The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old November 24, 2010, 12:18 PM   #101
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,090
http://www.jonbirdt.com/images/Birdt...FAC-_final.pdf

Excellent! Well written, and directly to the heart of the matter.

Welcome, Jon Birdt. You, sir, are no Gary Gorski!
(FYI: That's a good thing)
-MP
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old November 24, 2010, 12:23 PM   #102
jonbirdt
Member
 
Join Date: November 24, 2010
Posts: 24
Thank you very much!!!
jonbirdt is offline  
Old November 24, 2010, 05:47 PM   #103
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Jon, in case you didn't notice, I did update your case in the OP. Welcome to the Firing Line.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old November 28, 2010, 12:29 AM   #104
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Weekend Update

04 Nov. 2010: Richards v. Prieto (Yolo Cnty) (was Sykes v. McGuiness), filed their 2nd amended complaint. On 18 Nov. 2010, Yolo Cnty Sheriff filed his answer.

22 Nov. 2010: In Kachalsky v. Cacace (New York), the Brady Campaign filed an amicus brief for the State. This brief is essentially word for word what they filed (and then removed - in a snit, I would add) in D'Cruz v. McCraw! If ever a court should take cognizence, it is this.

22 Nov. 2010: In Mishaga v. Monken, Judge McClusky has denied the State its motion to dismiss. The opinion states that the State has not met any burden to prove the complaint is invalid in any manner. The State is directed to answer the complaint by 17 Dec. 2010. In his opinion, the Judge has directed the plaintiff to further the argument that a guest (in another's house) has the same rights as the homeowner has.

22 Nov. 2010 (filed 26 Nov.): In Woolard v. Sheridan, the judge confirmed that the defendant need not answer the plaintiffs MSJ until the Judge has ruled on the defendents MTD.

23 Nov. 2010: In D'Cruz v. McCraw, the State of Texas has filed its answer to the complaint. They deny everything and move to dismiss with prejudice.

23 Nov. 2010: In Bateman v. Perdue, the State, the County of Stokes and the City of King have asked for and been granted an extension of time to file their responses. Replies are now due on 16 Dec. 2010.

23 Nov. 2010: In Ezell v. Chicago, records were officially transmitted to the 7th Circuit.

25 Nov. 2010: In Wisconsin Carry v. Wray, the defendants (Chief Wray & City of Madison) filed their response to the complaint. There's a bit of humor in this response, as while the defendants admit what occurred at the restaurant, they deny that the 4 plaintiffs were ever there!
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old December 5, 2010, 12:30 PM   #105
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Weekend Update 12-05

The RECAPped dockets are now in place for the Birdt (LA County) case, the Muller (New Jersey) case and the Wisconsin Carry v. Brookfield case (Karen Sutterfield).

On 11-24-2010, the City of Chicago filed their MTD in the Second Amendment Arms v. Chicago case. Motion briefing now due on 12-08-2010 (this, despite the fact that the City was still pressing to consolidate this case with Benson). The MTD is well written and spells doom for this case.

On 11-29-2010, in Jackson v. San Francisco, an order extending time for defendants file their response was issued. Defendant San Francisco has 20 days to file after the motion to consolidate (Pizzo v. Newsom) is heard on 12-09-2010.

On 11-29-2010, in Benson v. Chicago, the City filed its response and reaffirmed its motion to consolidate Second Amendment Arms (SAA).

On 12-01-2010, in Wisconsin Carry v. Brookfield, documents were filed on stipulated agreement on times of discovery and possible settlement options.

On 12-02-2010, Judge Morrison C. England, Jr dismissed both OOIDA v. Lindley and State Ammunition v. Lindley as not being ripe. The order in both are almost identical.

On 12-02-2010, in D'Cruz v. McCraw, an agreed stipulation of dismissal of defendants was submitted. The remaining defendant in this case is Steven MCCraw.

On 12-03-2010, in Benson v. Chicago, the Judge denied the City's motions to consolidate Ezell and SAA:
Quote:
Plaintiffs seek to have Ezell v. City of Chicago, 10 C 5135, pending before Judge Kendall, and Second Amendment Arms v. City of Chicago, 10 C 4257, pending before Judge Dow, reassigned to this Court. The case before Judge Kendall is in a different procedural posture than this one. She has already held a hearing on and denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, a ruling that is currently pending before the Seventh Circuit. The case before Judge Dow is broader in scope than this one. The plaintiffs in that case seek restitution, damages and a writ of mandamus, claims not asserted here. Given the substantial differences between those cases and this one, reassignment is not appropriate. See Local Rule 40.4.

