March 30, 2012, 08:03 PM | #326 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Another Alan Gura win today!
The Judgment for Fletcher v. Haas is in: http://ia600607.us.archive.org/23/it...35876.31.0.pdf
This case dealt with the MA law that forbid firearms permits to non-citizens, (lawfull resident aliens). Both the SAF and Comm2A were dismissed as associational plaintiffs for failing to show any individual member was harmed. Thus they failed standing. Plaintiffs Fletcher and Pryal were granted their MSJ. Issued immediately following the memorandum and order (the above link) was the Judgment: http://ia600607.us.archive.org/23/it...35876.32.0.pdf Quote:
Unlike Judge Legg (Woolard) and Judge Howard (Bateman), Judge Woodlock has issued an actual injunction against the State, as applied to these two plaintiffs. The State will have to "find" another reason to deny the firearms license to these folks, and chances are good, that the State won't want to push that part further. As it now stands, the State has 30 days to appeal. |
|
April 9, 2012, 08:57 PM | #327 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
The opening brief was filed in the New Jersey case, Piszczatoski (was Muller v. Maenza).
The PDF is attached to that thread. |
April 22, 2012, 03:46 PM | #328 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Case #66, Charles Nichols v. Edmund G Brown Jr et al, (a pro se case) was recommended to be dismissed by the Magistrate, on Apr. 5th, 2012. Chuck cannot appeal (he says he will, sigh, bad precedent Chuck, let it lie) until the District Judge affirms the Magistrates recommendation.
Case #71 Wisconsin Carry Inc et al v. City of Milwaukee et al, was entered today. The docket is here and the thread is here. |
April 23, 2012, 07:40 PM | #329 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Added Jackson et al v. King et al (#72). This case seeks to invalidate New Mexico CCW law as it affects the inability of lawful resident aliens to obtain a permit.
|
April 24, 2012, 01:09 PM | #330 |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Charles Nichols v. Edmund G Brown Jr et al
Under discussion here. Plaintiff seeks to challenge California's recent ban on open carry.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
April 25, 2012, 11:26 PM | #332 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
The opening brief of Schrader v. Holder at the DC Circuit has been uploaded. See this thread for the file: http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=426806
|
April 28, 2012, 09:31 PM | #333 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
There is a new twist to the goings on in the Ezell case. Please read my last couple of entries in that thread: http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=423216
|
May 9, 2012, 09:07 AM | #334 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Yesterday, April 8th, 2012, marked the last day for NC to file an appeal in Bateman v. Perdue. Since the State failed to appeal, the Judges ruling in striking down those (anti-gun carry) portions of the Emergency Powers Act stands as law.
Today, Alan Gura and the SAF will file their response to Maryland's attempt to justify the Stay of Judgment in Woolard v. Sheridan. |
May 13, 2012, 10:04 PM | #335 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Over the last week or so, I've been getting ready to post a separate thread on the progress of all the cases listed back on page 1. I have made numerous changes in that time. You may wish to refresh your memory and review those cases.
|
May 18, 2012, 08:50 AM | #336 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Several updates (orals at Circuit) were just posted to the threads dealing with those cases. They should be near the top of this forum... For a day or two.
|
June 4, 2012, 07:52 PM | #337 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
CA1/Hightower has (presumably) drawn a bad panel: Lynch, Lipez, Thompson.
Hon. Sandra L. Lynch, Chief Judge. ** Nominatd by Pres. Clinton and confirmed Mar. 17, 1998. Hon. Kermit V. Lipez, Senior Circuit Judge. ** Nominatd by Pres. Clinton and confirmed Apr. 7, 1998. Hon. O. Rogeriee Thompson, Circuit Judge. ** Nominated by Pres. Obama and confirmed Mar. 17, 2010. Oral Arguments will be this Wednesday, June 6th. Both sides will have 15 minutes to present their case. Illinois had originally asked for consolidation of Moore/Shepard, which was denied, although a concession was made that the two cases would argue on the same day, before the same panel.... Quote:
Oral Arguments will be this Friday, June 6th. We will not know the panel until that morning. |
|
June 6, 2012, 04:33 PM | #338 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
The MP3 (18MB) of the Hightower orals are out. See this thread for details: http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=478432
|
June 12, 2012, 01:16 AM | #339 |
Member
Join Date: September 7, 2011
Posts: 22
|
Um, Al I would like you to read this order in Sylvester, et al. v. Harris, et al. I believe it is a trial by jury....in California. Trial is set for 25 March 2014, page 5 has that.
|
June 12, 2012, 02:39 AM | #340 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
This case has to do with the second and subsequent waiting periods for firearms in California. The obvious point is that a cooling off period for someone who is already a legal gun owner would fail even a rational basis test.
Discussion at Calguns here: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...ight=sylvester |
June 12, 2012, 09:34 AM | #341 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
NatoRepublic: Back on May 5th, a Joint Scheduling Report (#13) was submitted to the court. The court held a telephonic hearing (#14) on this matter on May 15th. The result of that meeting was the Scheduling Order (#15) that you have attached to your post.
