Articles

11-10-2017 – The End of California Concealed Carry

10-15-2017 – Governor Brown Signs Bill Allowing Guns Inside of Gun-Free School Zones

10-12-2017 – Is There a Right to Keep and Bear Arms? 9th Circuit to Decide in 2018

9-12-2017 – NRA Open Carry Lawsuit Opposes Open Carry

9-3-2017 – Supreme Court Long Conference on September 25, 2017

8-14-2017 – A Declaration That Open Carry Is the Right

7-28-2017 – Transcript Released in NRA’s Fake Open Carry Lawsuit

7-24-2017 – 50th Anniversary of California’s Loaded Open Carry Ban

7-12-2017 – Can we Save Our Right to Keep and Bear Arms?

6-27-2017 – Supreme Court Decides to Wait for Another Second Amendment Case

6/15/2017 – The Evil Practice of Carrying Weapons Secretly

6/6/2017 – NRA Lawyer says Odds are Supreme Court will NOT take Concealed Carry Case

6/2/2017 – The NRA Lost Another Second Amendment Appeal Today

5/29/2017 – Lead Plaintiff in Supreme Court Concealed Carry Appeal says Courts are Corrupt

5/23/2017 – Peruta Concealed Carry Lawsuit has Waited 2,768 Days – Supreme Court says Wait Longer

5/20/2017 – Second Amendment Case Peruta vs. California May Strike-Out at Supreme Court

5/03/2017 – Did the NRA Take a Dive in its Fake Open Carry Lawsuit?

5/01/2017 – Supreme Court Again Silent on Second Amendment

04/22/2017 – Supreme Court Math and Concealed Carry in Peruta v. California

04/14/2017 – Federal Judge Upholds Nonexistent Gun Ban

04/12/2017 – Concealed Carry, Incest, Gay Marriage and the Supreme Court

04/05/2017 – Justice Neil Gorsuch and the Second Amendment

3/29/2017 – The Next Second Amendment Handgun Carry Case to Go Down in Flames

3/28/2017 – Federal Judge Tells NRA to Put Up or Shut Up in Open Carry Lawsuit

3/22/2017 – Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor Finally Recognizes the Second Amendment

3/13/2017 – Another Second Amendment Appeal Shot-Down by the 9th Circuit

3/10/2017 – US Supreme Court to Decide Concealed Carry Petition in Two Weeks

3/5/2017 – The Florida Supreme Court Just Handed The US Supreme Court a Second Amendment Case It Can’t Refuse

2/23/2017 – California Asks Supreme Court to Wait For Nichols v. Brown Open Carry Appeal

2/15/2017 – NRA Got Spanked for Valentine’s Day!

2/3/2017 – President Trump’s Supreme Court Nominee Neil Gorsuch

1/24/2017 -A Concealed Carry Case SCOTUS Can’t Refuse

1/23/2017 -President Trump’s Judicial Opportunity and Conundrum

1/13/2017 -NRA Tells Supreme Court Open Carry is Perverse

1/11/2017 – NRA Drops Supreme Court Concealed Carry Appeal

12/30/2016 – NRA Asks US Supreme Court To Hear Two Concealed Carry Lawsuits

12/10/2016 – National Concealed Carry Snake Oil Law Will Fail

11/29/2016 – What Lies Ahead for the Second Amendment?

11/10/2016 – The Second Amendment and President Trump

10/03/2016 – A Federal 9th Circuit Judge Finally Finds a Right to Bear Arms in Public

9/28/2016 – Are You Protected by the Fourth Amendment if You Carry a Firearm?

9/20/2016 – Two Concealed Carry Cases Fire Blanks in U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

9/8/2016 – Another Second Amendment Appeal Crashing and Burning in 9th Circuit

8/24/2016 – Concealed Carry Snake Oil and Kool-Aid Peddlers Leave Town for DC

8/18/2016 – The NRA Files Legal Challenge To California Open Carry Bans – But Not Really

8/17/2016 – The Battle for the Second Amendment Moves to Hawaii

8/15/2016 – There is No Right to Concealed Carry – 9th Circuit Denies Full Court Petitions

8/5/2016 – Did California Lie to 11 Federal Judges in Second Amendment Lawsuits?

7/15/2016 – God Save The US From The Second Amendment Lawyers

7/8/2016 – NRA Segregation Now, Tomorrow, and Forever Position Must Fail

7/4/2016 – Try Recalling California’s Anti-Gun Politicians Before Starting Your Revolution

6/27/2016 – NRA Head Wayne LaPierre Really, Really Hates the Second Amendment

6/24/2016 – Judges Who Uphold Bans on Concealed Carry Are Not the Same as Judges Who Look the Other Way When Police Murder People in the Street

6/15/2016 – Where is the NRA’s California Open Carry Lawsuit?

6/13/2016 – What’s Next for the Right to Carry Firearms in Public?

6/8/2016 – Florida Supreme Court Justices Voice Contempt for the Second Amendment

6/5/2016 – Florida Supreme Court to Hear Second Amendment Carry Case with National Ramifications

5/17/2016 – The Second Amendment and the Concealed Carry Problem

5/11/2016 – Federal Court of Appeals Goes Berserk During Second Amendment Gun Case Hearing

5/10/2016 – California Supreme Court Shoots Itself In Foot Over Gun Case

4/25/2016 – Second Amendment Foundation Files Another Concealed Carry Lawsuit: May Backfire

4/13/2016 – Has the NRA Come to Bury the Second Amendment or to Defend It? –

4/6/2016 – Second Amendment Must Wait A Bit Longer In 9th Circuit

3/26/2016 – Concealed Carry of Concealable Firearm in a Vehicle Now a Crime of Moral Turpitude

3/21/2016 – Supreme Court decision wasn’t about stun guns – It was about the Second Amendment decision in District of Columbia v. Heller which is bad news for concealed carry

3/7/2016 – How to Stop Anti-Gun Bills in California from Becoming Law

3/3/2016 – The California Supreme Court Case Which Could Upend the Gun-Groups Concealed Carry Lawsuits

2/24/2016 – The Second Amendment – Checkmate in Four Moves?

2/10/2016 – Why California’s Waiting Period to Purchase a Firearm Will Be Upheld

2/3/2016 – Florida House of Representatives Passes Handgun Open Carry Bill

1/27/2016 – The NRA Thinks Not Getting Caught In A Lie Is The Same Thing As Telling The Truth

12/11/2015 – Why Were the San Bernardino Shooting Victims Unarmed?

11/20/2015 – Attorney Alan Gura May Have Fumbled Another Second Amendment Case

11/20/2015 – HELP WANTED: Competent Second Amendment Lawyer – Inquire Within

11/9/2015 – The Supreme Court may have Finally Found its Next Second Amendment Case

9/2/2015 – Full Derp Battle over Concealed Carry in District of Columbia

9/1/2015 – National Rifle Association Drops Lawsuit against San Francisco

8/31/2015 – The Future of the Second Amendment in California and Hawaii

8/25/2015 – Yes, America, the Second Amendment is a Universal Right!

