November 27, 2012, 06:19 PM | #401 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
The court rests on the unproven and incorrect assertion that there is a correlation between carry-licensed individuals and increased crime. Setting aside the fact that the government cannot sweep aside a fundamental right because they believe it's too dangerous, the evidence is overwhelmingly to the contrary, as licensees are credited with a dramatically lower crime rate than the the public at large.
BS meter PEGGED. |
December 6, 2012, 06:00 PM | #402 |
Junior Member
Join Date: April 23, 2012
Location: Rupert, Id
Posts: 11
|
Al has the audio file for the current 2A cases and he will upload them when he gets off work.
|
December 6, 2012, 09:56 PM | #403 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
A bit earlier, Librarian linked todays oral arguments at the 9th Cirsuit of the 3 cases, Peruta, Richards and Baker within the Peruta thread. Therefore I no longer need to upload the audio files.
Please direct your comments to the proper thread. Comments on the Peruta case should be made here: http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=427710 Comments on the Richards case should be made here: http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=451451 Comments on the Baker case should be made here: http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=460887 |
January 22, 2013, 11:23 PM | #406 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
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:
In the above docket listing, it appears that the City of Denver tried to file some sort of 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. Last edited by Al Norris; January 23, 2013 at 12:51 PM. Reason: corrected an assumption |
|
January 23, 2013, 12:57 PM | #407 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
A Further Explanation
See my edit, immediately above.
Quote:
The first entry was a request to certify that the two attorneys listed were the interested parties (City of Denver) new attorneys. This document was not the actual certificate but was more of a supplemental pleading. Remembering that Denver elected not to participate in the appeal, the court clerk took a dim view of this filing and removed it. Notified of the removal, the interested parties filed the proper notice (the second entry). Frank, or another attorney, can correct me, but this appears to be that the City of Denver was getting antsy about the long delay in the decision and tried, in an entirely inappropriate manner, to sway the court. The clerk slapped their hands. Still, they then filed a formal certificate of interested parties. Nothing else on the docket happened until a month later (Dec. 7th), the State filed a 28J letter in regards Kachalsky. Gray filed a response (Dec. 8th) and then on Dec. 17th, Gray filed a 28J letter in regards Moore. The State did not file a response, nor did the court recognize the City of Denver, formally. I'm unsure what to make of this, other than Denver is distressed that a decision has not been reached and that the State could not refute how Moore could apply to this case. |
|
January 23, 2013, 04:16 PM | #408 |
Member
Join Date: November 24, 2010
Posts: 24
|
Los Angeles
Briefing now complete on 2 of 3 cases from Los Angeles in the 9th.
|
January 27, 2013, 12:05 PM | #409 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Case #12 on the list is a case that copycatted Jackson v. San Francisco.
There have been attempts by SF to relate the cases and was defeated by the NRA. Then the NRA petitioned the Court for status as Amicus Curiae. That was granted and the NRA argued that Pizzo be dismissed on grounds of having no standing. The result came in last December. The judge denied the MSJ by Gorski on just those grounds as laid out by the NRA. After some somewhat lengthy negotiations, the City and County off SF were dismissed (Gorski did this in order to not to have to pay the attorney fees of SF). Gorski, as I understand it, now has about 40 days to file an appeal on the State law grounds that were dismissed at trial court. This will put this particular case way behind any of the leading CA cases at the 9th. All in all, this is a good thing. Nothing good will come of cases brought by this particular maverick attorney and could actually harm the 2A movement in CA and/or throughout the 9th Circuit. |
January 27, 2013, 01:36 PM | #410 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
A good outcome under the circumstances. A better outcome would have been Gorski had to pay dearly for his ignorance and recalcitrance. He has been warned repeatedly about creating bad precedent.
|
February 6, 2013, 11:03 PM | #411 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
With all the goings on in NYS, I forgot to check another important case at appeals: Dearth v. Holder. So here's the docket at the CADC:
Quote:
|
|
February 15, 2013, 11:03 PM | #412 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
In the case of Mishaga v. Monken (#24 on the list) we haven't heard a thing, since last Jan (of 2012). We have been waiting for Judge Sue Meyerscough to render a decision on pending motions for summary judgment.
