April 8, 2011, 07:09 PM | #151 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Krucam, over at MDShooters found & the posted the docket (from PACER) for Kwong v. Bloomberg.
Added that link to the ever expanding data. |
April 10, 2011, 11:46 AM | #152 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Back on March 21, in Bonidy v. USPS, the district court granted the Motion to Dismiss (MTD) by the defendant, USPS. This was done with a stipulation that the Plaintiffs could file a second amended complaint.
That was filed, last week and can be read here (item #15 on the docket). Last time, the Bonidy's had only a single complaint that included both the interior of the Post Office and the parking lot. This time, they have separated the two areas. The parking lot comprises one complaint and the interior comprises the second complaint. Because of the nature of the parking lot being the only place that the public can park, during the winter months, they may win that aspect. I believe the court will still rule that the interior is still a "sensitive place." |
April 15, 2011, 01:48 PM | #153 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
In the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Dearth v. Holder has been reversed and remanded back to the District Court. The panels decision is here.
Quote:
|
|
April 15, 2011, 09:50 PM | #154 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Not much attention has been paid to the civil rights lawsuit by Georgia Carry against the State of Georgia, concerning Georgia's ban of firearms in churches. Georgia Carry lost at the District level (final dismissal was on Jan. 25, 2011). Appellants filed notice of appeal on Jan. 26 and their brief was filed back on Mar. 14th.
The brief is 29 PDF pages and may be read here. This case hinges on both 1st and 2nd amendment issues. In another case that wasn't followed (much) by 2A enthusiasts, was Hall v. Garcia. This was a pro se case that tied to get the 1000 foot school zone law in CA overturned. On Mar. 16, 2011, Judge Seeborg granted the defendant his MJP (#21 on the docket). You can read it here. Bad cases make bad caselaw. Such was this case. Because this gentleman (who is not an attorney), decided he couldn't wait while other cases got lined up, it will now be harder to challenge GFSZ's. I RECAPed the docket and the Court's Opinion on the MJP. It should be viewable shortly. It doesn't appear that Mr. Hall will be filing an appeal. Which leaves this at the District level and not the Circuit level. |
April 20, 2011, 10:15 PM | #155 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Some updating on Chicago v. Benson is in order.
A Supplemental Brief by Defendants in Support of their MTD was submitted on 3/24. The Illinois Association of Firearms Retailers filed a a Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants MTD on 3/29. There is a curious docket entry: Quote:
|
|
April 21, 2011, 06:01 AM | #156 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,747
|
I recall in the late 90's and early 2000's an issue with MS Word not providing the correct word count causing some filings to be rejected due to too many total words in the document.
Perhaps there may still be an issue with this.
__________________
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 |
April 21, 2011, 11:23 AM | #157 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
That could be the problem. I had noticed that word counts in Open Office and Word (when I was still using MS software/OS) were different.
|
April 21, 2011, 12:31 PM | #158 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
Quote:
You happened to hit on my other love, besides guns. |
|
April 21, 2011, 01:12 PM | #159 | ||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Quote:
|
||
April 21, 2011, 02:00 PM | #160 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
[sidetrack]
Back in the late 80's, I used to teach several computer classes. One of them was WordPerfect. So yeah, I remember (vividly) how much better document handling was with Reveal Codes. IIRC, macros were another feature that hasn't been duplicated, as successfully. Quite frankly, it is still better at editing (especially with styles) than any other processor around. I just didn't know it was still being produced (sigh ... wish the linux version was still in development). At any rate, I'll opt for LibreOffice (a recent fork of Open Office). Mostly because of the ease it handles documents in all the other formats. Including PDF. WP X5 however, is not enough reason to put the MS OS back on my system. [/sidetrack] OK then. does anyone but me think that the D.C. Circuits opinion in Dearth will be a win, not just for citizens living outside the US, but in an equal protection sense, all citizens? |
April 21, 2011, 03:11 PM | #161 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Quote:
If a person who's not a resident of ANY state can buy a gun, I think state residency would be therefore irrelevant. Example: I live in say, NY city. Let's say I don't own any guns there because I don't choose to jump through the city's hurdles to own one there, or maybe just don't feel the need. But while on vacation in say, AZ, I wish to protect my family by concealing a handgun per state law. It is clearly my right to do so in AZ. Leaving aside, for the moment, what I must do with the gun upon returning to NY to remain compliant, isn't it direct denial of my 2A rights to prevent me from purchasing a handgun in AZ? |
|
April 21, 2011, 05:11 PM | #162 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,747
|
Quote:
{New, never opened box WordPerfect Office 2002 Professional for Windows sitting on my shelf. I'm a Windows Server Admin by trade}
__________________
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 |
|
April 21, 2011, 05:18 PM | #163 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Just a thought: Alan Gura repeatedly refers to his field of law as 'strategic civil rights litigation'. You can bet that Dearth is not just about one guy who lives in Canada.
