Articles

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

Ongoing Second Amendment Civil Cases

Share

Sorry, I simply do not have the bandwidth to keep this page current.

Update February 24, 2014 – The US Supreme Court turned down the appeal (denied cert) in all four of these cases. 

Quinn v. Texas – Does the mere suspected presence of a firearm in the home allow police to conduct a no-knock raid on a private residence?  Here is a link to the Cert Petition. Here is a link to the lone Amicus brief filed in the case.

National Rifle Association v. Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms – Challenges the Federal ban on selling handguns, through an FFL, t0 persons between 18 and 20 years of age.  Here is a link to the Cert Petition.  Here is a link to ScotusBlog.

National Rifle Association of America v. McCraw – Challenges a Texas law which generally prohibits persons under the age of 21 from carrying a concealed handgun in public.  Here is a link to the Cert Petition.  Here is a link to ScotusBlog.

Lane v. Holder – This is an interesting case.  It was first distributed to the October 11, 2013 conference and not heard from again until it was again distributed for the February 21st Conference.  It presents a simple question.  Do consumers have standing to challenge Federal regulations relating to the commercial sale of firearms.  Here is a link to the Cert Petition.  Here is a link to ScotusBlog.

Bauer v. Harris
No. 11-01440
California
Challenging state law that permits the California Department of Justice to levy fees on the purchase and transfer of firearms. The defendants answered the amended complaint on 3/8/12. As per a scheduling order dated 8/10/12, discovery is to be completed by 6/27/13, dispositive motions must be filed by 8/16/13, and a jury trial is scheduled for 1/28/14.

Ezell v. City of Chicago
No. 10-5135
Chicago, IL
Challenging prohibition on firearm ranges and requirement that residents complete an hour of range training in order to receive a city firearms permit. On 7/6/11, the Seventh Circuit reversed a district court order denying the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction and remanded the case to the district court. On 9/29/11, the district court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ case as moot, and on 10/26/11, it denied the plaintiffs’ motion to enjoin enforcement of the City’s new ordinance regulating firing ranges. The defendant filed an answer to the plaintiffs’ amended complaint on 11/16/11. Dispositive motions are due by 12/13/12. Responses are due by 1/14/13. Replies are due by 1/28/13. Preliminary Injunction was granted by 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.  The case was remanded back to the district court.

Hall, et al. vs. City Of Chicago – Case Number: 1:2013cv00441 – Filed: January 18, 2013 – Challenges a City of Chicago municipal ordinance prohibiting the carrying of firearms in public. Chicago filed a motion to dismiss which is still being argued and presumably fully briefed as of 4/26/2013.  The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their case without prejudice on August 8, 2013.  “Without prejudice” means that they are free to refile their case anytime they wish against the Chicago ordinance.

Heller v. District of Columbia (“Heller II”)
No. 10-7036
No. 08-1289
Washington, DC
Challenging laws establishing certain registration requirements and prohibiting registration of assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines. On 10/4/11, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court holding that the District of Columbia’s prohibition against assault weapons and large capacity magazines is constitutional and that District law requiring basic registration of handguns is constitutional. The circuit court vacated the district court’s judgment upholding the constitutionality of District law requiring the basic registration of long guns and additional registration-related requirements for all firearms, remanding the case back to the district court for further proceedings. On 7/31/12, following the District’s passage of new firearms legislation, which addressed numerous requirements that the plaintiffs were previously challenging, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint. Discovery is to be completed by 3/25/13. Partial leave to file 4th Amended Complaint.  Multiple motions to strike made by Plaintiffs as of May 10, 2013.

Horsley v. Trame – Persons 18-20 years of age require their parent’s permission to possess a long-gun in Illinois.  This suit seeks to change that.

Illinois Ass’n of Firearms Retailers v. City of Chicago (Previously Benson v. City of Chicago)
No. 10-4184
Challenging ordinance adopted following the McDonald decision, including provisions prohibiting the sale of firearms, the carrying of firearms outside of the home, the registration of unsafe handguns, and the possession of more than one operable firearm, and provisions establishing firearm training and minimum age requirements. Plaintiffs and defendants have both filed motions for summary judgment, and briefing on the motions is complete. On 5/24/12, the court denied the defendants’ motion requesting that briefing on the motion for summary judgment be stayed pending Seventh Circuit decisions in Shepard v. Madigan and Moore v. Madigan, which the plaintiffs opposed. A status conference is scheduled for 12/5/12. Response to memorandums filed on 01/15/2013. Status hearing of 06/11/13 is reset to 07/01/13 at 9:45 a.m.

