The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 30, 2011, 11:33 PM   #226
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Originally posted August 24, 2011 by Al Norris:

In Shepard v Madigan, the plaintiffs filed their response to the Sheriffs MTD. It is a short and to the point 8 page rebuttal.


A new Case

Baker v. Kealoha, Hawaii District Court Filed: 8/23/2011 Case: CV11 00513
Until PACER is updated, the complaint is here. Richard Holcomb, Alan Beck and Kevin O'Grady, attorneys for the plaintiff. This is a right to carry case and facially challenges several (many?) Hawaii carry statutes. See Hawaii Concealed Carry for the official press release.
Al Norris is offline  
Old September 30, 2011, 11:34 PM   #227
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Originally posted August 24, 2011 by armoredman:

About time someone took on Hawaii - another set of nutty laws. Thanks for updates, Mr Norris!
Al Norris is offline  
Old September 30, 2011, 11:35 PM   #228
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Originally posted August 24, 2011 by Funtimes:

Yeah we just filed that case in Hawai'i. Can't believe I missed para 27/28 lol. I can't do anything but laugh about it now. I probably messed that up when I was fixing the bullets and hit paste twice or something (sigh... oh well.)

We had to take on more laws then we would have liked because of the circular nature, contrary to what some think it's not a toss it up to see what sticks strategy. We have a plan!
Al Norris is offline  
Old September 30, 2011, 11:40 PM   #229
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Originally posted August 25, 2011 by Al Norris:

Funtimes? Ya notice I didn't say anything about paragraphs 27/28, here at TFL?

Perhaps you would like to start a new thread on this civil rights lawsuit? That way you can explain a bit how these laws are so interrelated. I know I had to read the brief three times before it all started to click. The first time around (when I made my post over at MDShooters), it seemed pretty redundant. Now it's making sense.... after the 3rd read!
Al Norris is offline  
Old September 30, 2011, 11:41 PM   #230
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Originally posted August 25, 2011 by Al Norris:

The opening brief to the 9th Circuit was filed yesterday in the case of Richards v. Prieto. To read it, see the attached file in this thread.
Al Norris is offline  
Old September 30, 2011, 11:42 PM   #231
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Originally posted August 25, 2011 by Derek Scammon:

For obvious reasons, those of us who are located in Hawaii are rejoicing in the streets that it's finally happening, although I don't know how well it will go for us. Hopefully they'll win the suit, although I'm sure it'll go through countless appeals and take years on end. The problem is, like FunTimes said, all the laws out here are infinitely incestuous, so it's going to take a pretty bold court to strike that many laws at once, which is typical of the judiciary. When liberals' agenda items are being decided, they'll strike down reams of legislation with the stroke of a pen, and say it's based on a found right that falls under the penumbra of some other right. With guns, they want to go through with a magnifying glass and only line out the sentences in the law one at a time to make sure they don't grant too much 2nd Amendment freedom to law-abiding citizens.

If only guns were used in abortions, we'd be in business!
Al Norris is offline  
Old September 30, 2011, 11:52 PM   #232
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Originally posted August 28, 2011 by Al Norris:

Another lawsuit was filed in CA. Bauer v. Harris seeks to have certain "Fees" charged to purchasers of firearms declared unconstitutional. See this thread, for the announcement.
Al Norris is offline  
Old September 30, 2011, 11:52 PM   #233
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Originally posted August 28, 2011 by armoredman:

It's becoming a tidal wave...
Al Norris is offline  
Old September 30, 2011, 11:53 PM   #234
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Originally posted August 30, 2011 by Al Norris:

On Monday, 29 Aug, in Enos et al v. Holder et al, the plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint in compliance with the orders of Judge Mendez (Granting in part and denying in part the defendants MTD). The complaint is pretty straight forward in its iteration of the facts.

You can download and read the complaint (#27) from the docket.

In Ezell v. Chicago, Alan Gura has filed his Memorandum in Opposition to Chicago's Second Motion To Dismiss (MTD). See this thread for details.
Al Norris is offline  
Old October 1, 2011, 12:01 AM   #235
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Originally posted August 31, 2011 by Al Norris:

Over at MDShooters, I made a prediction on the grants of cert for Williams and Masciandaro. I thought I had posted that prediction here as well... This all started because I said that we won't find out about either of these two cases until Nov. 22nd. Folks there asked me to clarify. Here's what I wrote last Saturday in response:

My reasons for the prediction of the Nov. 22nd conference are those of a loose paralleling of the Heller case.

