 14, 2010, 01:36 PM | #59 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Things are heating up in Wisconsin.
Clark County Judge Jon Counsell has ruled, in an MTD by the plaintiff, that Wisconsin's ban on concealed carry is overly broad, violates the 2A and the 14A, and is therefore unconstitutional. Read about it here. I have no pointers to the first item (it is not yet on the PACER system). Since this case is essentially a county magistrates case, it is noteworthy, but unless appealed and upheld, is not yet citable as persuasive authority. It is notable in that this may cause the Wisconsin legislature to enact a workable CC statute. In other news, Wisconsin Carry has filed another federal lawsuit. This one is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action that demands damages suffered by the plaintiff from the individual officers and to erase the records of her arrest. Read about this one at Wisconsin Carry, Inc. This case, since it is at the federal level, may become citable if upheld. It has been included in the OP. In other news, the SAF has filed another lawsuit. This one is in Georgia. It seems that in 1968, a man was convicted of a misdemeanor assault charge, fined $100 and court costs of $9 dollars. This in the State of MD, which until recently, did not have a statutory limitation on misdemeanor sentencing. In 2008, Jefferson Wayne Schrader of Cleveland, GA (an honorably discharged Vietnam era Naval vet), was denied the opportunity to receive a shotgun as a gift. Again, denied in 2009 to purchase a handgun for self defense. These denials were based upon the new MD law that set a statutory limitation for any misdemeanor at 2 years incarceration. The feds are using that to deny firearms to a 1968 misdemeanor conviction. Read the SAF press release, here. This lawsuit has not yet been made public and will be added to the case list, when available. (hint: someone post the link if you find it before I do) |
October 14, 2010, 03:49 PM | #60 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,902
|
Quote:
|
|
October 14, 2010, 08:38 PM | #61 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Yet Another Update!
While searching the RECAP database, I came across Maloney v. Rice. You might remember that this was the nunchucka case. I'm sure I'm not the only one that has been wondering what became of that case, once the Supreme Court GVR'd the case after McDonald was decided. Well it seems that on 09-17-2010, James Maloney filed an amended complaint and it's actually quite a good read. Far different than his original writings were. While still quite verbose (21 pages of PDF text), I suspect he has been studying Gura's writing style. |
October 15, 2010, 08:16 AM | #62 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
|
|
October 15, 2010, 09:34 PM | #63 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
An update on the Wisconsin case that ruled that Wisconsin's law that prohibited concealed carry was unconstitutional.
The case is Wisconsin v. Schultz. Case No. 10-CM-138. Judge Jon M. Counsell used strict scrutiny in light of Heller and McDonald. The Judge declared that the statute was unconstitutional on its face and was overly broad in violation of the 2A and 14A. In 1977, the statute in question was amended to read: Quote:
Quote:
If this decision is upheld upon the appeals, and the Wisconsin legislature does nothing, Wisconsin will become the 4th Constitutional Carry State. As it stands now, in Clark county, it is now lawful to carry openly or concealed without a license. Gene German, the Wisconsin Gun Rights Examiner has an article about this and includes the unofficial text of the decision, at the end of his article. Please read it here. |
||
October 16, 2010, 07:28 AM | #64 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
|
That Jefferson Wayne Schrader case is making my head hurt.
The idea is that the feds are denying him gun ownership because he got in a fight 40 years ago and was convicted of misdemeanor assault? Quote:
|
|
October 16, 2010, 10:30 AM | #65 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Publius, the feds are denying Schrader firearms by claiming he is a prohibited person, as defined in 18-922(g)(1) which says that anyone convicted of a crime to which a sentence of more than a year can apply, is a prohibited person.
Until 2007, MD did not have any maximum sentencing laws for misdemeanors. Then, a bill was passed that made most misdemeanors have, as a maximum, a 3 year sentence. Including the misdemeanor assault charge that Schrader was convicted of. The feds are applying the current State law to the 40 year old conviction. In essence, post McDonald, the plaintiff is claiming an ex post facto application of the law which denies his fundamental right. It is clear, that any State may change (by statute) the nature of a misdemeanor crime to include a sentence of more than a year (one year and one day, anyone?), and the way the feds will interpret 922(g)(1), you become a prohibited person, regardless of when the crime was committed. |
October 16, 2010, 01:29 PM | #66 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Second Amendment Arms vs Chicago, yet another Chicago case
This case is far from the quality, punchy writing we've become accustomed to with Mr. Gura, but it's out there, so it might as well be included in this otherwise comprehensive log of active 2A cases.