Kwong v. Bloomberg
No. 12-1578
New York, NY
Challenging New York City’s handgun licensing scheme, which requires payment of a $340 fee for issuance or renewal of a 3-year “Residence Premises” handgun license.
On 3/26/12, the district court granted the defendants’ and Intervenor’s cross-motions for summary judgment, finding that the licensing fee does not violate the Second Amendment. The plaintiffs have appealed the decision to the Second Circuit where the plaintiffs-appellants filed their opening brief on 6/29/12. The Intervenor NY AG filed its response brief on 9/28/12. Oral arguments heard before the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals on 2/1/2013.  Lost on July 9, 2013.  A link to the decision is here.

Lane v. Holder
No. 11-1847
United States and Virginia
Challenging federal law prohibiting the transfer or receipt of firearms acquired outside of one’s state of residence except through a federally licensed dealer. Also challenging District law requiring that all firearms brought into the District be registered with the assistance of a federally licensed in-District dealer. Following a district court order denying the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction and dismissing the action, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Fourth Circuit. The District of Columbia has been dismissed from the case pursuant to the consent of both parties. Appellate court briefing is complete, and oral arguments took place on 10/23/12. Lost due to lack of standing on 12/31/2012.  Cert Petition filed – response deadline extended until July 31, 2013.

Mishaga v. Monken
No. 10-3187
State of Illinois
Challenging state requirement for Firearm Owner Identification Card in order to possess a firearm (challenge brought by non-resident seeking to possess a firearm while staying in an Illinois home). Following a district court order denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss on 11/22/10, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on 10/3/11. Briefing on the motions is complete, and a decision is pending.  TEXT ORDER: The Parties have filed a Joint Motion to Vacate Trial and Associated Pre-trial Deadlines (d/e 27) (Motion). For good cause shown, the Motion is GRANTED. The Final Pretrial Conference set for January 23, 2012 and the Jury Trial set for February 7, 2012 are VACATED and will be rescheduled as needed after this Court rules on the pending motions for summary judgment (see d/e 19, 22). Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 1/10/2012. Latest docket entry is dated 12/15/2012 – “NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY re [22] MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit)(Manley, James)”

Natl Shooting Sports Found., et al v. B. Todd Jone – A Federal appeals court has upheld Obama’s requirement by gun dealers in the four southern border states to report to the federal government all sales of multiple semi-automatic rifles with certain features. 5/31/2013.  Here is a link to the decision.

Osterweil v. Bartlett
No. 11-2420
State of New York, County of Schoharie, NY
Challenging a New York law that prohibits issuance of a state license to possess a handgun to anyone who is not domiciled in the state. The case is currently on appeal to the Second Circuit following a district court order awarding summary judgment to the defendants on 5/20/11. Appellate court briefing is complete, and oral arguments took place on 10/26/12. On 9/24/12, the court referred the NY AG’s motion to certify a question of state law (Does the applicant residency requirement for a handgun permit in NY State law require not merely residency but domicile in the state of NY?) to the merits panel for determination after oral argument. Oral arguments held on 10/26/2012.  On 1-29-2013 a question was referred to the New York Court of Appeals (NY’s version of a Supreme Court) by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. We are awaiting an answer and decision.

Second Amendment Arms v. City of Chicago
No. 10-4257
Chicago, IL
Challenging ordinance adopted following the McDonald decision, including all of the provisions at issue in Benson and numerous additional provisions. Following the Seventh Circuit’s recent decision in Ezell and Chicago’s amendment of several firearms laws, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on 9/9/11. On 9/25/12, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ partial motion to dismiss, but is allowing the plaintiffs one additional opportunity to amend their complaint.  Magistrate judge status hearing held on 11/15/2012.  Magistrate Judge status hearing held on 2/6/2013 and continued to 4/8/2013.

