January 17, 2012, 11:22 AM | #301 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
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. |
January 17, 2012, 11:25 AM | #302 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
|
|
January 17, 2012, 11:38 AM | #303 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Nah. Go ahead with that plan.
I'll dutifully report all your fun!! |
January 17, 2012, 01:19 PM | #304 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
January 27, 2012, 10:46 AM | #305 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
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:
As Gray has mentioned elsewhere, those amici which are State organizations are States where CO doesn't recognize their permits! |
|
January 29, 2012, 09:01 PM | #306 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
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:
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. |
|
January 29, 2012, 10:19 PM | #307 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
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 |
February 3, 2012, 09:47 PM | #308 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
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.
|
February 3, 2012, 10:13 PM | #309 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,299
|
Al, have I said thanks for keeping us updated, recently? Seriously, thank you.
|
February 7, 2012, 11:44 PM | #312 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
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). |
February 9, 2012, 07:01 PM | #313 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
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. |
February 11, 2012, 11:36 AM | #314 |
Member
Join Date: November 24, 2010
Posts: 24
|
Motion to conslidate was denied and MSJ proceeds in Thomson on 2/27/12:
|
February 13, 2012, 09:05 PM | #315 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Jennings v. McCraw (TX CCW restrictions on 18 - 20 yr olds), has been renamed: NRA v. McCraw. The opening brief has been scheduled:
Quote:
|
|
February 19, 2012, 07:06 PM | #316 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
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. |
February 24, 2012, 07:55 AM | #317 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
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 |
February 28, 2012, 09:11 AM | #318 |
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. |
March 9, 2012, 09:19 PM | #319 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
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:
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:
|
||
March 11, 2012, 12:29 AM | #320 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
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:
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:
|
||
March 11, 2012, 06:52 PM | #321 | |||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
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 ( Quote:
In Schrader v. Holder (D.C. Circuit), the following docket is updated: Quote:
In Piszczatoski v. Philip Maenza (New Jersey - 3rd Circuit), the following briefing schedule was noted: Quote:
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. |
|||
March 13, 2012, 10:19 AM | #322 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
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). |
March 15, 2012, 04:27 PM | #323 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
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. |
March 24, 2012, 10:50 PM | #324 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
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[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:
Quote:
|
||
March 29, 2012, 02:16 PM | #325 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
We have just had our third win! This time at district court in N.C.
See the Batemen v. Perdue thread for details. |
|
|