On a side note. I did not anticipate (I guess I should have - hindsight) that the number of cases would exceed the character limit for a single post. I should have reserved a couple of posts to hold this. I didn't and can no longer update the OP. sigh. I will have to figure out a way to do this, in a more efficient manner....

Edited to add: Problem solved by a very simple means that I didn't come close to thinking of... Thank you Mal!
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old December 12, 2010, 03:00 PM   #106
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Weekly Update - 12-12-2010

On 12-06-2010, in the Bonidy v. USPS, the government has filed a MTD.

On 12-07-2010, in Parker v. California, Plaintiffs filed a MSJ and/or summary adjudication of issues. Hearing is set for 01-18-2011. Of the various declarations filed in support of the MSJ, was that of Tom Allman, Mendicino County Sheriff-Coroner; Larry Potterfield, CEO Midway Arms Inc, dba Midway USA; and Michael Tenny dba Cheaper Than Dirt.

On 12-08-2010, in Second Amendment Arms v. City of Chicago, a joint status hearing was held wherein City of Chicago moved to dismiss. Plaintiffs response due 01-21-2011 and defendants reply is due on 02-16-2011. Ruling will be by mail.

On 12-08-2010, in the Muller v. Maenza case (NJ), an agreed to by both parties letter was submitted to Judge Walls. Should the Judge agree to the proposed schedule, then the case is now fast tracked. See Item #9 on the docket.

On 12-09-2010, in Jackson vs. San Francisco, the Judge denied the City's Motion to Consolidate (Pizzo). Plaintiffs will now move forward by filing an MPI.

On 12-09-2010, in Peterson v. LaCabe, the Colorado AG files his response to the plaintiff and at the same time, files a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.

On 12-10-2010, in Peruta v. San Diego, Judge Gonzales denied the plaintiffs Partial Motion for Summary Judgment and granted the defendants Motion for Summary Judgment.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old December 20, 2010, 09:29 AM   #107
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Weekly Update 12-19-2010

On 12-14-2010, in Pertuta v. San Diego, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the 9th Circuit. 10-56971 Docketed: 12/16/2010

On 12-15-2010, in Bateman v. Perdue (NC), the State filed it's response to plaintiffs MSJ... Surprise!... It's the defendants MSJ! Here, the defendants try to twist Gura's as-applied challenge into a facial challenge. Oh, and it's not ripe because there is no emergency about to be declared (forgetting to mention that an emergency declaration was issued, just after the filing of the complaint).

On 12-16-2010, in Benson v. Chicago: MINUTE entry before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: Motion hearing held on 12/16/2010. Motion by Plaintiffs for extension of time to complete discovery is granted. See item 62 on the docket.

On 12-16-2010, in Bateman v. Perdue (NC), the Brady bunch has filed an amicus brief. I don't have a link to the brief, but here is the press release.

On 12-17-2010, in Mishaga v. Monken (IL), the defendant has filed his response to the complaint. If you have read the majority of complaints and their responses, this is a good one to read side by side. IMO, it is hilarious.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old December 25, 2010, 03:22 PM   #108
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Weekend Upadte - 12-25-2010

On 12-20-2010, in Peterson v. McCabe (CO CCW residency), the Plaintiff asked for an extension of time to file the response to intervener s MSJ due to questions not raised by defendant McCabe. Time was granted on 12-21-2010. Response now due by 01-12-2011.

On 12-20-2010, in Muller v. Maenz (facial challenge to NJ carry law), the plaintiffs filed a MSJ. See this thread for discussion.

On 12-22-2010, in Heller II, the appellants(Heller) filed their supplemental brief. From a reading, it appears the case may be decided on statutory grounds instead of constitutional grounds. If it is, it will not do any good as a cite in other cases.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old December 30, 2010, 01:33 PM   #109
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Weekly update - 12-30-2010

A new case has been added to the list. Since character limitations have been exceeded in the OP, this case was added to post #2:

Hall v. Garcia. Kevin Hall is not an attorney, but has filed this case, pro se. Filed in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of San Francisco, on 08-26-2010. Hall is suing for an exemption signed by the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD), to be able to carry an unloaded handgun openly. Carlos Gracia, defendant, is the Superintendent of the SFUSD.