8/14/2015 – Will this be the Supreme Court’s Next Second Amendment Case?

7/3/2015 – The Future of Open Carry in California Looks Bright

6/16/2015 – State of California Concedes Second Amendment Extends Outside the Home

6/8/2015 – The Second Amendment is Now in the Hands of these Eleven Judges

6/8/2015 – Supreme Court Won’t Hear Second Amendment Cases Until there is a Circuit Split

5/29/2015 – NRA Opposes Open Carry – NRA Now Takes Credit for New Texas Handgun Open Carry Law

5/26/2015 – Four Years Ago Today: Is Open Carry The Right Guaranteed By The Second Amendment

5/18/2015 – Why the Second Amendment Keeps Losing in Court

5/2/2015 – Black Panther Party Invades California Capitol – 48 Years Ago Today

5/1/2015 – The NRA Rearranges Deck Chairs on the Titanic

4/22/2015 – Chief Judge of 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Grants Motion of Lone Voice Defending the Second Amendment Open Carry Right

4/11/2015 – An Open Letter to the Orange County Register’s Editorial on Concealed Carry

4/03/2015 – Another Shoe Drops on the California Concealed Carry Lawsuits

2/27/2015 – Federal Judge Says No Second Amendment Right To Own Firearms

12/6/2014 – The First Shoe Drops On California Concealed Carry Lawsuits

11/30/2014 – Open Carry Gunfight At The California Corral: Start Of Year Four

11/30/2014 – California Open Carry Gunfight Begins Its Fourth Year

11/12/2014 – California Concealed Carry Permits – The Fat Lady Still Hasn’t Sung in Peruta v. San Diego

10/17/2014 – It may be Legal to Carry a Handgun in the Nation’s Capitol by Christmas

10/3/2014 – Another California Concealed Carry Lawsuit Loses before a Federal Judge

8/18/2014 – District of Columbia asks Court for More Time to Enact New Handgun Carry Ban

8/13/2014 – California Concealed Carry Case Peruta v. San Diego – Poised to Move or Stuck in the Mud?

7/30/2014 – Federal Judge Reluctantly Stays his Ruling in DC Handgun Ban

7/28/2014 – The DC Handgun Carry Decision – Throwing Victory into the Jaws of Defeat

7/26/2014 – Ban on Carrying Firearms in Public is Unconstitutional says DC Judge

7/21/2014 – The non-repeal of D.C., Gun-Control

7/2/2014 – US Supreme Court Still Silent On Second Amendment

6/28/2014 – Federal Judge Says Minorities Barred From Bringing Civil Rights Lawsuits

6/7/2014 – The NRA Supports Open Carry Except When The NRA Opposes Open Carry

6/2/2014 – NRA Lawyer Says California Concealed Carry Decision Likely To Be Overturned

6/1/2014 – NRA leadership Comes Out Of The Closet In Its Opposition To Open Carry

Please
donate $10, $25, $50 or $100 to the legal fund to restore your
right to openly carry a loaded firearm in California.

Click
here to donate to the legal fund

(Credit
or Debit cards – Visa, Mastercard, Amex, Discover or eCheck)


GoFundMe PayPal

Please donate $10, $25, $50 or $100 to the fight to restore your right to openly carry a loaded firearm in California.

Click here to donate.

Piryx

(Credit or Debit cards – Visa, Mastercard, Amex, Discover or eCheck)

BitCoins 1AdtAJfcdBkA777fwtVhmCwSwCKGTFrgGz Press@CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

Palmer v. District of Columbia - Case closed

Share

Palmer v. District of Columbia

Case Closed

This is the “carry” case out of D.C., brought by the SAF.  Alan Gura is the attorney.  On July 26, 2014, after nearly five years since the case was first filed, Senior Federal District Judge Frederick Scullin Jr. issued an order granting the Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and issuing an enjoining enforcement of the defendants’ ban on carrying handguns, openly or concealed, in public.  Here is a link to that order.  The District of Columbia enacted a new de facto ban.  A motion for a permanent injunction against the “new” ban was filed.

On April 2, 2015 the District of Columbia voluntarily dismissed its appeal of the Palmer decision of July 26, 2014.  D.C., will no longer be defending its old law enacted in 2008.  D.C., has chosen instead to defend its new law enacted after the 2008 law was struck down by Judge Scullin in the Order of July 26, 2014.  No doubt realizing that his original Complaint in Palmer v. D.C., was poorly written, attorney Alan Gura filed a new lawsuit – Wrenn v. D.C.  The new lawsuit does not challenge the new Open Carry ban which makes it a pure concealed carry case and we should all know by now that doesn’t bode well for success.

On August 13, 2015 the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss the remaining claims after settling on attorney fees and costs (reportedly $75k).  On August 14, 2015 the Court dismissed the remaining claims with prejudice.  This lawsuit is over.  The end result is that D.C., has enacted a new handgun Open Carry ban (the long gun Open Carry ban was never challenged) and D.C., has enacted a “may issue” concealed carry law, the “may” part is being challenged in the Wrenn case.

Here is a link to many of the briefs filed in this case – free.




Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – June 15,  2015 – On June 8th a joint motion to stay briefing on attorney fees was filed.  On June 9th the court reset the deadlines:

Full docket text:
Set/Reset Deadlines: Updated motion for attorney fees and costs due by 8/26/2015.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – June 5,  2015 – The plaintiffs got their $350 filing fee back.

Doc.
No.
Dates Description
93
Filed & Entered:   06/05/2015
Docket Text Bill of Costs Taxed

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – June 1,  2015 – Nothing new.

Update May 18, 2015 by Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry – Judge Scullin denied the contempt motion and denied the motion for a permanent injunction as being unnecessary.  Here is a link to today’s Order -> 92 – Order on Permanent Injunction  Note that Judge Scullin says he is prevented from ruling on the new DC law because of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65.

And so, after all of these years, Palmer v. District of Columbia goes out not with a bang but with a whimper.

Update May 7, 2015 – No update since the district court granted the motion to stay on April 7, 2015.  It has now been seven months and five days since the motion for a permanent injunction was filed.

Update April 22, 2015 – The district court granted the motion to stay on April 7, 2015.  It has now been six months and three weeks f since the motion for a permanent injunction was filed.

Doc.
No.
Dates Description
91
Filed & Entered:   04/07/2015
Docket Text Order on Motion to Stay

Update April 6, 2015 – The defendants filed a consent motion, to which the plaintiffs did not object, to: “stay briefing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs, until 30 days after a decision on plaintiffs’ pending (1) Motion for Permanent Injunction, or (2) Motion to Hold Defendants in Contempt, or 30 days after the issuance of the mandate on any appeal of those decisions, whichever is later.”