It also is redundant, in that it addresses at least one issue currently being litigated by our favorite expert in 'Ezell', i.e. the range ban case. It does focus on gifting of firearms and the gun shop prohibition. I wish these people would reach out and coordinate their efforts. Pooling resource beats the heck out of redundant, half-baked, efforts. But, they are correct in their complaints, and they have a right to bring them. I won't be surprised if they are combined with other cases. The brief is all over the place, IMO. Buckle up. http://ia700109.us.archive.org/16/it...245180.6.0.pdf Here are some highights: 15. On or about July 1, 2010, in response to McDonald v. Chicago, MAYOR DALEY, a long time fervent opponent of the right of others, than himself, to keep and bear arms, publicly announced at a press conference, “It’s clear to all that our current handgun ordinance will soon be struck down by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals,” and therefore he would immediately propose the immediate adoption of an ordinance that would have among its key provisions, inter alia, the following: a. Limiting registration of no more than one handgun per month in the home per adult or applicant and generally prohibiting the possession of a handgun by any person except in the person’s home. b. Establishing a two-step process to own and register a handgun. First, an applicant must obtain a city firearms permit, which requires having a valid State of Illinois Firearm Owner’s Identification (“FOID”) Card, and then an applicant must register the gun with the Chicago Police Department. c. Prohibiting handgun ownership by anyone who has been convicted of any violent crime, has two or more offenses for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs and under state law has been convicted of domestic violence. d. Banning “assault weapons” and providing for mandatory jail time beginning in 2011 for anyone who is caught with one. e. Arbitrarily and capriciously requiring firearms safety training, both in a classroom and on a firing range but illogically imposing a total ban on all firearms training and firing rages within the CITY. f. Arbitrarily and capriciously imposing a total ban on all gun shops and sales within the CITY. g. Including “severe” penalties for violating the ordinance, including hefty fines and jail time. h. Arbitrarily and capriciously banning the gifting of firearms by residents and non-residents to residents of the CITY. i. Arbitrarily and capriciously prohibiting weapons from being sold, purchased, possessed, used, or transfer that can hold more than ten (10) rounds/cartridges/bullets thereby creating a de facto bans on widely and normally used and owned and commercially sold type of handguns. 16. Thereafter, on the next day, July 2, 2010, and without seeking or allowing public comment or input or review, and in order to circumvent the Supreme Court ruling in McDonald v. Chicago and deliberately deny CHICAGO’S law-abiding residents and others wishing to purchase or use lawful firearms in the CITY the ability to acquire, obtain, keep and bear arms, i.e., legal handguns and other weapons, CHICAGO adopted a more sweeping ordinance hurriedly proposed by MAYOR DALEY to become effective on July 12, 2010 (the “New Gun Ban Ordinance”, a copy which is attached hereto as Exhibit “C”). Case: 1:10-cv-04257 Document #: 6 Filed: 10/01/10 Page 6 of 78 PageID #:163 |
October 16, 2010, 10:03 PM | #67 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Thanks to Maestro for the newest case - although I feel it is a train wreck in the making, I posted it nonetheless.
I used to think the NRA was bad at throwing a plate of spaghetti at the wall, to see what sticks, but this case appears to have thrown the entire pot of spaghetti at the wall. Please keep referring back to the OP, as links to the dockets are found and updated. When clicking on the docket links, you will be taken to a RECAPped docket that will show you the most current entries downloaded from the PACER system. RECAP is a FireFox plugin extension that allows those with PACER accounts to find the docs they need, and when downloaded from PACER, the RECAP program also archives the doc. When checking PACER for a document, if it has already been archived, RECAP will retrieve that doc, instead of the PACER doc. This saves everyone else money, except the first person who downloaded the original PACER doc. The RECAP archive is searchable, so if the pleading has been recapped, you can find it. See https://www.recapthelaw.org/ for more details. |
October 17, 2010, 01:59 AM | #68 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
OK. I admit it. I blew this one.
Last Monday I reported: Quote:
Quote:
|
||
October 17, 2010, 02:07 AM | #69 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Here's a guess: only one judge per case?
|
October 17, 2010, 09:33 AM | #70 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,902
|
It looks like the panel will hear three cases, including both Heller II and Dearth.
|
October 17, 2010, 10:24 AM | #71 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
Thank you to those that keep this thread current. I currently have lots and lots of irons in the fire, and this thread makes it much easier for me to keep up with current 2A developments.
|
October 17, 2010, 11:24 AM | #72 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Quote:
The circuit panel that hears orals in Heller II, will also hear orals on Dearth v. Holder. |
|
October 17, 2010, 02:22 PM | #73 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, WA
Posts: 1,466
|
Regarding Schrader
There are a couple of interesting posts on THR.US by Schrader's Significant Other. In a nutshell, it seems that 40 years after Schrader plead guilty to a misdemeanor assault, the Maryland AG made any crime punishable by up to 2 yrs in prison automatically a 2-yr sentence. Thus, retroactively, Schrader became, in essence, a convicted felon for NICS purposes.
Interesting reading posted by "coolpillow" on THR: http://www.thehighroad.us/showthread.php?t=420870
__________________
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) |
October 17, 2010, 11:04 PM | #75 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Thanks gc.
If anyone had bothered to go back to the OP of this thread, your would have found the Schrader case, linked to the docket. In the docket is a link to the complaint. Just so everyone knows, anytime I find or get sent a new case, I list it in the OP. I also try to find the docket entry and link to that. Failing a docket entry, I will try and link to the complaint. The docket entries are important, as they show whats going on with a particular case, even if every item in the docket hasn't been linked. This changes, sometimes several times a week. I do not always announce these changes nor is it me that changes the docket entries, so it would behoove you to go back and click on those docket links every so often. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|