The plaintiff has all but called the 1000 foot Gun Free School Zone law, unconstitutional. He makes several very well argued points. But this is not what the plaintiff is suing over. However, because he is not an attorney, he has misapplied the rules and procedures for federal evidence. The latest filing by the School, shows this.

The judge can either claim an exemption (Hall not being well versed in the law) and take the pleadings under advisement, or he can simply dismiss the plaintiffs pleadings and grant the defendants MSJ. Care to guess what the Court will do?

On 12-13-2010, in Ezell v. Chicago, an amicus brief was filed in the 7th Circuit by the Illinois Association of Firearms Retailers (ILAFR). ILAFR is also a Plaintiff in the Benson case. I have attached the brief to this post.

On 12-16-2010, in D'Cruz v. McCraw, the judge has set an expedited hearing schedule (item #36 on the docket).

On 12-22-2010, in D'Cruz v. BATF, the government has filed (item #21 on the docket) its Motion To Dismiss (surprise, surprise!). On 12-28-2010, the Brady's have filed (item #23 on the docket) a motion to file an amicus brief. Attached to the motion, is exhibit "A," which is the proposed brief.
Al Norris is offline  
Old December 30, 2010, 11:59 PM   #110
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Another civil rights case has just been added: Hightower v. Boston. While the case was brought back in 2008, Alan Gura was added as lead attorney with SAF backing in early 2009.

The cases just keep piling up!
Al Norris is offline  
Old January 6, 2011, 01:13 PM   #111
jonbirdt
Member
 
Join Date: November 24, 2010
Posts: 24
Birdt V. Baca

MSJ now confirmed for 4/4/11.
jonbirdt is offline  
Old January 10, 2011, 09:25 AM   #112
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Weekly Update 01-10-2011

On 12-29-2010, in Wollard v. Sheridan, the Judge ruled on the defendants MTD. Granted dismissal of Count II but denied Count I. The court denied the Youger abstention claim. Granted the plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint to further make the Equal Protection claim.

On 12-30-2010, in Wisconsin Carry and Krysta Sutterfield v. City of Brookfield, Krysta Sutterfield settled for a disclosed sum of $7500 on Dec. 30, 2010. See, Brookfield pays woman who brought gun to church $7,500.

On 01-06-2011, in Birdt v. Beck a MSJ was filed by plaintiff. Immediately, the plaintiff was ordered to lodge the appropriate proposed order for judgment by the court (minute order of 01-07-2011). Reading through the docket, there are several procedural problems with the plaintiff in this case.
Al Norris is offline  
Old January 15, 2011, 11:45 PM   #113
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Weekly Update 01-15-2011

As you may remember, the 4th Circuit very recently came out with their opinion in U.S. v Chester, in which they sent back to the district court with instructions to look at 922(g)(9) with intermediate scrutiny and demanded the government to justify the Lautenberg Act. Albeit dicta, the Circuit strongly implied that laws that conflict with the RKBA, as regards law-abiding people, the standard would be strict scrutiny. Their opinion is included as an exhibit, here.

On 01-05-2011, in Nordyke v. King (9th Circuit), the appellants (Nordyke) filed a notice of citation of supplemental authorities (Chester).

On 01-07-2011, in Benson v. Chicago, there has been a flurry of activity which started with a transfer of the case to a newly appointed District Judge, Edmund E. Chang (an Obama appointee). This was effective on 01-10-2011.
On 01-07-2011, while still in the discovery phase, motions to compell discovery and cross-motions to protect from discovery were filed by the plaintifs and defendants.

On 01-10-2011, the case was dismissed from Judge Guzman and transferred to Judge Chang.

On 01-11-2011, the previous order of hearings were stricken.

On 01-12-2011, a motion was presented to withdraw Brett Benson and Rick Pere as plaintiffs and parties to the case.

