October 3, 2011, 09:57 PM | #252 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
In other news today, in Lane v. Holder, the appellees (plaintiffs) filed their opening brief in the 4th Circuit.
While the PDF is 74 pages in length, about 22 pages are headers and appendices. So in roughly 52 pages, Mr. Gura sets out a very well reasoned argument in favor of doing away with the ban on interstate handgun transfers. A copy of the brief is in this thread. Back on 09-14, the defendant was given an extension of time to reply to the Second Amended Complaint in Enos v. Holder. The expected result of todays filing? A MTD. See this thread. |
October 4, 2011, 11:19 AM | #253 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
The D. C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Heller 2 is out today:
http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/interne...36-1333156.pdf The court of appeals upheld D.C.'s registration requirements and prohibitions on semi-autos 2-1. Lengthy dissent. |
October 9, 2011, 02:38 PM | #255 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/us...ch.html?ref=us
Case stating that laws banning carry in religious places violate constitutional protections of worship. Interesting, I've always thought this. Bans should be based on some demonstration of harm by the firearm. The only ones I would support are technical such as the gun by MRI and the like. A ban because a place is holy is making a religious statement for that congregation.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
October 13, 2011, 08:53 AM | #256 |
Junior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2011
Posts: 2
|
It amazes me that it is very often in Christian circles wherein one hears arguments for law that somehow saves people. When you read the pastors comments in this article they somehow really believe that a law prohibiting the activity of carrying in a Church actually does something other than provide a mechanism for a judicial penalty to be imposed. They find their beliefs assaulted on every front, doctrines that are foundational for American jurisprudence itself, and then turn around and stand against the very principles they claim to believe in. Its just so sad that Churches that should be equipping Christian soldiers to do spiritual battle don't see the necessity for sustaining the ability to engage physical self defense once those spiritual forces break out into overt violence. There's been numerous instances over the years where gunmen have entered Churches and shot people - I would hope there would be a parishioner or two in every congregation that has the effective means of employing defense against that potential threat.
|
October 14, 2011, 10:07 PM | #257 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
In the last 2 days, a fairly new member over at MDShooters opined on a couple of subjects. MirandaB claims to be a former civil rights attorney, in private practice for 10 years before starting another business, Just Right Carbines.
First MirandaB explained what was wrong with the Williams case and why the Supreme Court probably denied cert. Then today, this person explained the Masciandaro case and why it might be granted cert. The explanations go into a bit of depth on both cases, but this gentleman uses plain (non-legalese) language to get his points across. If you are at all interested in this stuff, I believe it is worth your while to read these explanations. On Williams, see this post. On Masciandaro, see this post. If these won't show, try this thread. Williams is post #14 (page 1) and Masciandaro is post #22 (page 2). I'm sure our resident attorneys can read this man's posts and glean from them whether or not the guy is being truthful. Just because they ring right to my ears, doesn't mean a thing. I'm not an attorney, just a somewhat knowledgeable commentator. |
October 14, 2011, 10:09 PM | #258 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Now that the case is back in the D.C. District court, Alan Gura filed his opening brief (an MSJ) in Dearth v. Holder.
|
October 16, 2011, 09:23 PM | #259 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
|
October 18, 2011, 10:24 AM | #260 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Another case has surfaced in the Supreme Court.
No. 10-1474 Edmund Chein v. State of California Petition was filed on June 3rd, 2011. On Sep 15th, a response was requested, which was due yesterday (Oct. 17th). Supreme Court Docket is here. The petition is here. Quote:
Quote:
|
||
October 18, 2011, 09:51 PM | #261 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
The Solicitor General's brief in response to the Masciandaro cert is in. Next up, Masciandaro's reply brief, due in 10 days.
See this thread for the link to the brief. |
October 21, 2011, 12:04 AM | #263 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Former SG Paul Clement (you remember him? He argued for the Feds against Heller and 2 years later argued for the NRA in McDonald) has just taken over the Peruta case. See the discussion thread for details.
|
October 21, 2011, 07:13 PM | #264 | |
Member
Join Date: September 7, 2011
Posts: 22
|
I stumbled upon another nugget of Guraism while reading the latest reply to DC's notice of supplemental authority in the Palmer case. I thought you all might get a kick out of it.