Doc.
No.
Dates Description
90
Filed & Entered:   04/06/2015
Docket Text Motion to Stay
89
Filed & Entered:   04/03/2015
Docket Text USCA Order
88
Filed & Entered:   04/02/2015
Docket Text Notice (Other)

Update April 2, 2015 – The defendants voluntarily dismissed their appeal of this case.  What Judge Scullin does next is anyone’s guess.  Other than two notices, one of which was a notice of the dismissal of the appeal filed today, there has been no activity in the case since December 11, 2014.

Update March 27, 2015 – The defendants filed a notice of supplemental authority that the Peruta v. San Diego decision was vacated.

Doc.
No.
Dates Description
87
Filed & Entered:   03/27/2015
Docket Text Notice (Other)

Update February 20, 2015 – There is nothing new on the district court docket.

Update January 20, 2015 – There is nothing new on either the district court or appellate dockets.

Update January 17, 2015 – The appellate motion to hold the appeal in abeyance and the appellate motion for summary affirmance were both denied.  The appeal now proceeds as if it were any other appeal.

01/16/2015 Open Document PER CURIAM ORDER filed [1532644] denying motion to hold case in abeyance [1524398-2]; denying motion for summary affirmance [1523395-2]. Before Judges: Rogers, Tatel and Brown. [14-7180]

 

Update January 8, 2015 – There is nothing new as of 3:45 pm Pacific Time.

Update January 3, 2015 – We are still waiting for decision on the motions for a permanent injunction against the “new” law and holding the defendants in contempt of court.  As of today, it is still illegal to carry any firearm in public for the purpose of self-defense in the District of Columbia.

Update December 12, 2014 – Here is the response by Palmer to the DC Opposition to the contempt motion.  The response was filed yesterday. -> Doc 86 – Palmer Reply to DC Opposition to Contempt Motion

Update December 5, 2014 – Here is the response by DC to the contempt motion.  The response was filed yesterday. -> Palmer Contempt Motion Response by DC Defendants

Update November 20, 2014 – Emily Miller of Fox News reported on today’s hearing that “The judge asked the defense whether he would have jurisdiction if the new law did not comply with his order on the Second Amendment. The city acknowledged that he would.”  Significantly, Miller added that  “Judge Scullin gave the city two weeks to respond to the contempt motion.”  This strongly suggests that Judge Scullin thinks that the new DC law does not comply with his Order striking down the DC handgun carry ban.

Here are the text entries from today’s docket.

“Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr: Motion Hearing held on 11/20/2014. Oral argument heard re [83] MOTION for Order to Show Cause. (Court Reporter Jan Dickman) (gdf)”

Full docket text for document 84:
TEXT SCHEDULING ORDER: regarding the # [83] Motion for Order to Show Cause. Response to Motion due by 12/4/2014. Reply to Response to Motion due by 12/11/2014. IT IS SO ORDERED by Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr. on 11/20/2014. (Scullin, Frederick)”

Filed & Entered:   11/20/2014
Docket Text Motion Hearing
84
Filed & Entered:   11/20/2014
Docket Text Scheduling Order

Update November 19, 2014 – Palmer upped the ante by filing a motion to hold the defendants in contempt of court.  There was a minute entry from today regarding the telephone conference which reads as follows:

TEXT Minute Entry for Telephone Conference held on 11/19/2014 before Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr: Court advised that it would hear oral argument tomorrow, as scheduled, on motion for permanent injunction and motion for an order to have Defendants show cause why the Court should not hold Defendants in contempt. All agreed that the first issue to address was the scope of the Court’s jurisdiction given Defendants filing of Notice of Appeal. Court advised it would also hear arguments on the merits of Plaintiffs’ motions. Appearances: Alan Gura, Esq. for pltfs; Andrew Saindon, Esq. for defts. (Scullin, Frederick)

83 – Contempt Motion – Main

Update November 18, 2014 – The dance continues.  Yesterday, Palmer filed this missive back at the Defendants.

Update November 14, 2014 – The defendants filed a notice of appeal today.  It looks like I was right about their not wanting to risk losing their right to appeal by construing the written order denying their motion for reconsideration as the date for when the clock starts ticking as opposed to the oral order denying their motion back on October 17th.

Update November 6, 2014 – The district court having previous denied the District’s motion for reconsideration put its reasons in writing and published it today. You can read it here.

Update October 31, 2014 – The Plaintiffs filed a Reply Brief to the D.C., opposition to the Permanent Injunction.  The complete brief including attachments can be downloaded here.  It is approximately 3MB in size.

Update October 23, 2014 – The deadline for D.C., to file its notice of appeal is November 17th.  The motion hearing for the permanent injunction is November 20, 2014.  If D.C., has not filed its notice of appeal by then it has forfeited its right to do so which places Judge Scullin in a very powerful position.

Update October 22, 2014 – The stay of the injunction against D.C.’s old code section expired today.  As of 7:12 pm Eastern Time there was no activity regarding the motion for a permanent injunction filed against the new D.C., law.  An interesting loophole in the two laws, which I do not advise anyone to test, is that the prohibition on the Open Carry of handguns seems to have fallen through the cracks.  Time well tell.

Update October 20, 2014 – The Defendants filed Palmer v. DC – Defendants MPA in Opposition to PI to the motion for a permanent injunction.

Update October 17, 2014 – The motion for reconsideration by DC was denied.  The 30 day clock now starts ticking on its motion to appeal.  Judge Scullin has set a November 20th date to hear oral arguments on Palmer’s motion for a permanent injunction against the new ordinance.  Palmer also filed a notice of supplemental authority to Morris v. U.S. Corps of Army Engineers.

Minute Entry for Motion Hearing held before Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr. on 10/17/14 : Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration [63], heard, argued and denied. The Court will issued a written opinion. Oral Argument on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Permanent Injunction [71] set for 11/20/14 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 21.

Update October 2, 2014 – I was wondering what Gura was going to do with the new may-issue law enacted by the D.C., city council.  Now we know.  Here are links to the: Motion for a Permanent Injunction, Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion, Exhibit A – The new law, and the Proposed Order.

Update September 26, 2014 – The plaintiffs filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority to  Binderup v. Holder, No. 13-6750-JKG, ___ F. Supp. 2d __ (E.D. Pa. Sept.
25, 2014).

Update September 23, 2014 – Judge Scullin today took the motion hearing off schedule.  Also, the DC City council unanimously passed its highly restrictive may-issue concealed carry permit law.

“Set/Reset Hearings: Motion Hearing set for 10/17/2014 10:30 AM in A courtroom will be determined at a later date. before Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr.. (zmm, ) ”

Update September 22, 2014 – The Defendants filed their Reply Brief In Support of Motion For Reconsideration.

Update September 19, 2014 – The proposed legislation for next Tuesday’s city council meeting is now online.  Here is a link to the Emergency Declaration.  Here is a link to the “Emergency Basis” bill.  Here is a link to the “Temporary Basis” bill.

