You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Current 2A Cases
- Thread starter Al Norris
- Start date
Another Update
The third and final prong against California's AB936 (the ammunition "ban") was filed today by Onwer-Operator Independent Drivers Association, Erick Royce, Brandon Elias, Folsom Shooting Club, Inc., the CalGuns Foundation, Inc. (all represented by Jason Davis), and the National Rifle Association (Represented by C.D. (Chuck) Michel), against Steve Lindley; The State of California; The California Department of Justice and Does 1-10.
The Complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division.
The case is titled: OOIDA v. Lindley. You may read the 15 page complaint here. The complaint alleges that AB962 unlawfully interferes with interstate commerce and is pre-empted by Federal laws regulating interstate commerce. Lawsuit seeks to block enforcement of the law. A preliminary injunction request is said to be filed, shortly.
In other news, the Peruta case is scheduled for a mandatory settlement conference on August 11th.
The third and final prong against California's AB936 (the ammunition "ban") was filed today by Onwer-Operator Independent Drivers Association, Erick Royce, Brandon Elias, Folsom Shooting Club, Inc., the CalGuns Foundation, Inc. (all represented by Jason Davis), and the National Rifle Association (Represented by C.D. (Chuck) Michel), against Steve Lindley; The State of California; The California Department of Justice and Does 1-10.
The Complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division.
The case is titled: OOIDA v. Lindley. You may read the 15 page complaint here. The complaint alleges that AB962 unlawfully interferes with interstate commerce and is pre-empted by Federal laws regulating interstate commerce. Lawsuit seeks to block enforcement of the law. A preliminary injunction request is said to be filed, shortly.
In other news, the Peruta case is scheduled for a mandatory settlement conference on August 11th.
full.tang.halo
Moderator
The Hughes amendment however, may well be... but that's way down the line. My best guess (at this writing) is that such a challenge is at least 10 years out.
Any guess on how the Hughes amendment would be attacked in the future? Are we looking for some specific help in these low hanging fruit cases to establish an argument for un-freezing then full-auto registry?
There are 3 major issues, as I see it, that must be staked out by judicial means, so that future legislators cannot interfere with our rights, before even thinking about the Hughes amendment.
1. The cases must be established that protect the right to arms (and ammunition). Keeping and bearing arms must be recognized beyond the threshold of the home.
2. The right must be expanded beyond mere self-protection/defense, to include the various sporting uses - of what use is the keeping and bearing, if you cannot practice proficiency?
3. The "list" of lawful arms must be established. So called "assault weapons" must be established as normal and usual firearms, in order to challenge the various assault weapons bans in several States.
This is just my take on what's going on with the current litigation strategy. I'm no lawyer, so take that for what it's worth!
1. The cases must be established that protect the right to arms (and ammunition). Keeping and bearing arms must be recognized beyond the threshold of the home.
2. The right must be expanded beyond mere self-protection/defense, to include the various sporting uses - of what use is the keeping and bearing, if you cannot practice proficiency?
3. The "list" of lawful arms must be established. So called "assault weapons" must be established as normal and usual firearms, in order to challenge the various assault weapons bans in several States.
This is just my take on what's going on with the current litigation strategy. I'm no lawyer, so take that for what it's worth!
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
Antipitas said:Keeping and bearing arms must be recognized beyond the threshold of the home.
IMHO this is the "it" case. Even the Bradys admit to keeping a firearm for protection in the home. Outside the home is HUGE. Whether it is standard fair criteria for may issue or only shall issue CCW. I don't ever see the court ruling for "constitutional" or no permit carry against a state.
The problem you will have with Hughes is the common use test which I think the AR-15 has become. FA is not in common use (please don't use the circularity argument it won't work) and so it might be hard to do. I guess they would argue that Hughes is a de facto ban but so what? The court will say they are dnagerous and unusual and so not protected. I see legislative action before the court throws it out. My .02.
Tennessee, the problem with the Huges amendment, really isn't one of full auto acceptance. It is one of Tax Law. By closing the NFA registry, the Congress has essentially rendered its own revenue making ability, moot.
There are several theories "floating" around on that issue. But before I would broach such, I would want enough other gun cases to be in my favor, so as to dull any full auto scare... Hence getting rid of the remaining AWB's.
But yes, a legislative remedy would be much better than a court mandate. Such a remedy would still be better (and easier) with a lot of case law behind the rights of individuals. That and time. Time to show that the worst (or even all the dire) predictions of the anti-gun crowd haven't materialized.
There are several theories "floating" around on that issue. But before I would broach such, I would want enough other gun cases to be in my favor, so as to dull any full auto scare... Hence getting rid of the remaining AWB's.
But yes, a legislative remedy would be much better than a court mandate. Such a remedy would still be better (and easier) with a lot of case law behind the rights of individuals. That and time. Time to show that the worst (or even all the dire) predictions of the anti-gun crowd haven't materialized.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
Al, I like the revenue angle! Uncle Sugar likes to get money but if I were doing it I would find some bill the Dems (or whomever) REALLY want to pass. Like Financial Regulation and quietly slip in a repeal or whatever of Hughes. Like carry in National Park, the method of passing which I found totally delicious, just use the same method Hughes came about and hoist it on it's own petard?
full.tang.halo
Moderator
It is one of Tax Law. By closing the NFA registry, the Congress has essentially rendered its own revenue making ability, moot.
