October 28, 2011, 09:11 PM | #276 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Yesterday, Oct 27, Pltf Mishaga filed a response to defdnt MSJ.
If you recall, back on the beginning of Oct, the State filed its MSJ and made several assumptions on how the Il FOID Act operated. In this brief, attorney James Manley pokes holes large enough to drive a tractor-trailer rig through. |
October 31, 2011, 08:12 PM | #277 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
FYI
I'm a big fan of browsing SSRN (Social Science Research Network) for scholarly papers that deal with the RKBA.
I have long opined what the holding in both Heller and McDonald said about the right to bear for self defense. It seems that at least one scholar agrees with my layman's assumptions. Associate Professor Michael O'Shea, OK City University School of Law, has written an in-depth paper that will be published in the American University Law Review (Vol. 61 - 2012). Modeling the Second Amendment Right to Carry Arms (I): Judicial Tradition and the Scope of ‘Bearing Arms’ for Self-Defense, is excellent reading and an excellent reference... Be warned, at 107 pages, this is not "light hearted" reading. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=1949477 |
November 2, 2011, 09:55 PM | #278 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
There are a couple of things that are happening at the moment. As you know, the Masciandaro case was distributed for the Nov 22 conference, on Tuesday, Nov 1. Also distributed, for the same conference, was the CA case, Chein v. California.
Also on Nov 1 in the New Jersey Case, Muller v. Maenza, Muller was dismissed as a plaintiff, as well as his defendant, Judge Maenza. Last any of us heard was that Muller had an appeal in State Court (along with this federal complaint), and won his permit. So it makes sense that he is now dismissed. The case will be renamed, and will proceed... Since Muller was dismissed with prejudice, it's entirely possible the defendant Judge complained that Muller had indeed received his permit and Muller's claim was therefore moot. Nothing on that docket shows where the Court was notified of this. At any rate, the case should now proceed with the cross motions for summary judgment. Then there is something going on with the Moore v. Madigan, Il carry case. From the Docket: Quote:
|
|
November 8, 2011, 11:29 AM | #279 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
In Lane v. Holder, responses were filed by the VA AG and the US AG at the 4th Circuit.
See this thread. |
November 9, 2011, 10:17 PM | #280 | |||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Alan Gura emphasizes that while the State may regulate the form of carry, it cannot leave unbridled discretion, by a State actor, to deny the people of that right. Alan Gura thoroughly attacks each and every aspect of the lower courts decision. In this, his opening salvo, it is anything but "brief." Sixty-seven pages long (not counting TOC and appendices), but still a very good read. If I had anything else to add, it would be that Judge Legg (Woolard v. Brown (Maryland)) take a long hard look at this brief, before making his decision, especially if he bases it on the Kachalsky opinion. |
|||
November 22, 2011, 11:46 PM | #281 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
In Gonzales v. City of Omaha, a hearing was held for a preliminary Injunction today and was issued by the Judge.
It is said that Omaha is looking to change their ordinance in order to grant the relief and moot the case. David Workman has the story, here. At the same time, the defendants filed their response to the complaint and are claiming that they were already in the process of amending their ordinances before the suit was filed. Therefore, the Court should grant a MTD and award costs of suit to the defendants. See Doc #29. |
November 28, 2011, 08:28 PM | #283 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Back on Nov. 18th, a hearing was held in Bonidy v. USPS. This was over the MTD that the government had filed on Apr. 25th.
The Judge denied the motion and ordered the government to reply to the plaintiffs 2nd amended complaint. The Judge also set scheduling conference for Jan. 25th, 2012. Thanks go to Spats McGee for waking my brain up! |
November 28, 2011, 11:44 PM | #284 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
More Updates!
The Case that refuses to die, aka Nordyke, is back! Twelve years and counting, Three times at the 9th Circuit and one other en banc before this one.
The 9th has agreed to hear the case, en banc.[/i] On Tuesday, Nov. 22nd, 2011, Alan Gura filed the reply brief to the two responses in Lane v. Holder. See Thread for details. Dearth v. Holder, on 11-21-2011, defendants filed their opposition to plaintiffs MSJ by filing a cross-MSJ. The defendants also filed an MJP on the same day. See the docket. |
November 30, 2011, 11:29 PM | #285 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
A lot of times, we have a hearing on motions before the court. These can be enlightening (as we can see by the way the judge handles the hearing), particularly in the outcome of the judges decision.