West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. v. City of Charleston
No. 11-48
Charleston, Dunbar, and South Charleston, WV
Challenging local ordinances requiring handgun registration, prohibiting the sale of more than one handgun within a 30-day period, requiring 72-hour waiting period for completion of sale, prohibiting the purchase of a firearm by a person who has received voluntary mental health treatment or has pending criminal charges, and prohibiting carrying of a firearm without a license (or carrying in certain areas). On 9/20/12, the court granted in part and denied in part the Charleston defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs had standing only with respect to certain claims against Charleston, and denied the Dunbar defendants’ and South Charleston defendants’ motions to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs had standing as to their claims against those defendants. The court did not address the parties’ Second Amendment arguments. Most notably, however, the court invoked Pullman Abstention, staying the case to permit the plaintiffs to present their state law claim that the challenged laws violate the state right to bear arms to a state court of competent jurisdiction. Prior to the ruling, the case had been stayed since 5/19/11, with the exception of briefing on Pullman Abstention, pending a decision on the motion to dismiss. MAIL RETURNED AS UNDELIVERABLE. Mail sent to WVCDL at P. O. Box 11371, Charleston, WV 25339-1371. Mail was NOT resent to WVCDL; certified mail was returned by USPS marked “UNCLAIMED.”  10/11/2012

Baker v. Kealoha
No. 12-16258
State of Hawaii; City and County of Honolulu
Challenging state restrictions on transporting and carrying firearms without a license and alleging that state law vesting licensing authorities with “sole and absolute discretion” to deny licenses violates the Second Amendment. At a hearing on 3/21/12, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, granted the state defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, and granted in part and denied in part the Honolulu defendants’ motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit on 6/3/12, and appellate court briefing is complete. On 9/24/12, the court ordered that oral arguments in Peruta v. County of San Diego, Richards v. Prieto, and Baker v. Kealoha would be heard on the same day and before the same Ninth Circuit panel. Oral arguments took place on 12/6/12.  We are awaiting a decision.

Birdt v. Beck
No. 12-55115
No. 10-8377
County of Los Angeles, CA; City of Los Angeles, CA
Challenging the denial of plaintiff’s application for concealed handgun license. On 1/13/12, the district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs have appealed the judgment to the Ninth Circuit, where plaintiffs-appellants filed their opening brief on 5/26/12. On 7/17/12, the appellate court denied the appellant’s motion to consolidate the case with Thomson v. Torrance Police Dept. On 8/25/12, Birdt filed a motion requesting that Birdt and Thomson, together with a third case, Raulinaitis v. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Dept., be heard before the same appellate panel. Appellee-LASD filed its brief on 9/18/12, and the appellant filed his reply brief on 9/19/12. Appellee-LAPD filed its brief on 10/30/12.  Filed (ECF) Amicus Curiae – Pending Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 12/03/2012.

Bonidy v. United States Postal Service
No. 10-2408
United States
Challenging USPS regulation prohibiting the carrying of firearms on postal property (plaintiffs are concealed carry permit holders). Following a hearing on 11/18/11, the district court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. The defendants filed an answer on 12/9/11 and filed a motion for summary judgment on 9/28/12. and 10/29/2012. Minute ORDER Setting Hearing on Motions [32] and [33] for Summary Judgment for 6/18/2013 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom A, by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 4/9/2013.

Campbell v. Worthy
No. 12-11496
County of Wayne, MI; City of Harper Woods, MI
Challenging a Michigan law that prohibits the carrying of a concealed firearm in a motor vehicle without a license. The defendants answered the complaint on 8/31/12.

Chardin v. Davis
No. 11196
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Challenging a Massachusetts law that prohibits individuals with certain juvenile records from obtaining a license to carry a firearm. After the Boston Municipal Court dismissed the case on 3/30/11, based upon its finding that the plaintiff was “statutorily disqualified” from carrying firearms, the plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the Supreme Court of Massachusetts. The plaintiff-appellant filed his opening brief in the state Supreme Court on 7/27/12.

Hightower v. City of Boston
No. 11-2281
No. 08-11955
Boston, MA; State of Boston (As intervener)
Challenging revocation of plaintiff’s license, which entitled her to possess firearms and carry concealed guns in public places. Following a district court order denying the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on 9/29/11, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the First Circuit on 11/2/11. Following oral arguments on 6/6/12, the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants on 8/30/12. The court denied the appellant’s petition for rehearing en banc on 9/24/12. Waiting to see if Alan Gura files a Cert Petition with the US Supreme Court.

Jackson v. King
No. 12-00421
State of New Mexico
Challenging a New Mexico law that restricts the issuance of permits to carry concealed firearms to United States citizens. The complaint was filed on 4/21/12. The plaintiffs have filed a motion for preliminary injunction, and briefing on the motion is complete. A hearing is scheduled to take place on 12/18/12.  MOTION for Summary Judgment by Bill Hubbard, Gary King. Preliminary Injunction issued on 4/2/2013.

