Go Back   Maryland Shooters > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old March 30th, 2012, 07:24 PM   #81
krucam
Senior Member
 
krucam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun...DFW, TX
Posts: 5,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by Afield View Post
Bump.

Maybe the first page could use an update? I'd give it a shot but can't edit it of course...
Woollard & Bateman were just updated earlier today. I haven't gotten to Fletcher vs Haas (MA) and might be dinq on a CA case or two or three...

Suggestions and "wake ups" (slap to the side of the head, throwing an eraser) are always appreciated! Let me know what needs attention...

This is a listing for everyone's benefit. We get help from all corners of the country, as it should be. Fire away...


__________________
Mark C.

Dallas/Ft Worth, TX

Post McDonald Second Amendment Cases/Links HERE
krucam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 30th, 2012, 11:12 PM   #82
Al Norris
Spud Head
 
Al Norris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 741
Sheppard decided. See my comments in the thread.
Al Norris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 1st, 2012, 06:04 PM   #83
Al Norris
Spud Head
 
Al Norris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 741
Way back in 2010, krucam made a post about the Baker v. Biaggi, the Nevada camping requirements case. That was post #18.

Everyone, including myself, thought the case was settled. As of Feb. 27th, this year, it finally (and officially) is.

I'm in the process of updating and writing about the cases, as they stand today. So this is what I found and as it will be posted to TFL:

Baker v. Drozdoff (was Baker v. Biaggi) Filed on Jul. 13th, 2010. James Manley and Robert Salyer are the attorneys for the plaintiff.
Argues a tent in a campground is a home (albeit temporary) under Heller and that Nevada cannot bar anyone (resident or non-resident) the right to keep and bear arms for self defense in the home.

On Sep. 21st, 2010, a Stipulated Preliminary Injunction and a temporary stay in further proceedings was granted, in order for the legislature to fix the problem (there was legislation introduced at that time) or in the alternative, the rule making body of Nevada could remedy the situation.

On Mar. 30th, 2011, a second order of Injunction and Stay were entered (AB 282 was passed and would come into effect on July 1, 2011 - Modifies NRS 407.0475).

On Sept 29th, 2011, a third order of Injunction and stay was requested (Routine - PI's must be renewed every 6 months. The administrative regulations ( NAC, had not yet been written). It was not acted upon, as the regulations were near to be published.

On Feb. 27th, 2012, An Order approving a Feb. 22nd Stipulation to Dismiss without Prejudice was granted. Nevada rulemaking was completed on Oct. 26th, 2011 and cured the plaintiffs complaint.
So here's where it gets interesting. The regulation complained of was Nevada Administrative Code Sec. 407.105(1)(b) - (c). AB 282 modified the Nevada Revised Statutes, by adding section 2(c):

Quote:
2(c) [The Administrator shall] Not establish restrictions on the possession of firearms within the park or recreational facility which are more restrictive than the laws of this State relating to:
(1) The possession of firearms; or
(2) Engaging in lawful resistance to prevent an offense against a person or property.
Any regulation which violates the provisions of this paragraph is void.
So what took so long to rewrite the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC)? Who really knows, 'cause here's what they added:

Quote:
NAC 407.105(5) Nothing in this section is intended to abrogate any right guaranteed by Section 11 of Article 1 of the Nevada Constitution.
So it appears they didn't change sections (1)(a - c), just added a new section, that on the surface is broader than the Statute itself.

Gotta love administrative code!

At any rate, this is a clear win and goes to show how reasonable people can sit down and negotiate a resolution, even if prodded by court action.
Al Norris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 3rd, 2012, 01:11 PM   #84
esqappellate
MSI BoD Member
 
esqappellate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,430
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Norris View Post
Sheppard decided. See my comments in the thread.
Lane oral argument continued to a new calendar in the 4th Circuit. See attached.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Lane.oralargument.pdf (20.5 KB, 24 views)


__________________
This may sound like legal advice, but it isn't. Don't rely on it. Hire your own counsel.
esqappellate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 5th, 2012, 11:42 AM   #85
JMangle
Libertarian Extremist
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Carroll County, Maryland
Posts: 729
Did I miss Weaver vs US in the 5th in the list?

http://ia600802.us.archive.org/22/it...229.2906.0.pdf

You know, the one about the guy in the Pegan Motorcycle Club.

Decision read:

Quote:
The fact that courts may be reluctant to recognize the protection of the Second Amendment outside
the home says more about the courts than the Second Amendment. Limiting this fundamental right to the home would be akin to limiting the protection of First Amendment freedom of speech to political speech or college campuses.
And

