I haven't said much about the following docket entries, but in light of everything that is going on, I would be remiss in not sharing what this is about.
Quote:
11/08/2012 [10017698] Notice of appearance submitted by Robert A. Wolf; and Andrea Kershner for Appellee Charles F. Garcia for court review. Certificate of Interested Parties: No. Served on 11/08/2012. Manner of Service: ECF/NDA. --[Edited 11/08/2012 by SDS to remove pdf from entry as the pleading has been filed] [11-1149] RW
11/08/2012 Open Document [10017734] Notice of appearance filed by Ms. Andrea J. Kershner and Mr. Robert Wolf for Charles F. Garcia. CERT. OF INTERESTED PARTIES: n. Served on 11/08/2012. Manner of Service: ECF/NDA. [11-1149]
12/07/2012 Open Document [10025937] Supplemental authority filed by Mr. John W. Suthers and Mr. Peter Weir. Served on 12/07/2012. Manner of Service: ECF/NDA. [11-1149] MDG
12/08/2012 Open Document [10026018] Response filed by Gray Peterson to Appellees 28(j) letter filed 12/7/12. Served on 12/08/2012. Manner of Service: ECF/NDA. [11-1149] JM
12/17/2012 Open Document [10028562] Supplemental authority filed by Gray Peterson. Served on 12/17/2012. Manner of Service: ECF/NDA. [11-1149] JM
|
If you remember, last March 19th, the
Peterson case was argued at the 10th Circuit. Since then, all we've heard were crickets.
In the above docket listing, it appears that the City of Denver tried to file some sort of
amicus brief pleading on the merits (11-08-2012), as an "interested party." That brief was rejected by the court. So then they simply wanted to be recognized.
Then on 12-07-2012, Colorado decides to file a 28J letter (Supplemental Authority) on the decision in
Kachalsky. The next day,
Peterson files a 28J response, letting the court know that the CA2 decision does not implicate this case whatsoever, rather it goes to show that even the CA2 recognizes that the right exists outside the home, as long as a license can be had, which in the instant case, cannot be had.
Finally, on 12-17-2012,
Peterson files their own 28J letter, citing the Moore case.
So we have the 7th Circuit saying that the State must provide some form of carry, while the 2nd Circuit says it's provided, just not everyone qualifies. Meanwhile,
Woollard is gathering wool in the 4th and what's the poor 10th to do?!
Tomorrow we will get to read Alan Gura's response to the 7th request. Don't forget that Charles Cooper (NRA attorney for
Shepard) will file a like response. By the 4th of February, a vote will be called and we may get to see if there will be an
en banc hearing or not. If no vote is called for, there will be no rehearing.
No rehearing? Madigan will file a petition for cert.
If
Woolard is decided against us, Alan Gura will file for cert. If Judge Legg's decision is affirmed, I don't believe MD will file for cert (they have a bunch of anti-gun laws being prepared for this legislative session - none of these will moot the case, but they will cause more challenges in court, buying even more time).
If
Peterson is decided against us, John Monroe will file for cert. If the decision goes against CO, I don't think that CO will file, for other reasons (they have stated in open court that the State holds that the right to carry outside the home exists, they just don't want to have to issue non-resident permits).
For those that watch the Courts, this is High Drama (and court politics) at its finest!
Meanwhile, enjoy the crickets.