In Williams, the cert stage is finished. In Masciandaro, the cert stage finishes around October 31st.

In Heller, the cert stage finished on Oct. 23rd, 2007.

Heller was scheduled for conference on Nov. 9th, 2007. It was passed over (the Court took no action). Heller was next scheduled for conference on the 20th of Nov.

Normally, the conference days are held on a Tuesday. The results of any conference are usually reported on the following Monday. But something strange happened on the 18th.

After Lyle Denniston (SCOTUSBlog) made an announcement over the upcoming conference, we all got wind that the attorneys for both sides going to be at the Court on the 20th. That is unusual.

We now know that on the 20th of Nov. 2007, the Supreme Court announced that it had granted certiorari in D.C. v Heller (unusual in that they didn't wait for the formal announcement, the following Monday). At the same time, the Court denied cert in a companion but conditional cross-motion for cert in the Parker case (the plaintiffs in Parker were seeking standing to join the Heller case).

So... We have a completed cert stage in one case and are now waiting for a completion in cert stage in another similar case. I'm suggesting that Williams will be held (without comment) until the Masciandaro cert is complete.

The calendar for the Court is a bit different this year, in that most conference dates are falling on Fridays. The first conference date, after Masciandaro is Friday, Nov. 4th. I suspect that this is too soon and Masciandaro will be scheduled for the 10th (Fri. the 11th is a holiday).

I'm also suggesting that there will be enough bickering in conference, that both cases will be held until the last conference day of Nov. - Tues., the 22nd (Thanksgiving week, as it was in Heller).

Now. The. Hard. Part.

If we get wind of all 4 sets of attorneys to be present at the Court on the 21st, I predict that both cases will be consolidated and heard together. If not, then I believe Williams will be granted cert and Masciandaro will be held until after the decision is given in the former case.

Why?

Williams presents issues that can be answered and will affectively resolve both cases. The reverse isn't as true if Masciandaro is granted cert and not Williams.

Anywho, this is my best guess.

nota bene: I have stuck my neck out in both Heller and McDonald, so there is no reason not to do it again. All that can happen is that I will be wrong (and some of you can point your fingers and snicker at me)!
Al Norris is offline  
Old October 1, 2011, 12:08 AM   #236
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Originally posted September 1, 2011 by Al Norris:

The NRA and the CRPA have filed amicus briefs in Richards v. Prieto, a 9th Circuit CC case. See this thread, for details.
Al Norris is offline  
Old October 1, 2011, 12:08 AM   #237
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Originally posted September 4, 2011 by Al Norris:

Wisconsin Carry, et al v. Doyle, et al.

Overlooked by many of us, is this case which hasn't shown any movement since a letter was submitted to the Judge by the Assistant City Attorney on July 26th.

I became a bit curious and downloaded the letter from PACER. You can view it here.

The letter states that the parties have reached a settlement, but due to the Summer recess, the City Council will not be able to take up the matter and process the settlement. They are requesting that the Court hold in abeyance the case until the City Council has had the time to agree to the settlement.

The Court has suspended all activity and will hold a teleconference on or about Oct. 10th.

Schrader v. Holder.

On Friday, Sept. 2nd, Alan Gura files their REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ RENEWED CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT as scheduled. It's a good read on why the DOJ can't be trusted to properly interpret law. See Enos for further confirmation.

There's a bit of a sticky wicket brewing over two CA cases. But I want to make sure I have my facts straight before I post about them --> Pizzo v. Newsom and Jackson v. San Francisco
Al Norris is offline  
Old October 2, 2011, 03:17 PM   #238
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Originally posted September 5, 2011 by Al Norris:

Very, Very Long Post...

...and you will need to read this carefully in order to understand the tactics being used by the City and County of San Francisco.


In May of 2009, Chuck Michel and Don Kates filed a complaint (Jackson v San Francisco) against San Francisco (this is an NRA case). In the complaint, the plaintiffs challenge 3 SF city and county ordinances that require all handguns be stored in a locked container or disabled with a trigger lock (section 4512); prohibits discharge of any firearms within city or county (section 1290); and bans ammunition that does not serve a "sporting purpose" (section 613.10(g)).

August 27, 2009, Jackson was stayed pending a decision in Nordyke.

In another court in the Northern District fro CA, on Sept 23, 2009, CA attorney Gary Gorski filed a similar lawsuit (Pizzo v. Newsom) (copied almost word for word, the Jackson complaint), but added some State and Federal claims that are not present in Jackson.. A typical "kitchen sink" lawsuit. That case was stayed on December 10, 2009, pending a decision in Nordyke.