On 01-12-2011, a second amended complaint was filed. The motions to compel and motions for protection were refiled. Judge Chang ordered a status hearing, set for 01-27-2011.
So, we have a new and young judge (40 y.o.), who gets 281 cases dumped in his lap, including Benson. I expect it will now be the NRA who will be stalling the case.
On 01-10-2011, in Nordyke v. King, the appellees (Alameda) filed their notice of citation of supplemental authorities (Williams!?!).
I have to note here, that in the 4th Circuit, Chester is now the controlling federal case. Williams was a MD State case before the MD Supreme Court (Williams lost on rational basis). I can only guess that Alameda is grasping at whatever straws it can find.
On 01-10-2011, in Bateman v. Perdu, Alan Gura has filed his Opposition to the States Motion for Summary Judgment. Go to the docket and scroll down to item #73 to read it.

On 01-12-2011, in Heller v. D.C. (aka Heller II), the appellees (D.C.) filed their supplemental brief to the per curiam questions. That file is attached to this post for those that wish to read it.
The Appellants reply brief is due on 01-21-2011.
The brief of the United States was due on 01-07-2011 (last week)(not currently on PACER)
On 01-12-2011, in Peterson v. LaCabe, the plaintiffs have filed their reply to Colorado AG Suthers response to the complaint and MSJ. What makes this particularly interesting is that they use the AG own amicus curiae brief in McDonald, against him. To paraphrase, either he was disingenuous in writing to the Supreme Court or he is disingenuous to this court. Can't have it both ways.

On 01-13-2011, in Richards et al v. Prieto et al (was Sykes v. McQuiness), The plaintiffs have filed their MSJ brief. Read it here.

The one thing all of these latest plaintiff filings have in common? They are using the cases decided earlier in the 7th Circuit, the 3rd Circuit (both criminal cases), and most particularly, Chester (another criminal case), from the 4th Circuit to achieve Strict Judicial Scrutiny when applying 2A harms to lawful and responsible citizens.

While the criminals in these cases will most likely lose, the cases have all been good as they affect law-abiding folk. We now have persuasive precedent.
Al Norris is offline  
Old January 16, 2011, 12:42 AM   #114
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Norris
On 12-22-2010, in Heller II, the appellants(Heller) filed their supplemental brief. From a reading, it appears the case may be decided on statutory grounds instead of constitutional grounds. If it is, it will not do any good as a cite in other cases.
The appellees' brief in Heller v. D.C. certainly tries very hard to refute statutory grounds for deciding the case. We should probably hope that they prevail to that extent and the case is decided on constitutional grounds.
gc70 is offline  
Old January 22, 2011, 11:19 PM   #115
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Weekly Update 01-22-2011

The big news of this week, was that on the 18th, the Fresno Superior Court judge in the Clay Parker v. CA case, determined that the language in AB 962 was unconstitutionally vague and voided the entire law. A big win for gun rights in CA. See this thread for the announcement.
Because the Judge ruled from the bench, we don't have his written opinion to read. Yet. It's coming. California cannot appeal until the written opinion is out (you can't appeal if you don't know exactly what the judge said). The legislature is in the same bind. While they can certainly pass a law to amend the "vague" portions, until the Judges opinion has been published, they will have no guidance as to what exactly was vague and how to avoid it.

What is hoped for, is that the Judge includes language that would strike any ammo bans, that were not backed up by authoritative research as to what is handgun ammo and what isn't. The good news is that no such studies currently exist.
On 01-14-2011, in Bonidy v. USPS, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to defendants MTD. Here, attorney James Manley (NAGR), uses several tactics to derail the MTD by the government. Citing the cases from the 7th, 3rd and 4th Circuits, Manley also cites Peruta, as standing for permitted open carry when opposed to regulated CCW. Well argued, IMO, but of course, I don't count.

On 01-18-2011, in Bateman v. Perdue (NC), the defendants asked for an extension of time to file its reply to Gura's response to their MSJ. Given were two reasons. The first? They were too busy with other cases. The second reason? Well, read the following (and read between the lines):
Quote:
In addition, nineteen days ago, the Fourth Circuit issued a decision in United States v. Chester, __ F.3d __, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 26508, which represents its most definitive interpretation of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, __ U.S. __, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008), the case that lies at the heart of the Second Amendment claims being asserted by Plaintiffs in the present lawsuit. The undersigned counsel needs additional time to prepare a reply brief that fully takes into account the decision in Chester;
The plaintiffs agreed to the motion.