What this means is that an extended period of Discovery has been initiated by both parties and the court agrees to that timetable. A date for a non-jury trial (trial by the judge) has been set for March 25, 2014 (essentially, 2 years from now). I suspect that the reasoning for this somewhat lengthy case has to do with what is happening elsewhere, that could potentially enhance Jason Davis' case (if things go the way we would like). This case is a departure from the way we have been seeing our 2A cases being handled: Lose fast to get to circuit. That has to do with the nature of the 9th circuit which seems to give "public safety" reasons a great deal of deference. Knowing this, there must be time for the other circuits to weigh in on just how much a States "public safety" mantra can be allowed to interfere with a fundamental right. |
June 19, 2012, 05:08 PM | #342 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
Federal judge strikes down part of Chicago's gun law
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,7474675.story
I see this as significant because it prevents previous violations of draconian or unconstitutional gun laws being used as a basis to deny firearms "permits". In Chicago, a firearms permit means being permitted to purchase and posess a firearm. It's also very interesting that Judge Der-Yeghiayan's words are in the record now (emphasis mine): Quote:
|
|
June 19, 2012, 10:13 PM | #343 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Thanks for that, LC, and welcome to the Firing Line! I actually saw this over at MDShooters and was busy reading the opinion, before I logged in here.
This one was definitely "under the radar!" There's a lot more to this decision than first blush might indicate. I'll be adding this to the list (it's not done, Chicago will appeal), and starting a new thread on this (if someone else doesn't before I get it written up). |
June 20, 2012, 05:21 PM | #344 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,137
|
From the quotes in the news report, the rationale could be expanded to include the federal prohibition against possession of firearms by one subject to a domestic violence restraining order or a misdemeanor conviction for (domestic) battery.
|
June 24, 2012, 06:14 PM | #345 | ||||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
An update to three cases at the 9th Circuit.
I'm posting here, so I don't have to duplicate the posts in the individual threads and because the third case has no thread (as yet). In Richards v. Prieto: Quote:
Quote:
Current status of Birdt v. Beck at the 9th: Quote:
Quote:
The brief is short and to the point; terse would be a word to describe this brief. Nonetheless, it is of higher caliber than we've seen from this plaintiff to date. |
||||
June 24, 2012, 07:10 PM | #346 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Wow. That might be Birdt's best work. Good move waiving oral arguments, as he is no great orator. Question, though: Shouldn't the conclusion include a clear demand/prayer for relief?
|
June 25, 2012, 12:50 AM | #347 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,417
|
Um. Yeah. Birdt is starting to get the hang of this, ain't he?
__________________
Jim March |
June 25, 2012, 08:29 PM | #348 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,137
|
Quote:
|
|
June 25, 2012, 09:53 PM | #349 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
A not much talked about case, Scocca v. Smith, a Don Kilmer CCW case based not upon the 2A but upon the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment was just dismissed. This case was specific in that it did not implicate the 2A at all.
The Docket is here: http://www.archive.org/download/gov....67.docket.html The Order granting the County's MTD is here: http://www.archive.org/download/gov....38467.40.0.pdf Interesting procedure used by Judge Chen (who took over the case from Judge Fogel on May 19, 2011). The case was stayed, pending Nordyke on Feb. 14, 2012. The Stay was lifted on June 12th, with a Case Management Conference set for July 13th. Then, last Friday, the Judge issued his Order Granting Defendants #9 MTD. The lawsuit had 3 claims. 1) A violation of the 14th amend. EP clause; 2) A violation of the CA EP clause; and 3) A violation of CA Civil Code § 52.3. We will have to wait and see what the plaintiffs will do. The Judge dismissed counts 2 and 3 with prejudice but count 1 was dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days. |
June 26, 2012, 08:28 PM | #350 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,137
|
As Al mentioned, this case was an Equal Protection case based on how concealed carry permits are issued (or not). Nevertheless, there was some discussion about the 2A as the "right" involved in an Equal Protection claim impacts the analysis of the claim. The district court made one rather startling statement (to me at least). It recognized that the panel's opinion in Nordyke had been vacated by the 9th Circuit en banc but stated:
Quote:
WHAT? You're citing an opinion that the rest of the circuit court bench has said is not good? Nevertheless, the plaintiff has standing problems because there were only conclusory allegations made that others similarly situated were treated differently; i.e., no specific facts were alleged. In addition, the court said: Quote:
The dismissal on the federal claim was without prejudice and the court has allowed 30 days to amend the complaint. The plaintiff also sought relief for a state claim and it was dismissed with prejudice. Normally, a party cannot appeal a dismissal of part of a case until a judgment on the whole case is entered. Since leave to amend the federal claim was granted, I don't believe the case is yet appealable. |
||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|