After some internal talks by plaintiffs NRA and Defendants City, the NRA filed a motion to relate Pizzo on Nov. 2, 2009, followed by the City on Nov. 5, 2009.

On Nov. 20, 2009, the Judge denied the motions and gave cause that the cases were not related because of the State and Federal challenges in Pizzo.

On Mar. 18, 2010, the case is reassigned a new Judge (this will work to the benefit of the defendants, as we shall see).

On June 6, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a motion for relief of stay, based upon the Stay en banc of Nordyke (stayed for the McDonald decision). Since McDonald had been argued and that decision would be released on June 28th, there was no reason to continue the stay, as the incorporation issue (from Nordyke) would be resolved, one way or another.

On July 7, 2010, the City opposed the relief of stay.

Meanwhile, on June 28, 2010, the decision in McDonald was delivered. Jackson plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the stay, which was granted (over the opposition of the Defendants) on Sept. 13, 2010. Pizzo remained stayed however.

On Sept. 22, 2010, the Defendants requested additional time to file a reply brief on the amended complaint. On Sept. 24, 2010, the NRA filed a statement that they did not oppose the additional time. This was granted on Sept. 27, 2010, by the Court.

Also on Sept. 27, 2010, the defendants renewed their motion to relate cases. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to consolidate on Nov. 18, 2010, based upon the prior ruling by the Court. Defendants filed their reply on Nov. 24, 2010, and requested even more time to answer the complaint. Additional time was granted on Nov. 29, 2010.

A hearing was held on the consolidation motion on Dec. 9, 2010. The Court denied the motion on Dec. 16, 2010. The city was granted until Jan. 27, 2011 to respond to the complaint. Another round of motions for time.

On Feb. 10, 2011, the city responded, but not with a reply to the complaint, but with yet another MTD on lack of jurisdiction via lack of standing. In a ploy to extend (yet again) time, the City re-noticed their MTD.

So here we are, two years later (last filing was July 7th) and we are still at the most preliminary of stages in this case... a Motion to Dismiss by the Defendant on grounds that were already denied, under a previous Judge, before the stay for Nordyke.

Meanwhile....

The stay was lifted in Pizzo and the replies (answers to the complaint) were filed on Mar. 3, 2011.

On Mar. 31, 2011, the NRA motioned for amicus curiae status. Briefly, this was an action by the NRA to give the Pizzo court special briefings after the plaintiffs responses, in order to protect their interests in Jackson.

Since the city has essentially stalled Jackson, Pizzo is now ahead of the game and the NRA fears that Gorski will not adequately brief the court on the details of the ordinances that are a duplicate of the NRA case in Jackson (and rightly so)!

To illustrate this, we have to back up in the Jackson case to last March, where the NRA became aware of some changes in the City/County codes which affects their case. The NRA asked for and received permission to file a supplemental complaint, outlining those changes and pleading to the new changes. Gorski, on the other hand, has made no attempt to notice the court of these changes and will still be arguing on the old ordinances, which are no longer in effect. Thus mooting his case in whole or part.

San Francisco vehemently opposes this, of course. Um, so does Gorski.

On May 5, 2011, the Court grants the NRA's motion, with the conditions that the NRA requested.

The shenanigans of San Francisco to stall one case, then the other, then the first case (again) are not working as well as they had hoped. Only because the NRA (via Chuck Michel and Don Kates) saw through the ploy and was able to avert a near disaster.

What remains to be seen is if the NRA can salvage either case from harming the other.
Al Norris is offline  
Old October 2, 2011, 03:19 PM   #239
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Originally posted September 6, 2011 by maestro pistolero:

Ok my head's spinning. I did a little better the second time through all that.

The lengths these state's attorneys will go to protect unconstitutional laws is just mind-numbing to behold. It will be interesting to see what changes, if anything, post bear-outside-the-home.

Curiously, at what point in the civil rights movement of the sixties did the government stop behaving as if it was in their best interest to use the people's resources to denied them their fundamental civil rights vis a vi race discrimination?
Al Norris is offline  
Old October 2, 2011, 03:23 PM   #240
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Originally posted September 6, 2011 by Al Norris:

I didn't have to read all 60 pages (although I did) to get to the straight-up answer.

Step 1: Define the core component of the right.

Quote:
The [Heller] Court held that the “ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does [the] prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.” Id. at 635. Two years later, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller, thereby extending that right as against the states. 130 S. Ct. at 3050.
Step 2: Define the complaint as outside the right.