Update September 18, 2014 – The D.C., government issued a press release yesterday on the new legislation which, if approved, will go into effect no later than October 22, 2014.  It is a may-issue permit law for those who prove a “need” to carry.  The press release can be found here.  If you read the two claims for relief and the prayer for relief from Gura’s Complaint filed back in 2009 you might notice that Gura got what he asked for in the Complaint which was an injunction against the ban on carrying a handgun in public and the registration requirement for non-residents.

Gura’s ask for an order to issue licenses was in the “alternative” to issuing injunctions. Gura got the injunctions.

Technically this case could be closed with the new may-issue law without any of the defendants obtaining a permit.

Regardless, a new complaint will need to be filed which means the whole process starts anew.

Update September 17, 2014 – Today, the court issued the following 66 – ORDER on stay pending appeal “Having reviewed the parties’ submissions in support of and in opposition to Defendants’ motion for a stay pending an appeal, the Court hereby ORDERS that Defendants’ motion is DENIED; however, the Court will entertain a motion to extend the stay beyond October 22, 2014. If Defendants wish to make such a motion, they must file papers in support of that motion on or before October 3, 2014, setting forth in detail what, if any, progress they have made to comply with the Court’s decision. Plaintiffs may file any opposition that they have to Defendants’ motion on or before October 10, 2014. If Defendants file such a motion, the Court will hear oral argument in support of, and in opposition to, said motion on October 17, 2014, at 10:30 a.m.; and the Court further ORDERS that the Court will hear oral argument in support of, and in opposition to, Defendants’ motion for reconsideration on October 17, 2014, at 10:30 a.m.”

Update September 11, 2014 – Today a 17 page Memorandum in Opposition to the Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration was filed.

Update August 31, 2014 – Many people are confused as to the current status of this case, particularly in regards to an appeal.  When the DC Defendants filed their motion for reconsideration a week ago they reset the clock on when they must file their notice of appeal and reset the clock on when that notice of appeal goes into effect.  The Defendants can file a notice of appeal at any time but until Judge Scullin rules on their motion for consideration, the appeal cannot proceed.  If Judge Scullin denies their motion for reconsideration then they have 30 days from the date of denial within which to file their notice of appeal.  If Judge Scullin grants their motion for reconsideration then the Plaintiffs have 30 days within which to file their notice of appeal.  There is no time limit for Judge Scullin to rule on the motion for reconsideration.  He can sit on the motion for as long as he likes.  By filing their motion for reconsideration the Defendants gave Judge Scullin a great deal of power to decide what the District’s new law will look like.  According to press reports and a reliable source, the District lawyers are drafting a Maryland style “may issue” law.  The Plaintiff’s have said they will oppose that type of law.

The Defendants have also asked for an additional 90 day stay.  At this point, all we can do is wait and see what happens.

 

Update August 26, 2014 – SCOTUSblog published this article on the case.

Update August 25, 2014 – The defendants filed a motion for reconsideration today.  Tomorrow was the deadline.

Update August 18, 2014 – The defendants filed a brief responding to the opposition to a further stay filed earlier this month.  Here is a link.

Update August 4, 2014 – Alan Gura filed an opposition to a stay pending appeal.  Once again Gura argues that the District of Columbia may “regulate” the carrying of handguns which is to say “ban” Open Carry.

Update July 29, 2014 – Alan Gura had agreed to a 90 day stay of the Palmer decision and so the stay was granted.  The judge also clarified that his now stayed injunction applied only to the carrying of handguns and not to any other type of “deadly dangerous weapon.”  Barring a further stay, this one is in effect until October 22, 2014.

Update July 28, 2014 – Alan Gura published the DC Police memo regarding the Palmer decision here.  The District of Columbia today filed a motion for a stay in which Gura agreed to a 90 day stay. Yesterday, Gura filed an unopposed motion to dismiss his writ of mandamus which is clearly moot now that a decision has been issued.

Update July 26, 2014 – Palmer wins in district court.  Here is a link to the decision.  Here is a link to the Complaint. Here is a link to the District of Columbia laws. D.C. Code § 22-4504(a) (2014) which was enjoined applies to handguns be they carried openly or concealed as well as to long guns, which can only be openly carried, as this section of the code also applies to rifles and shotguns.  To be honest, I don’t know if the decision applies to long guns as well.  The court issued an injunction against D.C. Code § 22-4504(a) and the long gun restrictions are in subsection § 22-4504(a-1).

D.C. Code § 22-4504

 

Formerly cited as 1981 Ed., § 22-3204

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OFFICIAL CODE
Copyright (c) 2014 by the District of Columbia

*** Current through laws effective as of May 19, 2014, and through D.C. Act 20-306 ***

DIVISION IV.  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE AND PRISONERS  
TITLE 22.  CRIMINAL OFFENSES AND PENALTIES  
SUBTITLE VI.  REGULATION AND POSSESSION OF WEAPONS  
CHAPTER 45.  WEAPONS AND POSSESSION OF WEAPONS

D.C. Code § 22-4504  (2014)

§ 22-4504. Carrying concealed weapons; possession of weapons during commission of crime of violence; penalty 

   (a) No person shall carry within the District of Columbia either openly or concealed on or about their person, a pistol, or any deadly or dangerous weapon capable of being so concealed. Whoever violates this section shall be punished as provided in § 22-4515, except that:
 
      (1) A person who violates this section by carrying a pistol, or any deadly or dangerous weapon, in a place other than the person’s dwelling place, place of business, or on other land possessed by the person, shall be fined not more than the amount set forth in § 22-3571.01 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both; or
 
      (2) If the violation of this section occurs after a person has been convicted in the District of Columbia of a violation of this section or of a felony, either in the District of Columbia or another jurisdiction, the person shall be fined not more than the amount set forth in § 22-3571.01 or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both.
 
   (a-1) Except as otherwise permitted by law, no person shall carry within the District of Columbia a rifle or shotgun. A person who violates this subsection shall be subject to the criminal penalties set forth in subsection (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
 
   (b) No person shall within the District of Columbia possess a pistol, machine gun, shotgun, rifle, or any other firearm or imitation firearm while committing a crime of violence or dangerous crime as defined in § 22-4501. Upon conviction of a violation of this subsection, the person may be sentenced to imprisonment for a term not to exceed 15 years and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a mandatory-minimum term of not less than 5 years and shall not be released on parole, or granted probation or suspension of sentence, prior to serving the mandatory-minimum sentence.
 
   (c) In addition to any other penalty provided under this section, a person may be fined an amount not more than the amount set forth in § 22-3571.01.

