The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 9, 2014, 06:12 PM   #476
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 12,288
Palmer v. DC news: Judge Scullin has refused the District's request for a motion to reconsider the July ruling.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old November 10, 2014, 04:28 PM   #477
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,758
Judge Scullin's order denying D.C.'s motion to reconsider is here.

And, if D.C. did not get the message:

Quote:
As the Court explained at oral argument (October 17, 2014), if and when Defendants present this Court with a statute that provides some limitations on the carrying of handguns in public, rather than a total ban on such activity, the Court will then be required to determine whether to apply strict or intermediate scrutiny to those limitations in order to decide whether they passed constitutional muster under the appropriate level of scrutiny.
gc70 is offline  
Old November 10, 2014, 05:08 PM   #478
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 7,594
Ancillary case:
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files...s-association/

The case above has zero to do with the Second Amendment directly; but instead challenges the government's power to regulate via interpretive rulemaking in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act. As such, the outcome has the potential to affect such issues as the current ATF 41P proposal, import of 922(r) items, straw purchase rules from Abramski, etc.

It is headed to SCOTUS this December.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old November 13, 2014, 02:26 PM   #479
wolfwood
Member
 
Join Date: August 10, 2012
Posts: 26
Fisher v. Kealoha on appeal opening brief filed

https://www.scribd.com/doc/246419922...-Opening-Brief
wolfwood is offline  
Old November 27, 2014, 01:27 AM   #480
Librarian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 193
Kamala Harris files for en banc on Peruta intervention ruling

February, 9th rules that Peruta wins.

AG Harris and Brady Campaign and CA Police Chiefs Association petition to intervene, even though not being involved before.

Nov 12, 9th ruled Harris and others could not intervene.

Nov 26 those hopefuls file for en banc reconsideration of the intervention ruling.

9th doesn't have the doc on its website yet - http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/..._id=0000000722

http://michellawyers.com/guncasetrac...rutavsandiego/ has both the petition from Harris and from Brady.

9th did not issue the mandate to the lower court, so apparently this move was expected.

So, net is that things are delayed yet again.
__________________
See the CALGUNS FOUNDATION Wiki for discussion of California firearms law.

The FAQ page is here.
Librarian is offline  
Old November 27, 2014, 04:09 PM   #481
Jim March
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,413
Kamala Harris is dumber than a box of rocks.

If she was smart she'd be focused on supporting Richards (Yolo County Calif.) and/or Baker (Hawaii) in some fashion, making sure one of those went en banc and overturned Peruta. Instead she's messing around with Peruta when she doesn't need to.

She's either a moron or a glory hog (PR chaser) of some sort...probably both.
__________________
Jim March
Jim March is offline  
Old December 19, 2014, 01:05 AM   #482
62coltnavy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 353
She has no standing in the Baker case, since it does not involve California law. Further, Baker arose from the denial of a petition for preliminary injunction, rather than after a judgment on the merits, so it is extremely unlikely that en banc will be granted.
62coltnavy is offline  
Old December 19, 2014, 10:58 PM   #483
Koda94
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2012
Location: Cascadia
Posts: 1,171
http://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-LB-50140

Appeals Court Finds Gun Ban for Committed Man Unconstitutional


sorry for the drive by....
__________________
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2
Koda94 is offline  
Old December 19, 2014, 11:20 PM   #484
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koda94
http://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-LB-50140

Appeals Court Finds Gun Ban for Committed Man Unconstitutional
It's a good deal more complicated than that and is being discussed here.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old January 15, 2015, 07:37 PM   #485
Librarian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 193
Jackson vs San Francisco (guns must be kept locked up) -
(http://michellawyers.com/guncasetrac...cksonvsanfran/)

Jackson et al filed for certiorari Dec 2014;

Amicus filing today (Jan 15)
__________________
See the CALGUNS FOUNDATION Wiki for discussion of California firearms law.

The FAQ page is here.
Librarian is offline  
Old January 23, 2015, 05:33 PM   #486
Armed_Chicagoan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 673
The appeal of Arie Friedman v. City of Highland Park was argued before a 7th Circuit panel yesterday. Friedman sued over Highland Park's "assault weapons" ban, which was modeled after and is nearly identical to Cook County's AWB.