On 01-19-2011, in Nordyke v. King, Donald Kilmer filed a supplemental brief citing Chester as the authority, not Williams (the MD State case, not to be confused with the 7th Circuit case, as Alameda cited in its last brief):
Quote:
Your Honors:
This letter is filed in response to Docket Entry # 174 filed by the Appellees on January 10, 2011, calling to this Court’s attention the case of Williams v. Maryland.

The difference between the Maryland case and United States v. Chester; 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 26505, is that the Maryland Court failed to conduct the historical analysis of the scope of the Second Amendment outside the home. That historical analysis is briefed and already before the Court in this case. Furthermore the type of analysis necessary for Second Amendment adjudication was conducted by the Chester Court. Therefore Chester is the more persuasive case.

Respectfully Submitted,
On 01-21-2011, in Heller v. D.C. (Heller II), the Appellants (Heller) filed their reply to the Supplemental briefing (attached). This completes the per curiam order by the D.C. Circuit.
This is a step-by-step refutation of the appellees contention that D.C. can enact whatever gun laws they want, barring the narrow ruling of guns in the home (the original Heller).

Should the Circuit rule in favor of Heller on statutory grounds, then the district MSJ's will be reversed and the arguments on 2A grounds will really commence.
On 01-21-2011, in Wollard v. MD, the amended complaint, an expansion of the Equal Protection Clause (Count II), was filed. Read the following very carefully:
Quote:
COUNT II
U.S. CONST., AMEND. XIV, EQUAL PROTECTION, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

32. Paragraphs 1 through 31 are incorporated as though fully stated herein.

33. Maryland Public Safety Code § 5-306(a)(5)(ii)’s requirement that handgun carry permit applicants demonstrate cause for the issuance of a permit impermissibly classifies individuals with respect to the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right. The provision creates two classification of individuals. Applicants who have demonstrated to Defendants’ satisfaction that a handgun carry permit is “necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger,” or that they face a greater than average level of danger, are given permits; applicants who cannot satisfy that burden are not given permits. The classification system is inherently arbitrary, irrational, and deprives individuals of their fundamental right to bear arms based on criteria that cannot be justified under any means-ends level of scrutiny for the security of a fundamental constitutional right. The provision thus violates Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of the law, damaging them in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to permanent injunctive relief against the enforcement of this provision.
At this point, the defendant should be writing the answer to Wollard's MSJ (which has yet to be answered by the defendant), and thus, addressing the 2A component (finally!).

On 01-21-2011, in Peterson v. LaCabe (CO non-resident CCW), John Monroe filed his Opposition to 34 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment. If you read last weeks take-down of CO AG Suthers, this one is certainly a little added frosting.
Al Norris is offline  
Old January 23, 2011, 12:16 AM   #116
Wag
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 22, 2010
Location: Rio Rancho, NM
Posts: 572
Outstanding and creative use of the 14th amendment (equal protection clause). I like it!

Thanks, as always for the updates.

--Wag--
__________________
"Great genius will always encounter fierce opposition from mediocre minds." --Albert Einstein.
Wag is offline  
Old January 24, 2011, 09:37 AM   #117
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,689
Yes, appreciate all the work! In somewhat minor news, it appears the district court in McDonald has denied SAF their attorney's fees for that case because "they were not the prevailing party."

Dave Hardy discusses it more here:
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/20...ty_fees_to.php
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old January 24, 2011, 02:15 PM   #118
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
An appeal has already been filed, my sources tell me.

Kind of ludicrous, if you were to ask me. This is more like the district court Judge giving Gura and the SAF the Flying Fickle Finger of Fate. The Judge has to know that he will be overturned, but just doesn't care.
Al Norris is offline  
Old January 29, 2011, 10:16 PM   #119
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Weekly Update 01-29-2011

On 01-24-2011, in Georgia Carry v. State of Georgia (Church Carry), the district court upheld the State law that bans firearms at "churches or church functions." You can read the decision and Eugene Volokh's commentary, here.

On 01-24-2011, in Parker v. California (ammunition), the Judge issued his decision. The Judge permanently enjoins CA from enforcing CA penal code sections 12060, 12061, and 12318 (AB962). Read it here.

On 01-24-2011, in Heller v. D.C. (Heller II), the Brady Center was granted leave to file a supplemental amicus brief (attached). The appellants (Heller) requested to file a seperate reply brief to the amicus, and it was granted. This seems to be a trend with the Brady Center - file an amicus brief after all the other pertinent briefs have been filed. This one comes [u]after[/i] the orals and after the per curiam supplemental briefs.

