The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old June 23, 2013, 07:22 PM   #426
wolfwood
Member
 
Join Date: August 10, 2012
Posts: 31
I finished briefing in Young
Mr. Michel has been kind enough to add me to his list of tracked cases.

http://michellawyers.com/young-v-hawaii/
b
wolfwood is offline  
Old June 24, 2013, 09:31 PM   #427
Al Norris
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
Ms. Horsley is 18 and lives on her own. She wants to purchase/possess a long gun (a shotgun) for home protection but is thwarted in this effort by IL law, which requires an FOID to purchase both guns and ammunition. Under IL law, an FOID may not be granted to an individual under the age of 21. An exception is that for those who are 18-20 years of age may obtain an FOID, if their parent/guardian signs the application.

Horsley's parents won't sign. It should be noted that under IL law, they are then fully liable for any criminal conduct arising from the possession of the firearm by the "child." It should also be noted that the State contends (in their MTD) that the parents not signing (the application for an FOID) is a sign that the parents don't think their daughter is mentally mature enough (the State as Mind Reader Extraordinaire).

Unlike the ill-fated cases in Texas, this case does not involve handguns. A fact that the State of IL tries to confuse the Court with, in its Motion To Dismiss.

The case is Horsley v. Trame, just added as # 83 on the list.

Wolfwood? I'm sorry I neglected that case. I will remedy that omission.
Al Norris is offline  
Old June 25, 2013, 07:45 AM   #428
wolfwood
Member
 
Join Date: August 10, 2012
Posts: 31
thanks George Young was dismissed on a 12b6 by having his prayer for relief ignored. Not in my life. Its the first case to ask the hard questions such as is a rifle shotgun and knife protected by the second amendment. I took a another crack at tasers as well. Everyone has their priority and both due to 6 years in Marine Tanks and a extensive martial arts background my number priority is to expand the number of protected classes of arms. Baker should get us batons also. I'd like to go after dirks and daggers when once of the two is remanded.
Moreover if I win as I should by arguing a complete ban a type of class of arm inside the home requires strict scrutiny and a rifle and shotgun are protected that sets things up real well for when the Hawaii legislature passes the assault rifle ban. I also argued assault pistols, short barrel rifles and short barrel shotguns but it is not 100% those arguments will be heard. The answering brief was so bad that it literally looks like they gave up. My Dad thought I had lost it when I said I was the first person to argue a knife. rifle and shotgun are protected.

Last edited by wolfwood; June 25, 2013 at 07:53 AM.
wolfwood is offline  
Old June 25, 2013, 09:33 AM   #429
Jim March
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,417
The Oregon Supreme Court ruled that *Switchblades* were covered under the 2A some years back.
__________________
Jim March
Jim March is offline  
Old June 25, 2013, 11:58 AM   #430
CowTowner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,747
And I seem to recall that Texas changed it's knife laws this year. Glad to see edged weapons get their due time in the sun.
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearms Safety, Pistol and Rifle Instructor
“Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life......” President John F. Kennedy
CowTowner is offline  
Old July 12, 2013, 01:56 PM   #431
Al Norris
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
On Tuesday, the 9th of July, we had a big day, in the many court cases we are watching.

Just found that Mr. Gura has filed for cert in the Woollard case. I just emailed Mr. Gura a request for a copy of the cert.

Quote:
No. 13-42
Title: Raymond Woollard, et al., Petitioners v. Denis Gallagher, et al.
Docketed: July 11, 2013
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Case Nos.: (12-1437)
Decision Date: March 21, 2013
Rehearing Denied: April 16, 2013

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jul 9 2013 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 12, 2013)
Jul 9 2013 Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioners.
Al Norris is offline  
Old July 24, 2013, 09:39 AM   #432
Al Norris
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
Orals have been scheduled in Dearth v. Holder.

Quote:
06/25/2013 Open Document CLERK'S ORDER filed [1443193] scheduling oral argument before Judges HENDERSON, GRIFFITH, RANDOLPH Thursday, 09/19/2013 AM [12-5305]
Al Norris is offline  
Old August 1, 2013, 05:03 PM   #433
Al Norris
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
With the addition of the 5th Circuit case, NRA v. BATF, to those that have filed for petitions of certiorari, that now gives us 4 cases (and a 5th, should the New Jersey case be added).