I didn't think of it in that light Antipitas, they are "giving up" a taxable revenue stream. I know that if we had an open registry, every detachable magazine fed rifle I would buy would have the "select-fire" option box checked. The extra $200 to the gov added onto the price would be well worth being able to have that option available to me.
I could be mistaken (I'm not nearly as well read as some of the other members here), but wasn't the government's argument, which SCOTUS agreed with, in Miller that the NFA was not an outright ban but rather a tax? If so, couldn't the Hughes Amendment be more easily interpreted as an outright ban? Also, given the current court's apparent distaste for purely discretional law (remember, both D.C. and Chicago had registration in place, they just refused to register any handguns), does anyone else think that the CLEO signoff requirement of the NFA might be in danger?
SAF just today brought suit against the state of Maryland to loosen up the terribly restricted "may issue" condition that prevails. It's easier to get a carry permit in NY than in MD.
Here's a link:
http://saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=334
Here's a link:
http://saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=334
2009_gunner
New member
Two other cases you might want to list:
Montana Shooting Sports Association v Holder is sponsored by the SAF to challenge federal regulation of guns made and kept in Montana.
Case info: http://firearmsfreedomact.com/montana-lawsuit-timeline/
Background: http://firearmsfreedomact.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Firearms_Freedom_Act
Wisconsin Carry v Milwaukee to challenge Gun Free School Zones. This case is interesting because Wisconsin is a No-Issue state for CCW, so unlicensed open carry is their only possible method of carry, but to do so is impractical due to GFSZs.
Case info: http://www.wisconsincarry.org/default.html# click "March 12"
Montana Shooting Sports Association v Holder is sponsored by the SAF to challenge federal regulation of guns made and kept in Montana.
Case info: http://firearmsfreedomact.com/montana-lawsuit-timeline/
Background: http://firearmsfreedomact.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Firearms_Freedom_Act
Wisconsin Carry v Milwaukee to challenge Gun Free School Zones. This case is interesting because Wisconsin is a No-Issue state for CCW, so unlicensed open carry is their only possible method of carry, but to do so is impractical due to GFSZs.
Case info: http://www.wisconsincarry.org/default.html# click "March 12"
Updated the OP by listing all attorneys for each case.
2009_gunner, The various States Firearms Freedom Acts, are not really 2A cases. They are legislation challenging the current broad definition of the Commerce Clause. The Montana case is one such law that is being litigated in federal court.
The Wisconsin case, is a 2A case. When I have a few more details, I will add it to the list. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.
2009_gunner, The various States Firearms Freedom Acts, are not really 2A cases. They are legislation challenging the current broad definition of the Commerce Clause. The Montana case is one such law that is being litigated in federal court.
The Wisconsin case, is a 2A case. When I have a few more details, I will add it to the list. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.
2009_gunner, The various States Firearms Freedom Acts, are not really 2A cases. They are legislation challenging the current broad definition of the Commerce Clause. The Montana case is one such law that is being litigated in federal court.
Are you sure? I know it's a commerce clause case, but now it's a commerce clause case about guns, and we have a brand new second amendment right to consider. There has never been a constitutional right to homegrown wheat or marijuana or even machine guns (Wickard, Raich, Stewart), so the necessity of infringing on that right to regulate commerce could not be a question.
Now it can.
2009_gunner
New member
NJ Gun Rationing
It looks like there's a suit in New Jersey against one gun a month, but the I can't find a live link to the actual complaint.
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/read.aspx?id=5310
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2010/01/18/anjrpc-challenges-nj-gun-rationing-in-federal-court/
It looks like there's a suit in New Jersey against one gun a month, but the I can't find a live link to the actual complaint.
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/read.aspx?id=5310
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2010/01/18/anjrpc-challenges-nj-gun-rationing-in-federal-court/
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Alan Gura, ISRA and SAF filed Ezell v. Chicago today. The suit seeks a preliminary injunction against the Chicago gun range ban and asserts Second and First Amendment claims to run a gun range.
http://www.saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=337
http://www.saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=337
(Bart just beat me to it!!!) Just finished composing drafts for this, I'll insert the data right after this.
Today, the SAF has filed another lawsuit against Chicago (Alan Gura and David Sigale of McDonald). Challenges the new rules banning gun ranges in the city as violating 1st, 2nd and 14th amendments. Joined in the Lawsuit are Rhonda Ezell, Joseph Brown, William Hespen, Action Target, Inc., Second Amendment Foundation and Illinios State Rifle Association. Alan has sued for a preliminary Injunction against the City enforcing the disputed codes.
The press release is here and the case filings are here.
Today, the SAF has filed another lawsuit against Chicago (Alan Gura and David Sigale of McDonald). Challenges the new rules banning gun ranges in the city as violating 1st, 2nd and 14th amendments. Joined in the Lawsuit are Rhonda Ezell, Joseph Brown, William Hespen, Action Target, Inc., Second Amendment Foundation and Illinios State Rifle Association. Alan has sued for a preliminary Injunction against the City enforcing the disputed codes.
The press release is here and the case filings are here.