You can listen to the arguments here: http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/...01_22_2015.mp3
Armed_Chicagoan is offline  
Old January 24, 2015, 05:18 PM   #487
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,150
I'm two minutes in and it is already a mess. Our side is arguing that a law from 1930 should be considered long-standing. Why didn't he go directly to the dangerous and unusual reasoning wherein bazookas might actually be outside of the second amendment protection?

He then goes on to practically stipulate that fully automatic weapons are illegal in most states, which is false.

Okay, he did better as it went along. I could not believe the female judge declaring that thumbhole stock enabled a person to "spray from the hip", and that a collapsible stock somehow made an AR 15 "concealable".

And would it be so difficult to get some kind of reliable number or range of numbers indicating the degree of commonality of these semi automatic rifles? That being a linchpin of the common use test, I would think that data would have been essential. Also, no mention of the microscopically tiny number of rifles of all types being used in homicides, let alone from "assault rifles".

Last edited by Spats McGee; January 25, 2015 at 09:55 AM. Reason: Removing disguised profanity
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old January 24, 2015, 10:47 PM   #488
Armed_Chicagoan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 673
@maestro pistolero - all of those things were covered in the appellate briefs. The actual hearing is very limited in time and I actually feel pretty good about this one. Easterbrook will be the swing vote, I think he went into the bazooka thing trying to set up a trap and the fish weren't biting. Easterbrokk did seem to accept that the banned weapons were "in common use".

Wilson, the Highland Park attorney, was just awful and basically had nothing but appeals to emotion.
Armed_Chicagoan is offline  
Old February 26, 2015, 07:30 PM   #489
Librarian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 193
CA: Pena v Lindley (was: Cid) loss at Federal Eastern District

Took over 5 years to get the motion to dismiss in favor of defendants.

Order: http://ia801400.us.archive.org/30/it...91444.94.0.pdf

It will be appealed to the 9th Circuit, I am told.
__________________
See the CALGUNS FOUNDATION Wiki for discussion of California firearms law.

The FAQ page is here.
Librarian is offline  
Old April 2, 2015, 01:15 PM   #490
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,758
Palmer v DC news: The DC Attorney General announced that the appeal of Palmer has been dropped and his office will focus on defending DC's new concealed carry law.
gc70 is offline  
Old April 2, 2015, 10:25 PM   #491
Armed_Chicagoan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 673
Which is pretty much the same as the old DC carry law.
Armed_Chicagoan is offline  
Old April 28, 2015, 01:15 PM   #492
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 7,594
The 7th Circuit has refused to enjoin Highland Park's local ordinance banning assault weapons and "large" capacity magazines. Their reasoning may be found in this 2-1 opinion;
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bi...:N:1541776:S:0

Not the best legal scholarship by a long shot. The majority appears to have misunderstood Heller, Miller and several other previous Second Amendment cases.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old October 18, 2015, 12:53 PM   #493
Andy Blozinski
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 31, 2013
Posts: 496
The Highland park case could be extra interesting. If the supreme court takes it up, they'd better be careful with their wording if they uphold the Highland park bans. It could be interpreted as allowing local civic law to trump federal law if they are not careful. For that reason, I would think they will not likely side with the Chicago suburb government.
Andy Blozinski is offline  
Old October 18, 2015, 11:29 PM   #494
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,674
I certainly hope they overturn it, or Heller and MacDonald were so much window dressing.
armoredman is offline  
Old October 26, 2015, 06:34 PM   #495
wolfwood
Member
 
Join Date: August 10, 2012
Posts: 26
I filed out opening brief challenging the machine gun ban. We have another brief due on Dec. 2 in the 3rd Circuit on the same issue.
Hollis 5th Circuit Opening Brief

Hollis Record Excerpts

Last edited by wolfwood; October 28, 2015 at 06:24 PM.
wolfwood is offline  
Old October 27, 2015, 12:23 PM   #496
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,674
Good luck, sir
armoredman is offline  
Old November 16, 2015, 09:45 AM   #497
Armed_Chicagoan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 673
A challenge to an assault weapon ban, Friedman v. Highland Park (15-133), has been relisted for the 5th time.

I wish I could see what is going on behind the curtain on this one!
Armed_Chicagoan 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 06:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.11715 seconds with 9 queries