Jacobs v. Reed
No. 10-913
San Jose, CA; Santa Clara County, CA; State of California
Challenging state law prohibiting the carrying of a concealed weapon without a permit and state law vesting discretion in issuing permits with local law enforcement. The case had been stayed pending the Ninth Circuit’s en banc decision in Nordyke v. King. There has been no change since the en banc court issued its decision in Nordyke in June.  The last document filed was NOTICE of Re-Assignment of Counsel Within the Same Office by Kamala D. Harris. Attorney Waters, George Michael added. (Waters, George) on 06/29/2011.

Kachalsky v. Cacace
No. 11-3642
Westchester County, NY; State of New York
Challenging state law requiring showing of good cause for issuance of concealed carry permit. On 9/2/11, the district court denied both the defendants’ motion to dismiss and the
plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Second Circuit on 9/7/11, and the defendants filed a cross-appeal on denial of their motion to dismiss. After the parties submitted supplemental briefing on the impact of the Second Circuit’s recent decision in United States v. Decastro, oral arguments took place on 8/22/12. Lost – Gura says he will appeal.  Cert petition filed on January 8, 2013.  Cert Denied.

McKay v. Hutchens
No. 12-1458
Orange County, CA
Challenging Orange County, California’s implementation of the state’s concealed carry law and interpretation of the “good cause” requirement for CCW in California.
The plaintiffs filed their complaint on 9/5/12 and filed a motion for preliminary injunction on 9/13/12. At a hearing on the motion on 10/29/12, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion.  Case is stayed pending 9th Circuit Appeal of denial of Preliminary Injunction. 12/20/2012.  Filed (ECF) Appellees Sandra Hutchens and Orange County Sheriff Coroner Department citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 05/23/2013.

Mehl v. Blanas
No. 08-15773
Sacramento County, CA; State of California
Challenging the denial of plaintiff’s application for concealed handgun license by County sheriff. The case was argued before the Ninth Circuit on 6/11/09, and the appeal was withdrawn from submission pending the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Nordyke v. King. On 7/20/12, the Ninth Circuit directed the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing the impact of Nordyke v. King and McDonald v. City of Chicago. Additional oral arguments took place on 12/10/12.  An unpublished (non-binding) decision dismissing the case on July 8, 2013 is here..

Moore v. Madigan
No. 12-01269
No. 11-3134
State of Illinois
Challenging law prohibiting the carrying of handguns (either openly or concealed) in public places. On 2/3/12, the district court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for an injunction and dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs have appealed the decision to the Seventh Circuit, where briefing is complete. Oral arguments took place on 6/8/12, on the same day as and before the same panel that heard arguments in Moore v. Madigan. WIN on 12/11/2012 – Illinois has six months to rewrite its laws before the decision goes into effect on June 10, 2013.  En Banc request for hearing filed by AG Lisa Madigan on January 8, 2013. en banc denied.  Madigan asked for and was granted an extension of time to file a cert petition with the US Supreme Court til June 24, 2013.

Palmer v. District of Columbia
No. 09-1482
Washington, DC
Challenging laws prohibiting the open or concealed carrying of handguns. Summary judgment motions were argued before the district court on 1/22/10, and a decision has been taken under advisement. On 5/24/12, the defendants filed a supplemental memo in support of its motion for summary judgment, in response to which the plaintiffs filed a motion to strike the supplemental memo. Oral arguments on the motions took place on 10/1/12, and the court has taken its decision under advisement. In the meantime, the court requested that the parties to submit briefs addressing whether the institutional plaintiff has standing. A notice of Supplemental Authority citing Moore v. Madigan was filed on 12/11/2012.

Peruta v. County of San Diego
No. 10-56971
San Diego, CA
Challenging sheriff’s denial of an application for a license to carry a concealed weapon and the licensing requirements of good cause and of a duration of residency within a jurisdiction. The case is currently on appeal to the Ninth Circuit following a district court order granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The matter has been fully
briefed, and a decision is pending. On 6/25/12, the court lifted a stay that had been in place since 12/20/11, pending a decision in Nordyke v. King. On 9/24/12, the court responded to the appellants’ motion for clarification and ordered that oral arguments in Peruta v. County of San Diego, Richards v. Prieto, and Baker v. Kealoha would be heard on the same day and before the same panel. Oral arguments took place on 12/6/12.  The last filing was 4/30/2013 – We are awaiting a decision.