Quote:
Neither the NYPL generally, nor Section 400.00(2)(f) specifically, completely bans the carrying of firearms. As discussed above, the statute provides for carry permits to be issued under several circumstances including, but not limited to, when an applicant can demonstrate proper cause. As the statute does not operate as a complete ban, the cases are inapposite.
Judge Siebel goes on to cite every instance of "in the home" from Heller and to call everything else in that decision, dicta.

That is the 2A 2-Step in action, even as Williams and Masciandaro are up for cert (which this court cites as agreeing with her).

Quote:
For the reasons stated above, I hereby DENY the State Defendants' and the County's Motions to Dismiss, DENY Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, and GRANT the State Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Although the County has not cross-moved for summary judgment, I hereby GRANT it summary judgment sua sponte. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the pending motions, (Docs. 30, 33, 39,42), and close the case.
Sua sponte, because you simply refuse to hear anything else about this "supposed" right.

The case was Kachalsky v. Cacase, #17 on the hit parade. The opinion is here. Expect an immediate appeal.
Al Norris is offline  
Old October 2, 2011, 03:26 PM   #241
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Originally posted September 7, 2011 by Al Norris:

The appellants reply brief (from yesterday) has been posted in Peruta v. San Diego. See here.
Al Norris is offline  
Old October 2, 2011, 03:28 PM   #242
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Originally posted September 7, 2011 by Al Norris:

The 10th Circuit has released a Calendar for Oral Arguments. Peterson v. Kilroy is scheduled to be heard on Nov. 17th, 9:00 am in Courtroom II.
Al Norris is offline  
Old October 2, 2011, 03:30 PM   #243
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Originally posted September 9, 2011 by Al Norris:

There has been a dismissal and refiling of the case, Baker v. Kealoha. Internal (page 1) details have been changed to reflect this. See the thread for details.
Al Norris is offline  
Old October 2, 2011, 03:35 PM   #244
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Originally posted September 12, 2011 by Al Norris:

The goings on are quite entertaining today.

In Second Amendment Arms v. Chicago, they were supposed to have filed their Second Amended Complaint, last Wed., the 7th. Yes, there was two notices of the filing, but it was not actually filed until Fri. the 9th. This won't endear them to the Judge. If you can stomach it, read it here.

In Shepard v. Madigan and in Moore v. Madigan (the SAF and NRA cases over the Il complete ban on carry), the State has made motions of supplemental authority. That authority? The NY case, Kachalsky.

Meanwhile, in Kachalsky v. Cacace, the SAF has appealed the district court opinion to the 2nd Circuit. I suspect that the appeal is already written and Alan Gura is merely waiting for the records form the district court to be formally transferred.

In Ezell v. Chicago, the defendants made their reply to the plaintiffs response on their Motion to Dismiss as Moot.

Chicago is now claiming that their most recent change in their ordinances, moots the case... This is change number 3 or 4?

The Motion to Dismiss as Moot, is based entirely upon the changed ordinance of July 6th, the same day that the 7th Circuit issued their opinion. It doesn't much matter how much else the City has changed the ordinance(s) since the motion was made. The court must rule on the ordinance as motioned:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Response to Motion
The introduction of yet another revision to the gun range ban is unsurprising. This new revision, like the previous one, was not proposed out of benevolence. The City plainly lacked the benefit of the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in this case when drafting the July 6 ordinance, upon which its motion to dismiss is based. Introduction of the July 28 proposal inherently concedes that the July 6 ordinance—the only one upon which the motion to dismiss must be based—was still constitutionally deficient, and that is reason enough to deny the motion.
If the City wishes its Motion to Dismiss as Moot to have any significance, it must withdraw its prior motion and refile a new motion.

I say go ahead and let Judge Kendall dismiss the case. That would constitute plain error. The panel, comprised of Circuit Judges Kanne, Rovner and Sykes, will simply impose the injunction and all further proceedings will be at the Circuit level (most likely through a Special Master). Judge Kendall will lose all control of the case; Chicago will lose control of its own legislative acts.
Al Norris is offline  
Old October 2, 2011, 03:46 PM   #245
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Originally posted September 14, 2011 by Al Norris:

Last Monday, defendants in several cases filed notices of supplemental authority, as soon as they read the dismissal in Kachalsky v. Cacase (N.Y.).

Well today, Alan Gura struck back.