On 01-26-2011, in Muller v. New Jersey, the defendant has filed their opposition to the plaintiffs MSJ (item #25-1 on the docket). Here, the defendant uses pre-Heller state cases and many of their own State cases (again, pre-Heller) to make their case to deny plaintiffs MSJ and advance their own MTD.

Two new lawsuits have been added:

West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. v. City of Martinsburg: Filed on 01-24-2011 in the US District Court for the Northern District for West Virginia. Complaint is here. Challenges the constitutionality and statutory validity of a Martinsburg ordinance prohibiting carrying a firearm in city-owned buildings. James M. Mullins, Jr. attorney for the plaintiffs.

West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. et al v. City of Charleston et al: Filed on 01-24-2011 in the US District Court for the Southern District for West Virginia. Challenges the constitutionality and statutory validity of ordinances in each of those cities prohibiting carrying a firearm on city-owned property. Additionally, WVCDL is challenging the constitutionality of Charleston's restrictive handgun sales ordinances. James M. Mullins, Jr. attorney for the plaintiffs.
Al Norris is offline  
Old February 5, 2011, 11:16 PM   #120
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Weekly Update 02-05-2011

The formal ruling on Parker v. California has been issued and can be read and downloaded here.

On 01-31-2011, in Hightower v. Boston, the plaintiffs filed their MSJ. Read it here.

On 01-31-2010, in Schrader v. Eric Holder, et al, the defendants filed their MTD. Read it here.
Al Norris is offline  
Old February 6, 2011, 12:45 PM   #121
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Updating the Update

I had forgotten about the filing deadline for the State in Bateman v. Perdue. On 02-02-2011, the State filed its response to the plaintiffs MSJ and includes the States MTD. More about this in the NC thread.

Thanks to Krucam, over at MDShooters.com
Al Norris is offline  
Old February 6, 2011, 07:41 PM   #122
krucam
Member
 
Join Date: September 21, 2010
Posts: 24
Thank YOU Al for the wonderful work here....
__________________
Mark C.
DFW, TX
krucam is offline  
Old February 7, 2011, 11:05 PM   #123
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
This padawan is humbled.
Al Norris is offline  
Old February 11, 2011, 10:31 PM   #124
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Weekly Update 02-11-2011

On 2-10-2011, in Richards v. Prieto (was Sykes v. McGuiness), the County filed its MSJ. Doc #59 on the docket. Also, Doc. #64 is an application for amicus curiae by (Drum Roll, please....) The Brady Center (they really should change their tactics)!
Grey Peterson feels left out! The Brady's haven't filed in his case, Peterson v. LaCabe.

Update on the Heller II case.
You remember that I reported that the Brady Center filed an amicus brief on 01-24? Well, Krucam caught that Stephan Halbrook filed a reply to that specific brief, four days later on 01-28.

I'm attaching both briefs, for your pleasure and enjoyment. The reply brief rips into the Brady Center. Gloves must be coming off!!
Al Norris is offline  
Old February 18, 2011, 10:31 PM   #125
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Weekly Update 02-18-2011

On 02-10-2011, in Richards v. Prieto (was Sykes v. McGuiness), the County filed its MSJ. Doc #59 on the docket. Also, Doc. #64 is an application for amicus curiae by (Drum Roll, please....) The Brady Center (they really should change their tactics)!
Grey Peterson feels left out! The Brady's haven't filed in his case, Peterson v. LaCabe.
On 02-11-2011, in Jennings v. BATFE (was D'Cruz v. BATFE (18-20 ye old handgun purchases)), James D'Cruz is being replaced as the lead plaintiff. D'Cruz has moved, with his parents to Florida (I expect the change to be made to D'Cruz v. McCraw, shortly). Replacing him will be Rebekah Jennings and Brennan Hannon. The Court has allowed a second amended complaint to be filed. Full story at Only Guns and Money. Amended complaint is #39 on the docket.

On 02-16-2011, in Bonidy v. USPS, the Government filed their response in support of their MTD. Item #11 on the docket. RECAP failed to process this. See attached file.