Peterson v. Suthers (formerly Martinez, formerly Garcia, previously Peterson v. LaCabe)
No. 11-1149
Denver, CO; State of Colorado
Challenging residency requirement for the issuance of a concealed carry permit. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Tenth Circuit on 4/8/11 following a district court
order that awarded summary judgment to the Intervenor Attorney General and denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. The matter has been fully briefed, and oral arguments were held on 11/17/11 and 3/19/2012. Continued oral arguments took place on 3/19/12, with participation from the amici. Peterson lost, his en banc petition was denied.

Drake v. Filko (formerly Piszczatoski v. Filko formerly Muller v. Maenza)
No. 12-1150
No. 10-6110
Morris, Passaic, and Bergen Counties, Hammonton, and Montville, NJ; State of New Jersey
Challenging state laws establishing discretionary concealed handgun permitting system and requiring a showing of “justifiable need” or “urgent necessity” for a permit’s issuance.
On 1/12/12, the district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the suit, and the plaintiffs have appealed the decision to the Third Circuit.  Oral arguments were heard before the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals.  Alan Gura and the SAF lost.  En banc petition for rehearing denied on 8/27/2013.

Pizzo v. Lee (formerly Pizzo v. Newsom)
No. 09-4493
San Francisco, CA; State of California
Challenging state law granting local law enforcement discretion in the issuance of licenses to carry concealed weapons and ordinances requiring safe storage of handguns, prohibiting the discharge of firearms, and prohibiting the sale of certain ammunition that “serves no sporting purpose” or is designed to expand or fragment upon impact. Following the close of Discovery, both parties filed motions for summary judgment. A hearing on the motions took place on 8/30/12. Lost in District court on December 5, 2012, appeal voluntarily dismissed by Plaintiff.

Plastino v. Koster
No. 12-01316
State of Missouri; St. Charles County, MO.
The SAF is challenging a Missouri law that restricts the issuance of concealed carry permits to U.S. citizens. Missouri is an Open Carry state. The complaint was filed on 7/23/12. Defendant Neer filed his Answer on 9/5/12. On 9/21/12, Defendant Koster filed a motion to dismiss the suit.  The case is now on appeal. 06/06/2013 – Brief of Edward F. Plastino and Second Amendment Foundation due 07/22/2013.

Raulinaitis v. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Dept.
No. 11-08026
Los Angeles County, CA
Challenging the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department’s application of the “good cause” requirement for a CCW permit under California law. Following a district court order granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on 8/13/12, the plaintiffs immediately appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit, where they filed their opening brief on 8/20/12.

Richards v. Prieto
No. 11-16255
Yolo County, CA
Challenging the denial of plaintiffs’ applications for concealed handgun licenses by County sheriff. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit on 5/16/11, following a district court order denying the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. After the matter had been fully briefed, the court stayed proceedings on 12/20/11, pending a decision in Nordyke v. King. The court lifted the stay on 6/19/12, and has ordered that oral arguments in Peruta v.County of San Diego , Richards v. Prieto, and Baker v. Kealoha would be heard on the same day and before the same panel. Oral arguments took place on 12/6/12.  The last filing was 5/29/2013 – We are awaiting a decision.

Rothery v. Sacramento
No. 09-16852
Sacramento County, CA; State of California
Challenging the denial of plaintiff’s application for concealed handgun license by County sheriff. A district court order denying plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss has been appealed to the Ninth Circuit, where the plaintiffs-appellants have filed their opening brief. The matter is presently stayed pending a decision in Mehl v. Blanas.

Shepard v. Madigan
No. 12-1788
State of Illinois
Challenging laws prohibiting the carrying of handguns (either openly or concealed) in public places. On 3/30/12, the district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the action, finding that the laws do not violate the Second Amendment. The plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Seventh Circuit, where briefing is complete. Oral arguments took place on 6/8/12, on the same day as and before the same panel that heard arguments in Moore v. Madigan. WIN on December 11, 2012 (see Moore v. Madigan above).

Thomson v. Torrance Police Dept.
No. 12-56236;
No. 11-06154
City of Torrance, CA; Los Angeles County
Challenging the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department’s and City of Torrance, CA’s Police Department’s applications of the “good cause” requirement for a CCW permit under California law. Following a district court order denying the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granting the defendants’ motions for summary judgment on 7/2/12, the plaintiff appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit, where he filed his opening brief on 7/5/12. On 7/17/12, the appellate court denied the appellant’s motion to consolidate the case with Birdt v. Beck. The appellees’ response briefs are due by 1/9/13, and the appellant’s optional rely brief is due 14 days after service of the appellees’ briefs. On 8/25/12, Birdt filed a motion requesting that Birdt and Thomson, together with a third case, Raulinaitis v. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Dept., be heard before the same appellate panel. A decision is pending.  Answering brief filed by Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department and Torrance Police Department on 01/11/2013.