HISTORY: July 8, 1932, 47 Stat. 651, ch. 465, § 4; Nov. 4, 1943, 57 Stat. 586, ch. 296; Aug. 4, 1947, 61 Stat. 743, ch. 469; June 29, 1953, 67 Stat. 94, ch. 159, § 204(c); July 28, 1989, D.C. Law 8-19, § 3(c), 36 DCR 2844; May 8, 1990, D.C. Law 8-120, § 3(c), 37 DCR 24; May 21, 1994, D.C. Law 10-119,§ 15(c), 41 DCR 1639; Aug. 20, 1994, D.C. Law 10-151, § 302, 41 DCR 2608; May 20, 2009, D.C. Law 17-388, § 2(c), 56 DCR 1162; Sept. 29, 2012, D.C. Law 19-170, § 3(d), 59 DCR 5691; June 11, 2013, D.C. Law 19-317, §§ 240(b), 309(a), 60 DCR 2064.

NOTES:
CROSS REFERENCES. –Eligibility for geriatric or medical parole, exceptions, see § 24-467.
   Forfeiture of vehicles and vessels for weapons offenses, see § 7-2507.06a.
   Institutional and educational good time credits, exceptions, see § 24-221.06.
   Use of deadly and non-deadly force, private correctional officer employed by private operator, see § 24-261.02.
 
SECTION REFERENCES. –This section is referenced in § 7-2507.06a, § 22-2511, § 22-4505, § 22-4513, § 23-1322, § 24-221.06, § 24-261.02, and § 24-467.
 
PRIOR CODIFICATIONS. –1981 Ed., § 22-3204.
   1973 Ed., § 22-3204.
 
EFFECT OF AMENDMENTS. –D.C. Law 17-388 added subsec. (a-1).
   The 2012 amendment by D.C. Law 19-170 deleted “without a license issued pursuant to District of Columbia law” following “a pistol” in the first sentence of the introductory language of (a) and in (a)(1).
   The 2013 amendment by D.C. Law 19-317 substituted “not more than the amount set forth in § 22-3571.01” for “not more than $5,000” in (a)(1), and for “not more than $10,000” in (a)(2); and added (c).
 
EMERGENCY LEGISLATION. –For temporary amendment of section, see § 302 of the Omnibus Criminal Justice Reform Emergency Amendment Act of 1994 (D.C. Act 10-255, June 22, 1994, 41 DCR 4286).
   For temporary authorization for seizure and forfeiture of firearms under certain circumstances, see § 2 of the Zero Tolerance for Guns Emergency Amendment Act of 1996 (D.C. Act 11-390, August 26, 1996, 43 DCR 4986).
   For temporary (90 day) amendment of section, see § 3(b) of Second Firearms Control Emergency Amendment Act of 2008 (D.C. Act 17-502, September 16, 2008, 55 DCR 9904).
   For temporary (90 day) amendment of section, see § 3(b) of Second Firearms Control Congressional Review Emergency Amendment Act of 2008 (D.C. Act 17-601, December 12, 2008, 56 DCR 9).
   For temporary (90 day) amendment of section, see § 2(c) of Inoperable Pistol Emergency Amendment Act of 2008 (D.C. Act 17-652, January 6, 2009, 56 DCR 927).
   For temporary (90 day) additions, see § 2(d) of Inoperable Pistol Emergency Amendment Act of 2008 (D.C. Act 17-652, January 6, 2009, 59 DCR 927).
   For temporary amendment of (a), see § 3(d) of the Firearms Second Congressional Review Emergency Amendment Act of 2012 (D.C. Act 19-510, October 26, 2012, 59 DCR 12808).
   For temporary (90 days) amendment of this section, see §§ 240(b) and 309(a) of the Criminal Fine Proportionality Emergency Amendment Act of 2013 (D.C. Act 20-45, April 1, 2013, 60 DCR 5400, 20 DCSTAT 1300).
 
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF LAW 8-19. –For legislative history of D.C. Law 8-19, see Historical and Statutory Notes following § 22-4501.
 
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF LAW 8-120. –For legislative history of D.C. Law 8-120, see Historical and Statutory Notes following § 22-4501.
 
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF LAW 10-119. –For legislative history of D.C. Law 10-119, see Historical and Statutory Notes following § 22-4502.
 
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF LAW 10-151. –For legislative history of D.C. Law 10-151, see Historical and Statutory Notes following § 22-4501.
 
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF LAW 17-388. –For Law 17-388, see notes following § 22-4501.
 
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF LAW 19-170. –See note to § 22-4501.
 
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF LAW 19-317. –See note to § 22-4502.
 
EDITOR’S NOTES. –Seizure and forfeiture of conveyances used in firearms offenses: Section 2(b) of D.C. Law 11-273 provided for the forfeiture and seizure of any conveyance, including vehicles and vessels in which any person or persons transport, possess, or conceal any firearm as defined in § 6-2302 [§ 7-2501.01, 2001 Ed.], or in any manner use to facilitate a violation of §§ 22-3203 and 22-3204 [§§ 22-4503 and 22-4504, 2001 Ed.].
   Applicability of D.C. Law 19-317: Section 401 of D.C. Law 19-317 provided that the act shall apply only to offenses committed on or after June 11, 2013.

D.C. Code § 7-2502.02

Formerly cited as 1981 Ed., § 6-2312

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OFFICIAL CODE
Copyright (c) 2014 by the District of Columbia

*** Current through laws effective as of May 19, 2014, and through D.C. Act 20-306 ***

DIVISION I.  GOVERNMENT OF DISTRICT  
TITLE 7.  HUMAN HEALTH CARE AND SAFETY  
SUBTITLE J.  PUBLIC SAFETY  
CHAPTER 25.  FIREARMS CONTROL  
UNIT A.  FIREARMS CONTROL REGULATIONS  
SUBCHAPTER II.  FIREARMS AND DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES

D.C. Code § 7-2502.02  (2014)

§ 7-2502.02. Registration of certain firearms prohibited 


   (a) A registration certificate shall not be issued for a:
 
      (1) Sawed-off shotgun;
 
      (2) Machine gun;
 
      (3) Short-barreled rifle;
 
      (4) Pistol not validly registered to the current registrant in the District prior to September 24, 1976, except that the prohibition on registering a pistol shall not apply to:
 
         (A) Any organization that employs at least one commissioned special police officer or other employee licensed to carry a firearm and that arms the employee with a firearm during the employee’s duty hours;
 
         (B) A police officer who has retired from the Metropolitan Police Department;
 
         (C) Any person who seeks to register a pistol for use in self-defense within that person’s home; or
 
         (D) A firearms instructor, or an organization that employs a firearms instructor, for the purpose of conducting firearms training.
 
      (5) An unsafe firearm prohibited under § 7-2505.04;
 
      (6) An assault weapon; or
 
      (7) A .50 BMG rifle.
 
   (b) Repealed.