Much of the time, these hearings can be dull, convoluted and hard to decipher. Once in a while however, we can see a judge who is not only well versed in the concepts at issue, but a judge who is actually fair (in the common meaning of the term) to both sides of the argument. Just after Thanksgiving, I was updating a couple of specific cases and came across the release of the transcript of the hearing in the Woolard case. I looked at it (the cost) and decided to use my limited funds to just update a few more dockets, instead. I couldn't have been more wrong if I had tried. This morning, there was a short discussion about the transcript over at MDShooters. Mark had seen the docket entry but didn't realize that it could be accessed via PACER. I informed him how it worked and he RECAPped the transcript. Thanks Mark. I really didn't expect you to spend your money on that. Anyway, if you want to see how an informed and impartial Judge should conduct such a hearing, you can download the transcript, here. The file is 2.6MB in size and 77 pages long. If you would like to comment on that transcript, we have a thread on Woolard, here. |
December 5, 2011, 10:54 PM | #286 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
I had to think long about this one, as this is exactly the kind of "maverick" undertaking that Alan Gura, the SAF and to a lessor extent the NRA, has warned us about.
It is also a case that the folks at the CalGuns Foundation have tried to convince Charles Nichols not to bring. Until the Courts agree that we have a right to carry in general, lawsuits aimed at a specific form of carry can backfire. This is generally called putting the cart before the horse. Of course, if Nichols loses at district, it will not mean much. If he appeals and loses at Circuit... Well, it then becomes precedent in the 9th and persuasive authority, elsewhere. The case: Nichols v. Brown. The case is filed pro per, and to give you an idea of the type of character that Mr. Nichols is, I offer you his own words: http://www.examiner.com/la-in-los-an...ry-the-nra-too I'm going to hold my nose and add the case to the listings. In other business, today: In NRA, et al v. BATF (was Jennings at district court), the plaintiffs filed their opening brief in the 5th Circuit. Brief is attached and is a very good argument. The NRA attacks Judge Cummings (of Emerson fame) decision at the district without reserve. See the Thread for the brief. |
December 11, 2011, 02:35 PM | #287 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Quote:
http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/pet...2011-11-17.mp3 I don't normally do this, but Gray Peterson is a great guy and has stepped forward to be a test case. The following is from his sig over at CalGuns.net: Quote:
|
||
December 15, 2011, 12:53 PM | #288 |
Member
Join Date: September 7, 2011
Posts: 22
|
Second Amendment Arms v. Chicago,
The defendants lawyer had hard drive died in his PC and has requested an extension. New date is 12/28/2012. |
December 21, 2011, 09:28 AM | #289 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
California has this thing called the Safe Handgun Roster.
Essentially, only handguns listed on the roster are available to purchase by CA residents. The CA law that enables this "roster of safe handguns" is nothing short of extortion by the State. A manufacturer must submit to the testing authorities, two handguns (one of which will be tested to destruction) and pay an initial fee to the State for this testing. Once the handgun passes the test, it is available for sales in CA. But it doesn't stop there. The manufacturer must pay a fee each and every year, after this, in order to keep that particular handgun on the CA roster. If the manufacturer provides the handgun in different colors, left handed safety vs. right handed safety, only the style of handgun that was tested is deemed "safe." So it is very much a means of legal extortion. This law is being attacked in court by Pena v. Cid. So far, this case, which was filed back in May of 2009, has been placed on hold for most of the duration of the Nordyke litigation (and to a lessor extent, McDonald). The State has argued that Nordyke may provide a method of scrutiny. On Dec. 15th, the stay was finally lifted, only to be stayed, once again yesterday, the 20th, after the State notified the court that Nordyke was (once again) granted en banc status. It is clear that this judge does not want to have to litigate this case. |
December 22, 2011, 06:35 PM | #290 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
The other day when I reported on the stay in Pena v. id, I had heard rumors that Richards v. Prieto would also be stayed. It's now official.