Quote:
While it is true that the Fourth Circuit has so far stopped short of expressly recognizing a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms outside the home,5 this Court has no such hesitation. The Supreme Court itself has acknowledged a Second Amendment right to protect oneself not only from private violence, but also from public violence. See Heller, 554 U.S. at 594 (stating that, by the time of the founding, the right to have arms was “fundamental” and “understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.”). The Heller Court additionally mentioned militia membership and hunting as key purposes for the existence of the right to keep and bear arms. See id. at 598. Confining the right to the home would unduly eliminate such purposes from the scope of the Second Amendment’s guarantee. Furthermore, the Court finds entirely persuasive Judge Niemeyer’s separate opinion as to Part III.B. in Masciandaro, 638 F.3d at 467-68 (Niemeyer, J., writing separately as to Part III.B.). There, Judge Niemeyer makes several observations drawn from the text of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Heller, including those mentioned above.
Sorry if someone posted this. I know there is a tread somewhere talking about it.
JMangle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 5th, 2012, 12:19 PM   #86
krucam
Senior Member
 
krucam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun...DFW, TX
Posts: 5,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMangle View Post
Did I miss Weaver vs US in the 5th in the list?

http://ia600802.us.archive.org/22/it...229.2906.0.pdf

You know, the one about the guy in the Pegan Motorcycle Club.

Decision read:


And

Sorry if someone posted this. I know there is a tread somewhere talking about it.
This thread was started to track ongoing 2A cases. It became obvious that it would be impossible to track from beginning to end all Criminal cases invoking 2A claims. Simply not possible/feasible.

We were hopeful this year for a handful of 2A cases at the Supreme Court level, all Criminal cases. Masciandaro, Chien, William, etc....Petition for Cert was denied in every last one.

Criminal 2A cases that are wrapped up (ie Weaver in CA4) are often only elevated to the public eye once a ruling (usually favorable) is made.

Honestly, did anyone know about Weaver before the CA4 ruling? How about Chester? Masciandaro? It's because we can't track all of them...

The OP has Civil 2A cases primarily. The Criminal Court 2A cases get mention when/if it gets to One First.


__________________
Mark C.

Dallas/Ft Worth, TX

Post McDonald Second Amendment Cases/Links HERE
krucam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 5th, 2012, 03:50 PM   #87
Al Norris
Spud Head
 
Al Norris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 741
I'll second what Mark just wrote. We just don't have the time to track everything that is not a civil rights case.

I would add that with the load (of cases) we are tracking, our PACER account bills are enlarging, not growing smaller. It seems like every time one case finishes up, another (or two) appears on the horizon.

Resources are limited and it seems that all of us that are tracking these cases came to the same conclusion. Civil Cases Only... Unless they hit One First.
Al Norris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 5th, 2012, 04:03 PM   #88
JMangle
Libertarian Extremist
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Carroll County, Maryland
Posts: 729
Sorry if it seemed like I was ungrateful to the OP. I didn't know that the list was only following civil cases. I'm new to this legal mumbo-jumbo.
JMangle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 5th, 2012, 08:47 PM   #89
krucam
Senior Member
 
krucam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun...DFW, TX
Posts: 5,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMangle View Post
Sorry if it seemed like I was ungrateful to the OP. I didn't know that the list was only following civil cases. I'm new to this legal mumbo-jumbo.
It was a good (and honest) question. No apologies necessary! Welcome to the fray...


__________________
Mark C.

Dallas/Ft Worth, TX

Post McDonald Second Amendment Cases/Links HERE
krucam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 18th, 2012, 04:13 PM   #90
esqappellate
MSI BoD Member
 
esqappellate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,430
Briefing schedule in Woollard in the CA4
Attached Files
File Type: pdf BriefingOrder.pdf (24.5 KB, 29 views)


__________________
This may sound like legal advice, but it isn't. Don't rely on it. Hire your own counsel.
esqappellate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 2nd, 2012, 10:39 AM   #91
JMangle
Libertarian Extremist
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Carroll County, Maryland
Posts: 729
Not sure where else to put this, I'm sure someone else has already found it:

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/helenwh...ting_gun_shows

Nordyke -- but I still doubt that this is over. Not sure how/why it would continue, but seeing as so many cases have been put on hold waiting for this to be over with.
JMangle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 2nd, 2012, 11:24 AM   #92
Maestro Pistolero
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 661
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMangle View Post
Not sure where else to put this, I'm sure someone else has already found it:

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/helenwh...ting_gun_shows

Nordyke -- but I still doubt that this is over. Not sure how/why it would continue, but seeing as so many cases have been put on hold waiting for this to be over with.
It's done, finally. Cases held can now begin moving. Any new action (say, challenging the ammo restriction, for example) will start anew.
Maestro Pistolero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 5th, 2012, 02:54 PM   #93
esqappellate
MSI BoD Member
 
esqappellate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,430
Oral argument next week in NRA v. BAFT in the 5th Circuit. This is the challenge to the federal law restricting hand gun purchases to those over 20.

CASE CALENDARED for oral argument on Tuesday, 07/10/2012 in Houston -- AM session. In accordance with our policy, lead counsel only will receive via email at a later date a copy of the court's docket and an acknowledgment form. All other counsel of record should monitor the court's website for the posting of the oral argument calendars.. [11-10959]


__________________
This may sound like legal advice, but it isn't. Don't rely on it. Hire your own counsel.
esqappellate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 17th, 2012, 07:26 PM   #94
krucam
Senior Member
 
krucam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun...DFW, TX
Posts: 5,909
For everyone's info, the items that I "KNOW" are coming up in the next two weeks include:

Woollard (MD CCW):
1) Check District Case 1:10-cv-02068 for Stay Ruling. No surprise, right?
2) Check CA4 Case 12-1437 on 7/30/12 for Plaintiff (SAF) Response Brief 2/3.

