View Single Post
Old July 12, 2012, 10:14 AM   #74
Al Norris
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,524
Point 8, page 11 (pdf page 20):

8. Plaintiff-Appellant ENOS has an additional (third) reason he should be free from LAUTENBERG’S prohibition. He not only qualifies for restoration of his rights under the 10-year rule and the defective-waiver rule, but he is the only Plaintiff who applied for – and was granted – relief under California’s specific statutory remedy for judicial restoration of his firearms rights.
IIRC, plaintiff Enos, was the only plaintiff that was granted a refiling under the first MTD, because of this.

Of course, I could be wrong on what I remember as having read.
Al Norris is offline  
Page generated in 0.04954 seconds with 7 queries