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
December 22, 2011, 07:15 PM | #291 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Some of the stayed cases hardly seem on point with Nordyke. Could there be inside info that there will be some sort of scrutiny bombshell expected from the en banc decision? Hmmmmmm.
|
December 22, 2011, 07:24 PM | #292 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Meastro, you may have already seen this, but I just found another case that is now stayed...
Do you remember the Montana Shooting Sports Foundation and their case to uphold the Montana Firearms Freedom Act? That was shot down at the district court and they appealed to the - wait for it - 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. That case has also been stayed pending a decision in Nordyke. Link to Ammoland. At this point, I'm willing to bet that any case in the 9th that deals with the 2nd, 19th or 14th amendments and have the word "firearms" in any briefs, will be or have already been stayed. The 9th is set to hear Nordyke on or about the 9th of March, IIRC. |
December 23, 2011, 09:51 PM | #293 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Another CA case was filed today. A Christmas present from CalGuns Foundation:
Jeff Silvester et. al. vs. Kamala Harris, et. al. Filed on 23 Dec., 2011 in the Eastern District (Fresno) of California. This lawsuit seeks to overturn the 10 day waiting period on firearms for those persons who already own firearms. Jason Davis, attorney. Docket is here. Complaint is here. |
December 29, 2011, 07:26 PM | #294 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Alan Gura Wins In D.C. Claim for Fees.
As announced elsewhere, the Judge in Parker v. DC (aka Heller) has awarded Alan Gura and his team $1.1 million. Here's the docket. The file you want is at the bottom. Entry #86.
The only thing that can upset this is if D.C. appeals the award... Yeah, they are that stupid. If that happens, Gura might still get his enhanced fees. |
December 30, 2011, 10:02 PM | #295 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Oral Arguments have been tentatively scheduled in Lane v. Holder:
Quote:
What makes this very interesting is that orals in the en banc Nordyke is scheduled for around the 9th of March in the 9th CCOA, and ... Peterson v. LaCabe will hear their continued (2nd round) oral argument on or about March 19th in the 10th CCOA. SIDE NOTE: In the order for the next round of orals, the panel has set aside an additional 10 minutes to hear from the amici curiae.March will be a busy month for gun rights in the Circuit Courts. |
|
December 31, 2011, 11:47 AM | #296 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Late last night, the plaintiffs brief in opposition to the defendants Motions in Dearth v. Holder was made available:
Quote:
This brief was in opposition to the defendants MJP and in opposition to the defendants MSJ and in favor of their own MSJ. "Sporting Purposes" was once again brought up by the AG and Gura responds to this early on: Quote:
A classic read. |
||
January 3, 2012, 11:04 PM | #297 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
The schedule was released in Hightower v. Boston last week:
Quote:
Appellant (Pltf) Brief: 2/7/2012 Appellee (Def) Brief: 3/8/2012 Appellant (Pltf) Reply: 3/22/2012 |
|
January 10, 2012, 11:30 AM | #298 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
There has not been much action in the pro se case of Birdt v. Beck (attorney John Birdt v. LA Sheriff Charlie Beck). The last action we saw was:
Quote:
Those of you that know court procedure, also know what this means. Those of you that don't... Well, the nicest thing I can say is that this is a tactical error. |
|
January 11, 2012, 09:12 AM | #299 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
No. 11-120
Vide 11-234 Winters, Sheriff v. Willis Docketed: July 28, 2011 Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Oregon Case Nos.: (S058645) Decision Date: May 19, 2011 Certiorari Denied, Orders: Jan. 9, 2012. This leaves the ruling by the Oregon Supreme Court intact. Even though an Oregon resident has a Medical Marijuana Card, the Sheriff must issue a CCW, barring any other disqualifying acts. I would still warn Oregon residents, that having a state issued Medical Marijuana Card, still makes them a prohibited person under federal law. See: http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/20...l-purposes.pdf |
January 13, 2012, 09:20 PM | #300 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
It appears that today, Friday, Jan. 13th, is a black Friday.
Two cases were decided at district court. Mueller v. Maenz and NSSF v. ATF. Both plaintiffs lost. See the ongoing threads for further details. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|