The cases seeking a grant of cert are:

Woollard v. Sheridan
Lane v. Holder
Schrader v. Holder
NRA v. BATF


The state of 2A law is in complete disarray. The Court, desperately needs to provide some form of guidance to the lower courts. Else Heller and McDonald are meaningless.
Al Norris is offline  
Old August 8, 2013, 02:35 PM   #434
Boulderlaw
Junior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2013
Posts: 3
More details on MSLF's RKBA cases:

Army Corps of Engineers gun ban: Morris v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USPS gun ban:
Bonidy v. United States Postal Service

Campus gun ban:
Students for Concealed Carry on Campus v. Regents of the University of Colorado

State parks gun ban:
Baker v. Drozdoff
Boulderlaw is offline  
Old August 8, 2013, 04:28 PM   #435
Al Norris
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
Welcome to TFL, Boulderlaw.

It is exactly Baker v. Drozdoff that relates to the new case. This is not virgin territory for Mr. Manley (I do wish costs could have been had in that case, though).
Al Norris is offline  
Old August 11, 2013, 01:52 PM   #436
Al Norris
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
Concerning the long overdue adjudication of the Palmer (carry in DC) case, just yesterday, Alan Gura filed a Motion To Expedite. The docket has been updated and the motion (doc #44) and memorandum in support (doc #44.1) have been made available.

This case was filed back on Aug. 6, 2009 and was assigned to DC District Judge Henry H. Kennedy. A MSJ (by the Plaintiffs - doc #5) was filed on Aug. 26, 2009 and a cross motion for MSJ (by defendants - doc #6) was filed on Sept. 9, 2009. Briefing was complete on Jan. 29, 2010.

After waiting some time for Judge Kennedy to order hearing or publish an opinion, C.J. Roberts ordered the case transferred to Judge Frederick J. Scullin, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, on Jul. 18, 2011.

Since that time, numerous notices of supplemental authorities have been filed. As the latest motion affirms:

Quote:
This case is now in its fifth year before this Court. Over three and a half years have passed since the Court first heard argument on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, and nearly a year has passed since the Court re-heard those arguments.
Hopefully, this will prod the court to act.
Al Norris is offline  
Old August 23, 2013, 01:38 PM   #437
Al Norris
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
The case is MONTANA SHOOTING SPORTS V. ERIC HOLDER, JR. A case brought by Gary Marbut. The case was filed shortly after Montana enacted its Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA), a legislative action that several States have enacted in order to confront and limit the Commerce Clause used by the Congress.

At district court, the case was dismissed on issues of standing and for failure to state a claim. The Circuit court affirmed the lower court, insofar as the failure to state a claim, and that the MFFA was preempted by federal law (Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution).
Al Norris is offline  
Old August 25, 2013, 12:39 AM   #438
wolfwood
Member
 
Join Date: August 10, 2012
Posts: 31
can you add fisher v. kealoha


I'm amicus in it. We are headed for a final hearing on Sept 17. This is the recap


http://ia601204.us.archive.org/33/it...36.docket.html
wolfwood is offline  
Old September 8, 2013, 03:46 PM   #439
Al Norris
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
Wolfwood, I have updated the cases and both Young and Fisher are presented.
Al Norris is offline  
Old September 29, 2013, 02:04 PM   #440
Al Norris
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
From Court to remain open — for now : SCOTUSblog

This may directly affect the Oct. 11th conference. That is the conference that Woollard and Lane are scheduled to be introduced for consideration of cert.

From the Supreme Court website, we have this:

Quote:
In the event of a lapse of appropriations, the Court will continue to conduct its normal operations through October 4. The Court building will be open to the public during its usual hours. Further notice will be provided in the event a lapse of appropriations continues beyond October 4.
In other news, 7th circuit case #13-2661; Shepard v. Madigan, is scheduled for orals this coming Thurs. http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/cal/argcalendar.pdf
Al Norris is offline  
Old October 1, 2013, 03:12 PM   #441
Bartholomew Roberts
member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
Supreme Court grants cert on TN domestic abuse misdemeanor case:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...e-court-review

The case is United States v. Castleman, 12-1371.

I just attended a firearms law CLE where we went over current constitutional challenges for an hour and I read here at least once a week; but I must have missed this one as I've never heard of it.