HISTORY: Sept. 24, 1976, D.C. Law 1-85, title II, § 202, 23 DCR 2464; Mar. 16, 1978, D.C. Law 2-62, § 2, 24 DCR 5780; May 7, 1993, D.C. Law 9-266, § 2(b), 39 DCR 5676; Mar. 31, 2009, D.C. Law 17-372, § 3(c), 56 DCR 1365; Sept. 29, 2012, D.C. Law 19-170, § 2(c), 59 DCR 5691.

NOTES:
SECTION REFERENCES. –This section is referenced in § 7-2502.09, § 7-2504.01, § 7-2505.02, and § 7-2507.06a.
 
PRIOR CODIFICATIONS. –1981 Ed., § 6-2312.
   1973 Ed., § 6-1812.
 
EFFECT OF AMENDMENTS. –D.C. Law 17-372, in subsec. (a), deleted “or” from the end of par. (3), rewrote par. (4), and added pars. (5), (6), and (7); and repealed subsec. (b).
   The 2012 amendment by D.C. Law 19-170 added (a)(4)(D); and made related changes.
 
EMERGENCY LEGISLATION. –For temporary (90 day) amendment, see § 2(a) of Firearms Control Emergency Amendment Act of 2008 (D.C. Act 17-422, July 16, 2008,
   For temporary amendment of (a)(4), see § 2(c) of the Firearms Second Congressional Review Emergency Amendment Act of 2012 (D.C. Act 19-510, October 26, 2012, 59 DCR 12808).
   For temporary (90 day) amendment of section, see § 2(b) of Second Firearms Control Emergency Amendment Act of 2008 (D.C. Act 17-502, September 16, 2008, 55 DCR 9904).
   For temporary (90 day) repeal of D.C. Act 17-422, see § 5 of Second Firearms Control Emergency Amendment Act of 2008 (D.C. Act 17-502, September 16, 2008, 55 DCR 9904).
   For temporary (90 day) amendment of section, see §§ 2(b) and 4 of Second Firearms Control Congressional Review Emergency Amendment Act of 2008 (D.C. Act 17-601, December 12, 2008, 56 DCR 9).
   For temporary (90 day) amendment of section, see § 3(c) of Firearms Registration Emergency Amendment Act of 2008 (D.C. Act 17-651, January 6, 2009, 56 DCR 911).
   For temporary (90 day) amendment of section, see § 2(c) of Firearms Emergency Amendment Act of 2012 (D.C. Act 19-352, May 11, 2012, 59 DCR 5116).
   For temporary (90 day) amendment of section, see § 2(c) of the Firearms Amendments Congressional Review Emergency Amendment Act of 2012 (D.C. Act 19-394, July 18, 2012, 59 DCR 8694).
 
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF LAW 1-85. –For legislative history of D.C. Law 1-85, see Historical and Statutory Notes following § 7-2501.01.
 
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF LAW 2-62. –For legislative history of D.C. Law 2-62, see Historical and Statutory Notes following § 7-2501.01.
 
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF LAW 9-266. –For legislative history of D.C. Law 9-266, see Historical and Statutory Notes following § 7-2502.01.
 
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF LAW 17-372. –For Law 17-372, see notes following § 7-2501.01.
 
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF LAW 19-170. –See note to § 7-2501.01.

 

 

Update July 7, 2014 – It has now been two months and a day since the renewal of the petition for a writ of mandamus/mandate.

 

General Docket
United States Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit
Court of Appeals Docket #: 13-5317 Docketed: 10/21/2013
Termed: 12/16/2013
In re: Tom Palmer, et al
Appeal From: United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Fee Status: Fee Paid
Case Type Information:
     1) Orig. Proceeding US
     2) Mandamus
     3)
Originating Court Information:
     District: 0090-1 : 1:09-cv-01482-FJS
     Court Reporter: Patricia Kaneshiro-Miller, Court Reporter
     Court Reporter: Annie Shaw
     Trial Judge: Frederick J. Scullin, Junior, U.S. Senior District Judge

10/21/2013 US CIVIL ORIGINAL PROCEEDING CASE docketed. [13-5317]
10/21/2013 Open Document PETITION filed [1462459] by Petitioners George Lyon, Amy McVey, Tom G. Palmer, Edward Raymond and Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. for writ of mandamus. [Service Date: 10/21/2013 by Hand Delivery] Pages: 21-30. [13-5317]
12/16/2013 Open Document PER CURIAM ORDER filed [1470800] denying petition for writ of mandamus [1462459-2]. The Clerk is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the district court. Before Judges: Henderson, Brown and Srinivasan. [13-5317]
05/06/2014 Open Document NOTICE FILED [1491654] by George Lyon, Amy McVey, Tom G. Palmer, Edward Raymond and Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. Renewal of Petition per Court’s Dec. 16, 2013 order. [Service Date: 05/06/2014 ] [13-5317] (Gura, Alan)
05/06/2014 Open Document CORRECTED NOTICE FILED [1491667] by George Lyon, Amy McVey, Tom G. Palmer, Edward Raymond and Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. Renewal of Petition per Court’s Dec. 16, 2013 order. [Service Date: 05/05/2014 ] [13-5317] (Gura, Alan)

Update June 15, 2014 – I’ve added the PACER Federal Appellate docket below.  It took one month and 25 days to deny the first writ filed on 10/21/2013.  The second writ was filed on May 6, 2013.

Update May 7, 2014 – This morning Alan Gura tweeted this “Renewal of Petition for a Writ of Mandamus” he filed in the hope that it will force a ruling in the district court which has been languishing for years.

Update April 4, 2014 – There was some activity in Palmer v. DC, the SAF/Gura handgun “carry” case out of D.C.  One year, 5 months, and 9 days after there was any docket activity by the district court judge, the judge denied Gura’s motion to strike a memorandum on March 31st.  The motion to strike was filed by Gura on May 24, 2012.  Whether or not means that there will be further movement in the case is anyone’s guess.  After all, it took the judge nearly two years to write this one sentence order:

Full docket text for document 50:
TEXT ORDER denying [34] Motion to Strike [33] Supplemental Memorandum.IT IS SO ORDERED by Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr on 3/31/2014. (Scullin, Frederick)

Prior to March 31st, the last docket entry reflecting anything from the district court judge was this:

Full docket text: Filed & Entered: 10/26/2012
Courtroom Designation for November 1, 2012 10:30am. All counsel please report to Courtroom #17. (Scullin, Frederick)

You will need a Federal PACER account to access the individual court filings from the online court dockets below.  Here is a link with some of the filings in the case available to download for free.