Piscatoski (NJ CCW): Check CA3 Case 12-1150 on 7/30/12 as well, for Plaintiff (SAF) Reply Brief 3/3.

Moore (CA7 12-1269) and Sheppard (CA7 12-1788) are highly likely to have Opinions issued on the recent Oral Argument by 8/8/2012 IIRC, which is when this CA7 Term ends. Fingers are crossed...

This covers everything I'm aware of for the next 2 weeks. There could certainly be more but I don't have the time to dig right now.

BTW, I'm staring at 2 duffel bags loaded with a tent, thermarest pad, sheets for cover, 7 sets of cycling shorts, 7 sets of cycling shirts, a cork screw....

The Registers Annual Great Bike/Beer Run/Ride Across Iowa commences Sunday. Me and 10,000 of my closest friends will be making the 40th annual bicycle ride across Iowa. It is looking to be an uber-hot one.

Ride the Bike 70 miles in the heat. Get into the overnight town around 2-3pm. Crack a beer, find your duffel bag amongst hundreds, grab a beer, start setting up your tent, pull clean clothes out for the evening, grab a beer, go to the shower and wait in line, shower, grab a beer, decide what to do for the evening (Counting Crows one night, Little River Band another). Stumble back to the tent in the dark in a town you've never been in.

Wake up, grogggy, grab a water, pray for a coffee. Take down tent, pack into duffel, throw duffel onto a semi, get on your bike and ride 70 miles.

Repeat 6 more times.

I can't wait.

https://www.google.com/search?q=ragb...w=1680&bih=916

http://ragbrai.com/

A pic from the 2010 ride is attached. I'm sure someone will recognize the setting...

Peace Out folks. iPad and a Droid is all I'll have for the next two weeks.

Get on your bikes and ride...
Attached Images
File Type: jpg IMG_1197.jpg (99.6 KB, 208 views)


__________________
Mark C.

Dallas/Ft Worth, TX

Post McDonald Second Amendment Cases/Links HERE
krucam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 25th, 2012, 11:10 AM   #95
2ndsupporter
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 38
Palmer v. Dc

Archive updates today. Anything interesting?
2ndsupporter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 25th, 2012, 11:22 AM   #96
Al Norris
Spud Head
 
Al Norris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 741
An oral hearing has been scheduled in the long overdue Palmer case.

Quote:
07/23/2012 MOTION SCHEDULING NOTICE as to 6[RECAP] MOTION for Summary Judgment ; 5[RECAP] MOTION for Summary Judgment, 34[RECAP] MOTION to Strike 33[RECAP] Supplemental Memorandum,. Motion Hearing set for 8/27/2012 10:00 AM in a courtroom to be determined at a later date before Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr.. (Scullin, Frederick) (Entered: 07/23/2012)

07/25/2012 RESCHEDULING NOTICE TIME CHANGE ONLY re: 6[RECAP] MOTION for Summary Judgment, 5[RECAP] MOTION for Summary Judgment, 34[RECAP] MOTION to Strike 33[RECAP] Supplemental Memorandum. Motion Hearing remains set for 8/27/2012 and the time is changed to 03:30 PM before Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr.. (Scullin, Frederick) (Entered: 07/25/2012)


__________________
Listings of the Current 2A Cases, over at the Firing Line.
Al Norris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 25th, 2012, 11:51 AM   #97
2ndsupporter
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 38
Hate to speculate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Norris View Post
An oral hearing has been scheduled in the long overdue Palmer case.
Giving DC time to figure out their options for carry in light of Woolard? SCOTUS will be interesting in the next 2 years.
2ndsupporter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 23rd, 2012, 10:59 PM   #98
Speaker2Wolves
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by krucam View Post
A pic from the 2010 ride is attached. I'm sure someone will recognize the setting....
If you build it, they will come... on bikes.
Speaker2Wolves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2012, 07:05 AM   #99
Boxcab
MSI EM
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: AA County
Posts: 3,793
Just adding a link to the "Court Case Flow" thread to aid those looking for additional information on the process.

http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=91352


__________________
Quote:
"I do find myself cursing the ghosts of the politicians and gun owners who let our 2nd Amendment rights degrade over the past century. Seven plus decades of being afraid to enthusiastically challenge any new ban against our gun rights has proven to be very foolish. Your rights will not preserve themselves; they must be pursued, secured and vigilantly maintained."
Boxcab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18th, 2012, 03:22 PM   #100
esqappellate
MSI BoD Member
 
esqappellate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,430
Schader oral argument 10/10/2012 before Tatel, Williams and Randolph, D.C. Circuit. I started a separate thread in this forum on Schader, as this is Alan Gura's argument
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Schader.oral.argument.order.pdf (50.7 KB, 19 views)


__________________
This may sound like legal advice, but it isn't. Don't rely on it. Hire your own counsel.
esqappellate is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Home Page > Forum List > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 09:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2013, Maryland Shooters, LLC