Here is the SCOTUS Blog link:
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files...s-v-castleman/

Last edited by Bartholomew Roberts; October 1, 2013 at 06:57 PM.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old October 2, 2013, 04:52 PM   #442
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
I don't like the smell of this. Why a DV case? It seems highly unlikely that, of all 2A cases in front of the court, the court would decide in favor of a DV convict having firearms.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old October 2, 2013, 09:05 PM   #443
Al Norris
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
This is being discussed, here: Supreme Court could end domestic violence gun ban
Al Norris is offline  
Old November 23, 2013, 10:23 PM   #444
M107A1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: July 3, 2011
Posts: 2
Hey Al,

Can you add United States v. Chovan even though it has be decided already. It may shed light on the direction of future opinions. Opinion attached... thanks
Attached Files
File Type: pdf US v. Chovan, No. 11-50107 (9th Cir. Nov. 18, 2013).pdf (221.9 KB, 63 views)
M107A1 is offline  
Old November 24, 2013, 04:08 PM   #445
Al Norris
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
That was reported several days ago in this thread: Holder and the Feds Sued Over Lifetime MCDV Prohibition: Lautenberg. Specifically, post 109.
Al Norris is offline  
Old December 9, 2013, 06:37 PM   #446
Librarian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 193
Jeff Silvester et. al. vs. Kamala Harris, et. al: CAED

Judge Ishii today released his denial of CA's Motion to Dismiss in this case about waiting periods.

http://ia600803.us.archive.org/13/it...33362.44.0.pdf
__________________
See the CALGUNS FOUNDATION Wiki for discussion of California firearms law.

The FAQ page is here.
Librarian is offline  
Old December 12, 2013, 06:57 PM   #447
Al Norris
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
Thanks Librarian.

After reading the decision (and making sure the archive is up-to-date), I've opened a thread on the subject: Silvester v. Harris - CA 10 Day Waiting Period
Al Norris is offline  
Old December 22, 2013, 02:29 PM   #448
Al Norris
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
In the case, Heller v D.C., AKA Heller II,, we've had some developements, since I last updated on Sept. 19, 2012:

Quote:
  • 02-21-2013 - Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint (4th Amended Complaint)
  • 03-11-2013 - Memorandum in Opposition to Amend/Correct Complaint.
  • 03-17-2013 - Reply to Opposition.
  • 03-20-2013 - Order granting in part and denying in part for leave to file 4th Amended Complaint.
  • 03-28-2013 - Consent Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Mark Snyder (moved out of D.C.).
  • 05-10-2013 - Motions to strike Expert Testimony for Mark D. Jones; Kathy L. Lanier; and Joseph J. Vince Jr. (docs 60, 61 and 62).
  • 05-23-2013 - Memorandum in Opposition to strike.
  • 06-27-2013 - Richard Gardiner withdrew as Attorney for Plaintiffs.
  • 07-08-2013 - Order Denying Motions to Strike (doc 68).
  • 11-05-2013 - MSJ filed for Defendants (doc 73 - see also exhibits A through M).
  • 12-10-2013 - MSJ filed for Plaintiffs (doc 75 - see also exhibits 1 thru 23).
  • 12-11-2013 - Plaintiffs filed brief in Opposition to defendants MSJ.
As stated in the Motion (doc 66) Richard Gardiner is now a Judge:

Quote:
COMES NOW Richard E. Gardiner, counsel for Plaintiffs, and moves the court for leave to withdraw as counsel as he has been elected a judge of the Nineteenth Judicial District of Virginia and will be sworn in on June 28, 2013.
I expect that he has withdrawn from all of his cases, not just those he worked on for the NRA.

If you are a glutton for punishment, you might want to read DC's MSJ and the related exhibits. That will give you a thorough background in the plaintiffs MSJ. What is striking however, is the plaintiffs Opposition brief (and its exhibits). They literally shred the defendants reasons and experts to pieces.

Whether or not the Judge buys all of this, it is nonetheless highly entertaining.
Al Norris is offline  
Old December 23, 2013, 07:48 PM   #449
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,137
Al,

Is the Plaintiffs' Brief in Opposition to MSJ publicly available somewhere other than Pacer?
KyJim is offline  
Old December 23, 2013, 08:56 PM   #450
Al Norris
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
Yes, it should be at the Internet Archive. I noted what doc number it was.

Checking...

Ah heck! I didn't note which doc it was... Doc #77.
Al Norris is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 07:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.21808 seconds with 10 queries