Here is the D.C. Appellate Docket 

General Docket
United States Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit
Court of Appeals Docket #: 14-7180 Docketed: 11/19/2014
Nature of Suit: 3950 Constitutionality of State Statutes
Tom Palmer, et al v. DC, et al
Appeal From: United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Fee Status: Fee Waived
Case Type Information:
     1) Civil Private
     2) Private
     3)
Originating Court Information:
     District: 0090-1 : 1:09-cv-01482-FJS Lead: 1:09-cv-01482-FJS
     Court Reporter: Bowles Reporting Services, Court Reporter
     Court Reporter: Patricia Kaneshiro-Miller, Court Reporter
     Court Reporter: Annie Shaw
     Trial Judge: Frederick J. Scullin, Junior, U.S. Senior District Judge
     Date Filed: 08/06/2009
     Date Order/Judgment:      Date NOA Filed:
     11/06/2014      11/14/2014

11/19/2014 Open Document ENTRY OF APPEARANCE [1523391] filed by Alan Gura on behalf of Appellees George Lyon, Amy McVey, Tom G. Palmer, Edward Raymond and Second Amendment Foundation, Inc.. [14-7180] (Gura, Alan)
11/19/2014 Open Document CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS AND RELATED CASES [1523392] filed by George Lyon, Amy McVey, Tom G. Palmer, Edward Raymond and Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. [Service Date: 11/19/2014 ] [14-7180] (Gura, Alan)
11/19/2014 Open Document STATEMENT FILED [1523393] by Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. with Disclosure Listing [Service Date: 11/19/2014 ] [14-7180] (Gura, Alan)
11/19/2014 Open Document MOTION filed [1523395] by George Lyon, Amy McVey, Tom G. Palmer, Edward Raymond and Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. for summary affirmance. (Response to Motion served by mail due on 12/04/2014) [Service Date: 11/19/2014 by CM/ECF NDA] Pages: 16-20. [14-7180] (Gura, Alan)
11/25/2014 Open Document ENTRY OF APPEARANCE [1524393] filed by Holly M. Johnson and co-counsel Todd S. Kim on behalf of Appellants DC and Cathy L. Lanier. [14-7180] (Johnson, Holly)
11/25/2014 INCORRECT DOCKET ENTRY-DISREGARD–MOTION filed [1524395] by DC and Cathy L. Lanier to hold case in abeyance (Response to Motion served by mail due on 12/08/2014) [Service Date: 11/25/2014 by CM/ECF NDA] Pages: 1-10. [14-7180]–[Edited 11/26/2014 by JJA] (Johnson, Holly)
11/25/2014 Open Document CORRECTED MOTION filed [1524398] by DC and Cathy L. Lanier to hold case in abeyance (Response to Motion served by mail due on 12/08/2014) [Service Date: 11/25/2014 by CM/ECF NDA] Pages: 1-10. [14-7180] (Johnson, Holly)
12/08/2014 Open Document RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION FILED [1526088] by George Lyon, Amy McVey, Tom G. Palmer, Edward Raymond and Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. to motion to hold case in abeyance [1524398-2] [Service Date: 12/08/2014 by CM/ECF NDA] Pages: 1-10. [14-7180] (Gura, Alan)
12/12/2014 Open Document REPLY FILED [1526998] by DC and Cathy L. Lanier to response [1526088-2] [Service Date: 12/12/2014 by CM/ECF NDA] Pages: 1-10. [14-7180] (Johnson, Holly)
01/16/2015 Open Document PER CURIAM ORDER filed [1532644] denying motion to hold case in abeyance [1524398-2]; denying motion for summary affirmance [1523395-2]. Before Judges: Rogers, Tatel and Brown. [14-7180]

Here is the D.C. District Court Docket

1:09-cv-01482-FJS PALMER et al v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al
Frederick J. Scullin, Jr, presiding
Date filed: 08/06/2009
Date terminated: 07/29/2014
Date of last filing: 06/09/2015

History

 