On 02-17-2011, in Benson v. Chicago, the defendants have filed their memorandum for a partial MTD on count V fo the plaintiffs second ammended complaint.
Count V of the complaint asks for injunctive relief against the City/County ordinance that prohibits a citizen to carry an operable firearm in public. The City argues that the plaintiffs have no standing to sue for relief, as if the city ordinance would fail, then Illinois State law would prevail. Illinois State law prohibits the same exactly thing, therefore any such relief would be a moot point.

This is what happens when you throw a plate of spaghetti against the wall, to see what sticks. Mr. Halbrook? One of your noodles just fell of the wall.
On 02-18-2011, in Muller v. New Jersey, plaintiffs filed their reply brief in support of their own MSJ and opposition to the defendants MSJ. It's #29 on the docket. It's also a 60 pg PDF, full of good stuff.

On 02-18-2011, in Peterson v. LaCabe (CO non-resident), intervenor AG Suthers files his response to the cross-MSJ. #44 on the docket. sigh. See attached.

Update on Ezell v. Chicago (Gun Range Prohibition - 7th Circuit). Appellee's brief is due today (02-18-2011), but has yet to appear. What has happened is that Chicago has hired another attorney, James Feldman (lives in D.C. and teaches at Georgetown - Heavy Hitter). Originally due on 01-07, extension granted to 02-07, extension granted to 02-18. New attorney cannot do orals in April. And appellants can't do mid-March thru mid April. Here's a recap (not RECAP - the plugin doesn't yet work with the circuit courts) of what has happened at the circuit level, to date:

Quote:
12/08/2010 #10 - Filed 10 copies Appendix by Appellants Action Target, Incorporated, Joseph I. Brown, Rhonda Ezell, William Hespen and Second Amendment Foundation, Incorporated. [10] [6271637] [10-3525] (SP)
12/15/2010 #11 - 15 copies Amicus brief filed by Amicus Curiae Brett Benson by consent. Disk Filed. [11] [6272894] [10-3525] (SP)
12/15/2010 THIS CAUSE CONSISTS OF MORE THAN 5 AMICUS PARTIES. The following are those parties to this cause : KENNETH PACHOLSKI, KATHRYN TYLER, MICHAEL HALL, RICK PERE, AND ILLINOIS ASSOCIATION OF FIREARMS RETAILERS [6272903-2] [6272903] [10-3525] (SP)
12/30/2010 #12 - Motion filed by Appellee City of Chicago to extend time to file appellee's brief. [6276251] [10-3525] (CD)
01/03/2011 #13 - Order issued GRANTING motion to extend time to file appellee's brief. [12] Appellee's brief due on or before 02/07/2011 for City of Chicago. Appellants' reply brief, if any, is due on or before 02/22/2011 for Appellant Action Target, Incorporated, Appellant Joseph I. Brown, Appellant Rhonda Ezell, Appellant William Hespen and Appellant Second Amendment Foundation, Incorporated. CMD [13] [6276275] [10-3525] (SM)
01/06/2011 #14 - Supplemental paper record on appeal filed. Contents of record : 2 vol. of exhibits.[14] [6277376] [10-3525] (DW)
02/01/2011 #15 - Motion filed by Appellee City of Chicago to extend time to file appellee's brief. [6283783] [10-3525] (KL)
02/03/2011 #16 - Order issued GRANTING motion to extend time to file appellee's brief. [15] Appellee's brief due on or before 02/18/2011 for City of Chicago. Appellant's reply brief, if any, is due on or before 03/11/2011 for Appellant Action Target, Incorporated, Appellant Joseph I. Brown, Appellant Rhonda Ezell, Appellant William Hespen and Appellant Second Amendment Foundation, Incorporated. CMD [16] [6283998] [10-3525] (AD)
02/16/2011 #17 - NOTICE: Attorney Benna Solomon for Appellee City of Chicago will not be available for oral argument April 7-8, 12, 14-15 & 26, 2011. [17] [6287616] [10-3525] (AB)
02/18/2011 #18 - NOTICE: Attorney Mr. David G. Sigale for Appellants Second Amendment Foundation, Incorporated, Rhonda Ezell, Joseph I. Brown, William Hespen and Action Target, Incorporated will not be available for oral argument March 30-31; April 5-14, 2011. [18] [6288162] [10-3525] (AB)
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 12:13 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 0.25566 seconds with 8 queries