In Palmer v. D.C., Alan Gura filed a reply to the defenses notice of supplemental authority (the Kachalsky case).

http://www.archive.org/download/gov....37887.25.0.pdf

In Woollard v. Brown (was Sheridan), Gura filed a similar reply.

http://www.archive.org/download/gov....80772.47.0.pdf

I've attached the above file, as the Archive seems to be very slow on updating this case.

BTW, since Alan Gura has already filed with his notice of appeal in Kachalsky, what you are reading in the above responses is a preview of what he will write as an opening brief to the 2nd Circuit.

In Moore v. Madigan, David Jensen blasts the State of Illinois, and he filed it yesterday!

http://www.archive.org/uploads/gov.u...52015.34.0.pdf

In Shepard v. Madigan (the NRA suit that parallels Moore), the NRA has yet to file their response to the States notice.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Moore Response to Supplemental Authority.pdf (36.7 KB, 3 views)
Al Norris is offline  
Old October 2, 2011, 03:48 PM   #246
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Originally posted September 15, 2011 by Al Norris:

Another case for cert before the SCOTUS has surfaced.

Lowery v. United States.

This makes case #60. I've started a thread on this, here.
Al Norris is offline  
Old October 2, 2011, 03:55 PM   #247
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Originally posted September 23, 2011 by Al Norris:

Fees Will Be Paid By Chicago

On Mon. 09-19, in McDonald v. Chicago, this was filed:

The Court granted that Motion on 09-22.

The breakdown of the charges are here.

So Gura and Company will receive just short of $400K for their efforts. Seems a might short, you say?

This might well be a strategic move on Gura's part. They still haven't settled on payment with D.C. While McDonald is a landmark case, it can be argued that Heller is the more significant case, hence the higher fees that are being sought.

In addition, there are some entries not in the RECAPPED Parker docket. They fall between entry #78 and #79:

Quote:
03/17/2011 MINUTE ORDER. The Court, sua sponte, schedules a hearing on 65 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Seek Discovery of Defendants' Billing Records for March 23, 2011 at 1:00 p.m. in Courtroom 24A. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 17, 2011. (lcegs1) (Entered: 03/17/2011)

03/17/2011 Set/Reset Hearings: Motion Hearing set for 3/23/2011 01:00 PM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (clv, ) (Entered: 03/17/2011)

03/23/2011 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Motion Hearing held on 3/23/2011 re 65 MOTION Leave to Take Discovery filed by DICK ANTHONY HELLER. Order to be presented. (Court Reporter CRYSTAL PILGRIM.) (clv, ) (Entered: 03/23/2011)

03/24/2011 MINUTE ORDER. For the reasons stated on the record during the motions hearing held on March 23, 2011, the District is hereby directed to provide plaintiff and the Court with the range of standard billing rates for the pro bono attorneys who assisted the District in this litigation (the "requested information"). The District is directed to file the requested information with the Court by no later than April 6, 2011. In the event that any of the law firms who provided pro bono representation to the District are unwilling to voluntarily provide the Court with the requested information, the District shall promptly notify the Court by filing an appropriate notice. Upon receipt of the requested information, the Court will issue an appropriate order directing supplementary briefing on an expedited basis. This case is hereby temporarily stayed pending receipt of the requested information. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 24, 2011. (lcegs1) (Entered: 03/24/2011)

03/24/2011 Set/Reset Deadlines: The District is directed to provide plaintiff and the Court with the range of standard billing rates for the pro bono attorneys by 4/6/2011. (clv, ) (Entered: 03/24/2011)

03/24/2011 Case Stayed (clv, ) (Entered: 03/24/2011)
There could be any number of reasons this case has been stayed. Interesting, to say the least.
Al Norris is offline  
Old October 2, 2011, 03:59 PM   #248
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Originally posted (in another thread) September 30, 2011 by Al Norris:

In Hightower v. Boston, yesterday the Judge granted the defendants cross-MSJ. If you can stomach a decision that's even worse than the Kachalsky opinion of a few days ago, you can read it here.
Al Norris is offline  
Old October 2, 2011, 04:01 PM   #249
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
OK then... Except for a few minor entries, all has now been restored, except formatting the case list itself. That will get done shortly.

Anything I may have missed has been updated in the main threads on the cases themselves (you were reading, yes?).
Al Norris is offline  
Old October 2, 2011, 09:37 PM   #250
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Lots of interesting stuff has gone on in the NSSF v. Melson case in D.C. Read about it here.
Al Norris is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.18876 seconds with 8 queries