Quote:
On the note of the Palmer case, DC is attempting to site the Kachalsky case. The response put forth by Grua pretty much rips that appart and he filed another Notice of Supplemental using Heller II. |
|
October 21, 2011, 09:46 PM | #265 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Yup.
Gura knew that D.C. would file a notice of supplemental authority on Heller II. By filing his own notice, he beats D.C. to the punch and lessons any impact that the case may have had in this one. Oh, and Welcome to The Firing Line, NatoRepublic. |
October 21, 2011, 10:05 PM | #266 |
Member
Join Date: September 7, 2011
Posts: 22
|
Thanks for the welcome Al, I have been lurking so long I figured I might be able to help catch things that fell through the cracks. With the tidal wave of cases, it would seem hard for one person to keep up with them all. I am surprised you are able to keep it all straight.
|
October 21, 2011, 10:42 PM | #267 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
That's one of the reasons for all the links in each case.
A person can do a check of the Internet Archives for the case to see when the last update was made. If it been longer than the docket schedule shows something should have happened, then the link to the Justia Summary provides the gate into PACER for that case. There's the added benefit that anyone who wants to volunteer, can do everything I'm doing. Did you notice that the NC case, Bateman v. Perdue has been updated? Nothing since last March, now all of a sudden the Judge orders discovery, despite the fact that two MSJ's (#44 and #52) are still pending! This case will get drug out, much like Chicago is doing in Benson. Krucam, over at MDShooters, checked out that one. Then there's a couple of folks over at CalGuns.net who are helping things out. So what I do, is to keep a calendar filled out as to what's supposed to happen, and then check MDShooters to see if krucam has already gotten it (MD is 2 hours ahead of ID). Right now, we are both running about $100 per quarter in PACER charges. Long story, a bit shorter... More help is always welcome! |
October 24, 2011, 05:20 PM | #268 |
Member
Join Date: September 7, 2011
Posts: 22
|
Found another one to add to the pile Wilson v Holder.
Personally I am not exactly enthusiastic about being dragged into this fight. |
October 24, 2011, 08:27 PM | #269 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
I ask, because (1) I don't think the SCOTUS wants criminal cases setting the bounds of the right and (2) I really don't want to clutter the list with criminal cases. AAR, post a link. [Emily Latilla voice] Nevermind... [/Emily Latilla voice] |
October 24, 2011, 08:47 PM | #270 |
Member
Join Date: September 7, 2011
Posts: 22
|
I debated if I should post it up, the case itself isn't aimed at 2A very much, however I thought I would throw it out there. Mostly because if they bungle it bad enough it could get some bad precedent our way.
I could be wrong though, your thoughts would be helpful. |
October 24, 2011, 09:10 PM | #271 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
See my response in the Wilson thread you started.
This whole thing has been coming to a head ever since 2005. The question in my mind: Can a fundamental right survive a challenge to the Commerce Clause? |
October 24, 2011, 10:38 PM | #272 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
The case is Winters v. Willis, 11-120.
From the Asland Daily Tidings: Quote:
Oregon Supreme Court decision. |
|
October 25, 2011, 11:05 PM | #273 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Today in Richards v. Prieto, Alan Gura has filed their reply to the defendants response. See the thread for details and discussion.
Also today, Chicago makes it (final?) reply in its Objection to the PI. See this thread for details. |
October 26, 2011, 08:22 PM | #274 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Today, Alan Gura filed the Notice of Appeal in Hightower v. Boston. Don't get to uptight about this, as it will be at least 1 to 2 months before we see the first brief.
Yesterday, Herschel Smith (Captains Journal) wrote up a very good analysis of the Governments Opposition to the Masciandaro petition for cert. Worth reading, here. |
October 27, 2011, 10:34 PM | #275 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Muller v. Maenza (SAF New Jersey), today:
Quote:
New Jersey Coalition for Self Defense (on Facebook) It appears the Judge is of the same opinion as the rest of the judges we've seen to date. |
|
|
|