Look at the docket: Quote:
Judge Meyerscough is now caught between a rock and a hard place, since this is an IL case filed in the same district as Moore, which won at CA7. I'm willing to bet that Meyerscough is now waiting to see the results of the petition for en banc at CA7. Then she will wait to see whether Posner's decision is upheld or, in the alternative, if cert is filed by the State and if that is granted or denied. Meanwhile, the crickets are chirping just outside of her chambers window! Does the name, Meyerscough, sound familiar? She is the judge that denied the injunction in Moore - this has to hurt! |
|
February 19, 2013, 11:43 AM | #413 |
Member
Join Date: August 10, 2012
Posts: 31
|
George Young v. State of Hawaii is on appeal
Opening Brief http://www.scribd.com/doc/125758371/...f-George-Young |
February 22, 2013, 02:41 PM | #414 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
The long overdue decision in Peterson v. Suthers (was LaCabe), the 10th Circuit has affirmed the lower court.
I have only briefly browsed the decision, but essentially, the Court has glossed over carry (of any form) to attack concealed carry in specific. It is not a right in the eyes of this panel. Nor does this interfere with Gray's right to travel. Fifty-two pages to say this. You can find the decision here: Click here to download as an Acrobat PDF |
February 22, 2013, 04:55 PM | #415 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
|
|
March 3, 2013, 02:22 PM | #416 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
And for those wondering, here's the opening brief at the DC circuit in Dearth v. Holder.
|
March 14, 2013, 11:53 PM | #417 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 193
|
New York response to Kachalsky cert petition
http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/kac...2013-03-14.pdf h/t Gene Hoffman
__________________
|
April 1, 2013, 01:49 PM | #418 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
On 03-11-2013, the Appellee/Defendant filed their response.
Also, the Appellant/Plaintiff have motioned to extend time to file their reply (which was granted) until 04-08-2013. |
April 17, 2013, 12:55 AM | #419 |
Junior member
Join Date: February 9, 2013
Posts: 1
|
Nichols v. Brown: #2:2011cv09916
On March 3, 2013 Federal Judge S. James Otero denied the motion to dismiss by California Attorney General Kamala Harris noting that Mr. Nichols violates that state's ban on openly carrying a loaded firearm the moment he steps outside of his home. Judge Otero added that unless the Attorney General promises not to enforce the law, she cannot be dismissed from the lawsuit.
Mr. Nichols filed an Amended Complaint challenging the recently enacted Unloaded Open Carry bans as well as the ban on Loaded Open Carry. He also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. Today, the Attorney General filed her Answer to the Complaint. Not only did she not promise not to enforce the law, she admits that she does indeed enforce the challenged statutes. A hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction is scheduled for May 20th in Los Angeles. |
April 17, 2013, 12:01 PM | #420 |
Member
Join Date: August 10, 2012
Posts: 31
|
|
May 2, 2013, 11:06 PM | #421 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Case #70, Winbigler v. Warren County, Ill. Housing Authority, has been resolved!
In meetings that occurred last November, the defendant WCHA offered a settlement that included all demands made by Plaintiff Winbigler & SAF. Yesterday, May 1st, the Judge announced the order. The SAF announcement is here: SAF Press Release :: SAF WINS PERMANENT INJUNCTION V. PUBLIC HOUSING GUN BAN IN ILLINOIS What took from Nov until yesterday was the Judges decision to grant all relief except the precedential declaratory relief that the lease was unconstitutional. You can read the decision and why everything but this one item was denied (for good reason) here: Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief. What all this is saying is that the defendant threw in the towel and capitulated to all the plaintiffs demands. The court could not declare that the lease provisions were unconstitutional, only because the merits to that claim were never fully briefed. Hence, any such declaration would be an advisory opinion which the Federal Courts are not allowed to make. David Sigale and the SAF will take fees. |
May 12, 2013, 04:56 AM | #422 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 394
|
What ever happened with the NY SAFE act being challenged? I remember something about the state having to defend why the law isn't unconstitutional or something like that.
|
May 12, 2013, 07:57 AM | #423 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 21, 2010
Location: Rome, NY
Posts: 941
|
The state is to present its case (defending the Constitionality of it) Monday, May 13. I assume the judge will not decide for several weeks.
__________________
Jim Page Cogito, ergo armatum sum |
May 14, 2013, 05:28 PM | #424 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Latest filings in Dearth v. Holder:
Quote:
|
|
June 22, 2013, 07:30 PM | #425 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Cases 81 and 82 have been updated. Case #81 is the Colorado lawsuit.
Case #82 is a new (for me) lawsuit. Here the NRA is attacking the City of Chicago's ordinances that prohibit the movement of any firearm outside the confines of a house, in violation of the 7th Circuits Moore/Sheppard decision. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|