|
April 22, 2011, 08:46 AM | #164 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Yesterday (04/-21-2011), in Schrader v. Holder, Plaintiffs (SAF/Gura) filed their Brief in Support of their MSJ, opposing Defendants opposition to their MSJ. It's #14 on the docket.
In the Defendants opposition, they made use of the 4th Circuits Coleman Case (United States v. Coleman, 158 F.3d 199 (4th Cir. 1998)), where the Circuit upheld a "Felon in Possession" analogy to misdemeanor crimes punishable by terms of one year or more. Gura pounds on the idea that the Congress meant to strip a fundamental right from common law misdemeanants, when the historical facts are that common law misdemeanants were never stripped of their rights, as the Defendants claim. Quote:
In a separate filing (#15), Gura advises the court of last weeks decision (by the D.C. Circuit) in Dearth v. Holder, which shatters the Defendants position that Plaintiff lacks Standing (the DOJ has used this, successfully, in two prior attempts with this Plaintiff, by claiming that only D.C. is the proper venue. Now they are saying that pursuant to NavGear/Seegars they have no standing. Dearth moots this argument). And finally, because the Defendants claim that nowhere in the Plaintiffs briefs, does he explicitly say he wants to possess a firearm now (disregarding the failed NICS checks as past injustices not at Bar), Gura motions to file a Second Amended Complaint with those very declarations. Gura addresses this in the brief (#14), but to be sure the Defendant and the Court understands, the amended complaint spells it out. The Defendants are naturally opposed to this. My Opinion: Now that the D.C. Circuit has weighed in on Dearth, I suspect this Court to wait for the Palmer decision from Judge Kennedy. However it turns out, this case will go to the Circuit. |
|
May 3, 2011, 11:38 PM | #165 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
On 04-15, in Kachalsky v. Cacace, Gura filed a Notice of Newly Declared Authority (the appellate decision in Dearth v. Holder)....
On 05-02-2011, in Kachalsky v. Cacace, NY filed a similar notice (#76 on the docket) on a NY State case, People v. Hughes. The decision against Hughes was an "In the Home" argument. Now, if I was an honest judge, which case would I take judicial notice of? A Federal decision in the D.C. Circuit or an NY State appellate case.... Hmmmm... But I betcha that this NY court disregards the federal case in favor of its own State case. Any takers? |
May 4, 2011, 08:46 AM | #166 |
Staff In Memoriam
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
|
"Any takers"?
Not me, Al, I want to keep the few dollars I own... Brent |
May 4, 2011, 01:30 PM | #167 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,747
|
Quote:
__________________
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 |
|
May 4, 2011, 03:10 PM | #168 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
If there's any silver lining in the Alameda/Nordyke (gun-show ban) case, it may be that the county's no-firearms regulation may be more vulnerable to a straight 2A challenge.
Gun shows may not ultimately be protected by either the 2A, 1A, or 14A, claim (though that is yet to be seen when/if it either goes en banc or is granted cert). But as a straight keep and bear (outside the home), it may yet have merit. See the SCOTUS Blog's take on it here: Circuit Court bolsters gun rights. Excerpt from the SCOTUS BLOG article: Quote:
|
|
May 9, 2011, 10:13 PM | #169 | |||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
As you may remember, the Nordyke decision came out last Monday (05-02-2011). The defense in Enos v. Holder immediately submitted two Notices of supplemental Authority, citing Nordyke (05-03-2011, #17 on the Docket) and Booker (#18 on the Docket), a criminal case from the 2nd Circuit, also filed on Monday the 2nd.
The court held a hearing on the 4th and ordered supplemental briefs from both sides (#19 on the Docket): Quote:
In Nordyke, Kilmer writes: Quote:
Quote:
I can't imagine how the the defense is going to spin these, so I guess we will wait and see, on or about the 18th of May. This is being funded by the Madison Society. If you have any spare cash (of just about any amount) and think this is a worthy piece of litigation, consider donating to them. |
|||
May 14, 2011, 12:23 AM | #170 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Friday the 13th Bonus!