Woollard v. Gallagher (formerly Woollard v. Sheridan)
No. 12-1437
State of Maryland
Challenging state law requiring the demonstration of cause prior to the issuance of a concealed carry permit. Following a district court order granting the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and denying the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on 3/5/12, the defendants filed a notice of appeal to the Fourth Circuit, where they filed their opening brief on 6/21/12. Appellate court briefing is complete, and oral arguments took place on 10/24/12. Additionally, on 7/23/12, the district court denied the defendant’s motion to stay its order enjoining enforcement of the good and substantial reason requirement pending appeal based upon a finding that the plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals would be harmed by continued enforcement of the law, whereas the defendants would not suffer irreparable injury. However, on 8/1/12, the Fourth Circuit granted the defendants’ motion to stay enforcement of the order pending appeal.  Oral arguments were heard and the case taken under submission by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.    Oral arguments heard on 10/24/2012.  Notices of Supplemental Authority filed on 10/25/2012, 11/27/2012, 12/02/2012, 12/12/2012, and 12/20/2012. Overturned by Court of Appeals. en banc petition denied.  Waiting to see if cert petition is filed.

Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco
No. 09-2143
San Francisco, CA
Challenging ordinances requiring safe storage of handguns, prohibiting the discharge of firearms, and prohibiting the sale of certain ammunition that “serves no sporting purpose” or is designed to expand or fragment upon impact. On 9/27/11, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of standing and granted leave to amend the moot standing claim. The plaintiffs declined to file an amended complaint, and the defendants filed an answer on 10/17/11. On 12/21/11, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to strike the defendants’ defenses relating to standing and ripeness. On 8/30/12, after the court had denied the plaintiffs’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction, and a decision is pending. On 9/27/12, the parties filed a joint case management conference statement, in which the plaintiffs have requested a stay of discovery proceedings pending the court’s decision on their preliminary injunction motion, while the defendants are opposed to a stay. Under the court’s current schedule, all pretrial motions must be filed and served no later than 12/13/12.  The opening brief and excerpts of record are now due February 7, 2013; the answering brief is due March 7, 2013 or 28 days after service of the opening brief, whichever is earlier; and the optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering brief. Case stayed until Mehl v. Blanas is decided.

Sylvester (aka Silvester) v. Harris
No. 11-02137
State of California
Challenging state law that requires a firearm purchaser to wait ten days before receiving a newly-acquired firearm. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on 2/24/12, which the defendants answered on 3/15/12. As per a scheduling order dated 5/15/12, non-dispositive motions must be filed by 9/25/13, dispositive motions must be filed by 10/30/13, and a pretrial conference is scheduled to take place on 1/29/14.

Haynie v. Harris
No. 10-1255 (consolidated with Richards v. Harris No. 11-2493, and related to Richards v. Harris (“II”) No. 11-05580) and , Plog-Horowitz v. Harris (No. 12-0452)
State of California
Challenging law prohibiting possession of unregistered assault weapons on the grounds that the definition of “assault weapons” in unconstitutionally vague. On 10/21/11, the court granted defendant City of Pleasanton’s consolidated motion to dismiss the complaint in Richards v. Harris “I” (No. 11-2493) and Haynie v. Harris (No. 10-1255), holding that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue and that their claims were not ripe for review. The plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on 11/4/11. On 12/21/11, the district court ordered that a third case, Richards v. Harris “II” (No. 11-05580), be related to the other Harris cases. On 3/1/12, the court granted the parties’ joint motion to relate a fourth case, Plog-Horowitz v. Harris (No. 12-0452) to the Harris cases. The defendants in Richard v. Harris “I” (No. 11-2493) and Haynie v. Harris (No. 10-1255) filed a motion to dismiss two counts of the complaint on 12/23/11. On 7/30/12, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss but is allowing the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. On 9/6/12, the court ordered that, as per a stipulation submitted by the parties, Haynie v. Harris be consolidated with Richards v. Harris “I” and “II” and Plog-Horowitz v. Harris for purposes of motions. The stipulation provides that any party may sever any of the cases at any time.  Amended Complaint filed 11/01/2012.  Case Management Conference set for 4/2/13 is continued to 6/21/2013 03:00 PM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco.

