Dearth v. Holder

[Al Norris]

Recap quit working when I upgraded to the latest version (27.0) of Firefox. So I have to do this manually... Going to have to see if I can return to the previous working version!

As you may recall, this case is about a US citizen who is living in another country (Canada) and is opposing the Federal laws that state you must be a resident of a State, in order to buy (transfer) firearms. The case has gone up to the DCCA, once before, and is now back there again.

Here is the latest DCCA docket:

• 09/04/2013 - Open Document - PER CURIAM ORDER filed [1454853] allocating oral argument time as follows: Appellants -- 15 Minutes, Appellee -- 15 Minutes. One counsel per side to argue; directing party to file Form 72 notice of arguing attorney - due 09/12/2013 [12-5305]
  
• 09/12/2013 - FORM 72 submitted by arguing attorney, Anisha S. Dasgupta, on behalf of Appellee Eric H. Holder, Jr.. [12-5305] (Dasgupta, Anisha)
  
• 09/12/2013 - FORM 72 submitted by arguing attorney, Alan Gura, on behalf of Appellants Stephen Dearth and Second Amendment Foundation, Inc.. [12-5305] (Gura, Alan)
  
• 09/18/2013 - Open Document - LETTER FILED [1457126] by Stephen Dearth and Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. pursuant to FRAP 28j advising of additional authorities [Service Date: 09/18/2013 ] [12-5305] (Gura, Alan)
  
• 09/19/2013 - Open Document - ORAL ARGUMENT HELD before Judges Henderson, Griffith and Randolph. [12-5305]
  
• 01/10/2014 - Open Document - PER CURIAM ORDER filed [1474672], on the court’s own motion, that the parties file supplemental briefs addressing the following issues: (1) Whether non-resident Americans are “home” while visiting the United States; and (2) Whether the Second Amendment extends beyond the home. The supplemental briefs may not exceed 30 pages. Appellants’ supplemental brief is due on Monday, February 10, 2014, and appellee’s supplemental brief is due on Wednesday March 12, 2014. Before Judges: Henderson, Griffith and Randolph. [12-5305]
  
• 02/07/2014 - Open Document - NOTICE filed [1479067] by National Rifle Association of America, Inc. of intention to participate as amicus curiae. [Disclosure Listing: Attached] [Service Date: 02/07/2014 ] [12-5305] (Thompson, David)
  
• 02/10/2014 - APPELLANT SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF [1479259] filed by Stephen Dearth and Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. [Service Date: 02/10/2014 ] Length of Brief: 30 pages. [12-5305] (Gura, Alan)
  
• 02/10/2014 - Open Document - CORRECTED APPELLANT SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF [1479282] filed by Stephen Dearth and Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. [Service Date: 02/10/2014 ] Length of Brief: 30 pages. [12-5305] (Gura, Alan)
  
• 02/12/2014 - Open Document - MOTION filed [1479883] by National Rifle Association of America, Inc. to participate as amicus curiae. [Disclosure Listing: Attached] [Service Date: 02/12/2014 ] [12-5305] (Cooper, Charles)

The Supplemental and the NRA Amicus briefs are below.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

WHAT!

01/10/2014 - Open Document - PER CURIAM ORDER filed [1474672], on the court’s own motion, that the parties file supplemental briefs addressing the following issues: (1) Whether non-resident Americans are “home” while visiting the United States; and (2) Whether the Second Amendment extends beyond the home. The supplemental briefs may not exceed 30 pages. Appellants’ supplemental brief is due on Monday, February 10, 2014, and appellee’s supplemental brief is due on Wednesday March 12, 2014. Before Judges: Henderson, Griffith and Randolph. [12-5305]

Is this court joking? Where do the words "in the home" appear in the Second Amendment?

 

[Al Norris]

No, the court is not joking.

We should all know that the only courts to hold "outside the home" are the 7th CA and (for) now the 9th CA.

I realize what you are saying, but it is what it is. Until the SCOTUS takes this up, the courts, by and large, have held to the exact outcome of Heller. It's called, Judicial Rebellion.

Expect, Tuesday or Wednesday for a 28J letter to be filed explaining the 9th's detailed explanation of the right of self defense.

Should I also mention that Alan Gura details this (except for the recent opinion of O'Scannlain) in his supplemental brief?

 

[tyme]

Typical 12-year-old reasoning by the lower courts. "But [SCOTUS], you only said A, not (obvious consequence) B... how was I supposed to know you meant B as well?"

I wish our judicial system would stop this nonsense, stop wasting so many resources, let everyone who's not a ward of the state carry a gun, and get on with cases that aren't so obvious. But no, that would mean rethinking preconceptions and prejudices and possibly going against the political current. We can't have that! Considerations like public opinion, precedent, political upsides and downsides must take precedence over obvious logic!