If you have been paying attention, you will know that the IL legislature did not pass the Shall Issue CC bill, last week (it was actually placed on postponed consideration - under normal circumstances, this would effectively kill the bill).
It's Friday the 13th.... A couple of things have happened today. This morning the SAF have announced that they have filed suit in Illinois over the Ban on Carrying Guns for Self Defense. The complaint is here: Moore v. Madigan. Filed in the US District Court for Central Illinois. David G. Sigale (2nd seat; McDonald and Ezell) and David D. Jensen, lead counsel (and Counsel in the NJ lawsuit). Also, the NRA announced they have filed a separate suit in the US District Court for Southern Illinois: Shepard v. Madigan. (if anyone finds the url for the complaint, please post it here). Don't know how co-ordinated these are, but rumor has it that Gura and the NRA were talking recently.... Anyone want to bet that the legislation is gonna be reconsidered? I actually have no idea, but my inclination is that Cook County/Chicago will oppose (the legislation) at all costs; The State legislators who voted "no" will be able to tell their constituents that they tried, but the damned courts butted in. Win/Win politically. At any rate, as soon as I can find them on PACER, I will update the main page. In Richards v. Prieto, Donald Kilmer and Alan Gura filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority. It is a brief 3 pages where Gura uses the Nordyke decision to lock out the county of Yolo, CA. When life hands you lemons, make lemonade! |
May 16, 2011, 08:25 PM | #171 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
What's Happening Today, Monday May 16th.
First, in Hightower v. Boston, Alan Gura file his opposition to the City of Boston MSJ and reply to Plaintiffs MSJ. This was filed last Thursday, the 12th. Read it here. It's a good read, even if 30 pages long.
As you read this, remember that Gura is really writing to the Circuit Court of Appeals. So don't be surprised if the District court denies the Plaintiffs MSJ and grants Boston's MSJ. (there's a pattern here) In Richards v Prieto (was Sykes v McGinness), Yolo County, the District court did almost exactly what the court in Peruta did. It ruled that the benefit of openly carrying an unloaded firearm was option enough for citizens to defend themselves. The decision is a painful read in how this Judge misreads Heller and McDonald in order to vindicate discretionary carry. Gura and Kilmer immediately appealed to the 9th Circuit. And finally today, in Williams v MD the Supreme Court has requested that MD respond to the cert petition. More on this, what it means and the timeline in this thread. |
May 16, 2011, 11:51 PM | #172 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Prieto and Peruta are amazing to me in that they both rely on the carry of an unloaded weapon as if that would satisfy the Heller requirement that the right include the use of a "functional firearm for immediate use for self defense".
DC's trigger lock and/or disassembly requirement was thus struck. An unloaded firearm is not immediately functional for the core self defense purpose of the right, but then, the court must know that. Ironically, the CA legislature, by all accounts, is about to ban the very form of carry that the courts are saying make CCW bans constitutional: UOC (unloaded open carry). They apparently have more than enough votes to get it done, and it was barely defeated last term by fluke and luck (well, that and a lot of hard work by incredible CalGuns operatives) but it was a real squeaker. I can only hope that the more blatantly incorrect and irrational the lower court rulings, the more opportunity there will be for the SCOTUS to set the record straight. If stupid is supposed to hurt, then the next SCOTUS 2A cases should be excruciating for the lower courts. I've said it before, but I hope Scalia writes the next one. His sharp wit and tongue-lashing are sorely needed here. |
May 24, 2011, 10:25 AM | #174 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Don Kilmer (CalGuns Foundation) has filed a request for rehearing and/or en banc for Nordyke. The filing can be read here.
The request asks 3 important questions about the decision rendered by the panel, with the first question being a real zinger: Quote:
Krucam, over at MDShooters has uploaded the Complaint: http://mdshooters.com/attachment.php...0&d=1306240964 This is a huge 143 page PDF, which I haven't had time to fully read. Here are the questions as presented in the appeal: Quote:
|
||
June 6, 2011, 07:42 AM | #175 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Today, June 6th - A Heads Up!
Gray Peterson is expected to file his 10th Circuit appeal today.
Peterson v. Garcia (was Peterson v. LaCabe) - Challenges CO residency requirement for CCW. If anyone sees the brief (and a link to it), please post it here. Thanks. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|