Maloney v. Rice
No. 03-786
Nassau County, NY
Challenging state law prohibiting the possession of nunchaku (wooden stick weapon). The matter was vacated and remanded to the district court following McDonald. Plaintiff has filed, and defendant has answered, a second amended complaint. Discovery is ongoing.

Pena v. Cid
No. 09-1185
State of California
Challenging law prohibiting the sale of any unsafe handgun (any handgun not included on a state roster of handguns meeting certain safety requirements). After the parties filed a joint status report on 7/30/12, the court issued an order lifting the stay that had been in place pending the Ninth Circuit’s en banc decision in Nordyke v. King. The parties have agreed to withdraw any motions that were pending at the time of the stay. Discovery is to be completed by 5/3/13, and dispositive motions are due by 6/28/13.

Richards v. Harris
No. 11-2493 (consolidated with Haynie v. Harris No. 10-1255, and related to Richards v. Harris (“II”) No. 11-05580) and , Plog-Horowitz v. Harris (No. 12-0452)
State of California; City of Rohnert Park, CA
Challenging law prohibiting possession of unregistered assault weapons on the grounds that the definition of “assault weapons” is unconstitutionally vague. The complaint was filed on 5/20/11. For additional information, see Haynie v. Harris, above.

Richards v. Harris (“II”)
No. 11-05580
State of California; Sonoma County, CA Sheriff’s Office Challenging law prohibiting possession of unregistered assault weapons on the grounds that the definition of “assault weapons” in unconstitutionally vague. The complaint was filed on 11/17/11. For additional information, see Haynie v. Harris, above.

Plog-Horowitz v. Harris
No. 12-0452
State of California, City of Cotati, CA Challenging law prohibiting possession of unregistered assault weapons on the grounds that the definition of “assault weapons” is unconstitutionally vague. The complaint was filed on 1/27/12; however, the case was dismissed on 10/29/12. For additional information, see Haynie v. Harris, above.

Wilson v. Cook County
No. 112026
Cook County, Illinois
Challenging ordinance prohibiting the possession or sale of any assault weapon or large capacity magazine. On 5/25/11, the Supreme Court of Illinois announced that it would hear an appeal of the appellate court decision affirming the trial court’s dismissal of suit. Plaintiffs-appellants filed their opening brief in the Supreme Court on 7/29/11, and the defendants-appellees filed their response brief on 11/18/11. Oral arguments took place on 1/18/12, and on 4/5/12, the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the plaintiffs’ due process and equal protection claims, but reversed and remanded dismissal of the Second Amendment claim. On April 5, 2012 the case was sent back to the trial court, where the parties are presenting evidence as to whether the ordinance meets intermediate scrutiny.

Dearth v. Holder
No. 12-05305
No. 09-00587
United States

Challenging plaintiff’s inability to purchase and receive firearms under federal law due to his lack of residence within any state (as a United States citizen who resides in Canada).
Following the district court’s dismissal of suit for lack of standing, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the D.C. Circuit. On 4/15/11, the D.C. Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. In the district court, the plaintiffs have filed a motion for summary judgment, and the defendants have filed a
motion for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. Briefing on the motions is ongoing. On 9/27/12, the court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs have appealed the decision to the D.C. Circuit.  APPELLANT Brief due 02/08/2013. Appendix due 02/08/2013. APPELLEE Brief due on 03/11/2013. APPELLANT Reply Brief due 03/25/2013 [12-5305]. 04/09/2013  CORRECTED APPELLANT REPLY BRIEF [1429746] filed by Stephen Dearth and Second Amendment Foundation, Inc.

Enos v. Holder
No. 12-15498
United States
Challenging federal law imposing a lifetime ban on handgun acquisition and possession for domestic violence misdemeanants, alleging that it conflicts with a California law that imposes a ten-year ban on firearm acquisition and possession by domestic violence misdemeanants. On 2/28/12, the federal district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the suit, holding that the law does not violate the Second Amendment. The plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit.  The last activity (reply brief) was on 09/26/2012.

