View Single Post
Old January 15, 2011, 11:45 PM   #113
Al Norris
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,541
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  
Page generated in 0.04557 seconds with 8 queries