Doc.
No.
Dates Description
Filed & Entered:   06/09/2015
Docket Text Set/Reset Deadlines
94
Filed & Entered:   06/08/2015
Terminated: 06/08/2015
Docket Text Motion to Stay
95
Filed & Entered:   06/08/2015
Docket Text Order on Motion to Stay
93
Filed & Entered:   06/05/2015
Docket Text Bill of Costs Taxed
92
Filed & Entered:   05/18/2015
Docket Text Order on Motion for Permanent Injunction
91
Filed & Entered:   04/07/2015
Docket Text Order on Motion to Stay
90
Filed & Entered:   04/06/2015
Terminated: 04/07/2015
Docket Text Motion to Stay
89
Filed & Entered:   04/03/2015
Docket Text USCA Order
88
Filed & Entered:   04/02/2015
Docket Text Notice (Other)
87
Filed & Entered:   03/27/2015
Docket Text Notice (Other)
86
Filed & Entered:   12/11/2014
Docket Text Reply to opposition to Motion
85
Filed & Entered:   12/04/2014
Docket Text Memorandum in Opposition
Filed & Entered:   11/20/2014
Docket Text Motion Hearing
84
Filed & Entered:   11/20/2014
Docket Text Scheduling Order
Filed & Entered:   11/19/2014
Docket Text Telephone Conference
Filed: 11/19/2014
Entered: 11/20/2014
Terminated: 04/03/2015
Docket Text USCA Case Number
82
Filed & Entered:   11/18/2014
Docket Text Response to Document
83
Filed & Entered:   11/18/2014
Terminated: 05/18/2015
Docket Text Motion for Order to Show Cause
Filed & Entered:   11/17/2014
Docket Text Notice of Hearing
80
Filed & Entered:   11/17/2014
Terminated: 04/03/2015
Docket Text Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to USCA
81
Filed & Entered:   11/17/2014
Docket Text Response to Document
76
Filed & Entered:   11/14/2014
Terminated: 04/03/2015
Docket Text Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court
77
Filed & Entered:   11/14/2014
Docket Text Notice (Other)
78
Filed & Entered:   11/14/2014
Terminated: 04/03/2015
Docket Text Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court
79
Filed & Entered:   11/14/2014
Docket Text Notice (Other)
75
Filed & Entered:   11/06/2014
Docket Text Order on Motion for Reconsideration
74
Filed & Entered:   10/30/2014
Docket Text Reply to opposition to Motion
73
Filed & Entered:   10/20/2014
Docket Text Memorandum in Opposition
Filed & Entered:   10/17/2014
Docket Text Motion Hearing
72
Filed & Entered:   10/16/2014
Docket Text NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY
71
Filed & Entered:   10/02/2014
Terminated: 05/18/2015
Docket Text Motion for Permanent Injunction
70
Filed & Entered:   09/26/2014
Docket Text NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY
68
Filed & Entered:   09/25/2014
Terminated: 09/25/2014
Docket Text Motion to Stay
69
Filed & Entered:   09/25/2014
Docket Text Order on Motion to Stay
Filed & Entered:   09/23/2014
Docket Text Set/Reset Hearings
67
Filed & Entered:   09/22/2014
Docket Text Reply to opposition to Motion
66
Filed & Entered:   09/17/2014
Docket Text Order
65
Filed & Entered:   09/11/2014
Docket Text Memorandum in Opposition
64
Filed & Entered:   08/26/2014
Docket Text Order on Motion for Extension of Time to
62
Filed & Entered:   08/25/2014
Terminated: 08/26/2014
Docket Text Motion for Extension of Time to
63
Filed & Entered:   08/25/2014
Terminated: 11/06/2014
Docket Text Motion for Reconsideration
Filed & Entered:   08/19/2014
Docket Text Notice (Other)
61
Filed & Entered:   08/19/2014
Docket Text Bill of Costs
60
Filed & Entered:   08/18/2014
Docket Text Reply to opposition to Motion
59
Filed & Entered:   08/12/2014
Docket Text Motion for Attorney Fees
Filed & Entered:   08/05/2014
Docket Text Set Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings
58
Filed & Entered:   08/05/2014
Docket Text Order on Motion for Extension of Time to
56
Filed & Entered:   08/04/2014
Docket Text Motion for Extension of Time to
57
Filed & Entered:   08/04/2014
Docket Text Memorandum in Opposition
53
Filed & Entered:   07/29/2014
Docket Text Order
54
Filed & Entered:   07/29/2014
Docket Text Clerk’s Judgment
55
Filed & Entered:   07/29/2014
Terminated: 08/05/2014
Docket Text Motion for Extension of Time to
52
Filed & Entered:   07/28/2014
Terminated: 09/17/2014
Docket Text Motion to Stay
51
Filed & Entered:   07/26/2014
Docket Text Order on Motion for Summary Judgment
50
Filed & Entered:   03/31/2014
Docket Text Order on Motion to Strike
49
Filed & Entered:   02/18/2014
Docket Text NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY
48
Filed & Entered:   01/11/2014
Docket Text NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY
47
Filed & Entered:   12/02/2013
Docket Text Notice of Change of Address
46
Filed & Entered:   09/26/2013
Docket Text NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY
45
Filed & Entered:   09/12/2013
Docket Text NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY
44
Filed & Entered:   08/09/2013
Terminated: 07/29/2014
Docket Text Motion to Expedite
43
Filed & Entered:   12/11/2012
Docket Text NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY
42
Filed & Entered:   12/05/2012
Docket Text Memorandum
41
Filed & Entered:   12/04/2012
Docket Text NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY
Filed & Entered:   10/26/2012
Docket Text Remark
Filed & Entered:   10/26/2012
Docket Text Remark
39
Filed & Entered:   10/04/2012
Docket Text Response to Document
40
Filed & Entered:   10/04/2012
Docket Text Reply to Document
Filed & Entered:   10/01/2012
Docket Text Order on Motion to Strike
38
Filed & Entered:   10/01/2012
Docket Text Supplemental Memorandum
Filed & Entered:   09/19/2012
Docket Text Remark
Filed & Entered:   08/30/2012
Docket Text Set Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings
Filed & Entered:   08/20/2012
Docket Text Set Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings
Filed & Entered:   08/16/2012
Docket Text Set Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings
Filed & Entered:   07/25/2012
Docket Text Set Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings
Filed & Entered:   07/23/2012
Docket Text Set Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings
37
Filed & Entered:   06/11/2012
Docket Text NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY
35
Filed & Entered:   05/29/2012
Docket Text Memorandum in Opposition
36
Filed & Entered:   05/29/2012
Docket Text Reply to opposition to Motion
33
Filed & Entered:   05/24/2012
Docket Text Supplemental Memorandum
34
Filed & Entered:   05/24/2012
Terminated: 03/31/2014
Docket Text Motion to Strike
32
Filed & Entered:   04/04/2012
Docket Text NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY
31
Filed & Entered:   03/29/2012
Docket Text NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY
30
Filed & Entered:   03/16/2012
Docket Text Response to Document
29
Filed & Entered:   03/08/2012
Docket Text NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY
28
Filed: 03/07/2012
Entered: 03/08/2012
Docket Text Notice (Other)
27
Filed & Entered:   02/06/2012
Docket Text NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY
26
Filed & Entered:   10/06/2011
Docket Text NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY
25
Filed & Entered:   09/14/2011
Docket Text Notice (Other)
24
Filed & Entered:   09/12/2011
Docket Text NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY
Filed: 07/22/2011
Entered: 07/25/2011
Docket Text Status Conference
23
Filed & Entered:   07/20/2011
Docket Text Response to Document
Filed & Entered:   07/18/2011
Docket Text Set/Reset Hearings
20
Filed & Entered:   07/18/2011
Docket Text Order
21
Filed & Entered:   07/18/2011
Docket Text NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY
22
Filed & Entered:   07/18/2011
Docket Text Case Assigned/Reassigned
19
Filed & Entered:   07/14/2010
Docket Text NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY
18
Filed & Entered:   03/29/2010
Docket Text Notice (Other)
Filed & Entered:   03/26/2010
Docket Text Notice of Corrected Docket Entry
16
Filed & Entered:   03/26/2010
Docket Text Notice (Other)
17
Filed & Entered:   03/26/2010
Docket Text Notice (Other)
15
Filed & Entered:   02/05/2010
Docket Text Reply to Document
14
Filed & Entered:   01/29/2010
Docket Text Response to Document
Filed & Entered:   01/22/2010
Docket Text Motion Hearing
13
Filed & Entered:   01/15/2010
Docket Text NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY
12
Filed & Entered:   10/06/2009
Docket Text Reply to opposition to Motion
Filed & Entered:   10/01/2009
Docket Text Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply
11
Filed & Entered:   09/30/2009
Terminated: 10/01/2009
Docket Text Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply
9
Filed & Entered:   09/23/2009
Docket Text Memorandum in Opposition
10
Filed: 09/23/2009
Entered: 09/24/2009
Docket Text Reply to opposition to Motion
Filed & Entered:   09/11/2009
Docket Text Notice of Hearing on Motion
6
Filed & Entered:   09/09/2009
Terminated: 07/26/2014
Docket Text Motion for Summary Judgment
7
Filed & Entered:   09/09/2009
Docket Text Notice (Other)
8
Filed: 09/09/2009
Entered: 09/10/2009
Docket Text Memorandum in Opposition
5
Filed & Entered:   08/26/2009
Terminated: 07/26/2014
Docket Text Motion for Summary Judgment
Filed & Entered:   08/19/2009
Docket Text Set/Reset Deadlines
Filed & Entered:   08/18/2009
Docket Text Order on Motion for Extension of Time to
4
Filed & Entered:   08/18/2009
Terminated: 08/18/2009
Docket Text Motion for Extension of Time to
Filed & Entered:   08/07/2009
Docket Text Summons Issued
3
Filed & Entered:   08/07/2009
Docket Text Summons Returned Executed
1
Filed: 08/06/2009
Entered: 08/07/2009
Docket Text Complaint
2
Filed: 08/06/2009
Entered: 08/07/2009
Docket Text LCvR 7.1 Certificate of Disclosure – Corporate Affiliations/Financial Interests
Share