Fisher v. Kealoha
No. 12-17199
No. 11-00589
City and County of Honolulu
Challenging Honolulu law enforcement officers’ exercise of discretion in denying state licenses to purchase firearms. On 4/19/12, the judge granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motions to dismiss, allowing the plaintiff’s Second Amendment claim against the defendants to proceed. Additionally, on 6/29/12, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction based in part upon a finding that the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his Second Amendment claim. On 10/1/12, after the court denied the defendants’ motion for reconsideration of the 6/29/12 order, Honolulu appealed the court’s decision granting the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction to the Ninth Circuit. However, on 10/31/12, the parties stipulated to dismiss the case voluntarily.

NRA v. McCraw (previously Jennings v. McCraw and D’Cruz v. McCraw)
No. 12-10091
No. 10-141
State of Texas
Challenging state law requiring an individual to be 21 years old (or above the age of 18 with military service) in order to acquire a concealed carry permit. Following a district court order court on 1/19/12 granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denying the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal to the Fifth Circuit. Appellate court briefing is complete, and oral arguments have taken place.  Oral argument heard 12/03/2012.  Notice of Supplemental Authority filed 12/12/2012. Lost 5/20/2013.

NRA v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (previously Jennings v. ATF and D’Cruz v. ATF)
No. 11-10959
No. 10-140
United States
Challenging the federal law requiring that a person be 21 in order to purchase a handgun. On 10/4/11, following a district court order granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Fifth Circuit. Briefing is complete, and oral arguments took place on 7/10/12. On 10/25/12, the Fifth Circuit issued a decision upholding the laws, finding that they were longstanding, presumptively lawful regulations that probably did not burden the Second Amendment but otherwise withstood intermediate scrutiny.

Schrader v. Holder
No. 11-05352
No. 10-1736
United States
Challenging plaintiff’s inability to purchase a firearm due to a misdemeanor assault conviction. (It appears that the conviction is being treated as a disqualifying offense in the federal NICS background check system because the underlying law did not provide a maximum sentence length.) On 12/23/11, the district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs immediately appealed the decision to the D.C. Circuit, where oral arguments took place on 10/10/12.  Alan Gura lost on January 11, 2013.  The court noted the outcome might have different if Gura had argued that the law is unconstitutional as applied to his client instead of being unconstitutional as applied to everyone else.

 

Tyler v. Holder
No. 12-00523
United States; State of Michigan
Challenging federal law prohibiting firearm possession by anyone who has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution, and challenging policies of the U.S. government and State of Michigan preventing individuals who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution from regaining their firearm rights. The complaint was filed on 5/21/12. State and local defendants Etue and Snyder filed a motion to dismiss on 8/27/12, and the federal government defendants filed a motion to dismiss on 10/1/12. Response filed on 10/30/2012. Reply to Response to Motion filed on 12/07/2012. Motion to dismiss granted on 1/29/2013. 

Wilson v. Holder
No. 11-01679
United States
Challenging ATF regulations that classify medical marijuana card holders as unlawful users or addicts of a controlled substance. The complaint alleges that the classification prohibits sales of firearms to anyone holding a medical marijuana card under federal law and prohibits medical marijuana card holders from possessing firearms under federal law.
The complaint was filed on 10/18/11. On 2/7/12, the court granted the parties’ request to dismiss the individual defendants from the suit. The remaining defendants have filed a
motion to dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment, and a hearing on the motion was scheduled to take place on 11/2/12.  Amended Complaint filed on 12/17/2012. Motions due within 45 days after service of the amended pleading.  Last activity was on 03/29/2013 – “Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages”

Doe v. Wilmington Housing Authority
No. 12-3433
No. 10-473
State of Delaware
Challenging lease provision prohibiting possession of firearms in public housing. On 7/27/12, the court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, holding that the lease provision withstands intermediate scrutiny. On 8/27/12, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Third Circuit where the appellants’ filed their opening brief on 10/23/12.

Tribble v. State Bd. of Educ.
No. 2011-69
State of Idaho
Challenging state university housing agreement prohibiting the possession of firearms and ammunition in student housing. On 12/7/11, the trial judge granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, upholding the university’s policy prohibiting guns in university-owned housing. On 1/10/12, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court.

Winbigler v. Warren County Housing Authority
No. 12-04032
Warren County, Illinois
Challenging lease provisions that restrict the possession of firearms in public housing units administered by the Warren County Housing Authority. The defendants answered the complaint on 5/29/12. Discovery is to be completed by 5/23/12, and dispositive motions must be filed by 7/2/13.

Churchill v. Harris
No. 12-01740
State of California; City of San Francisco; City of Oakland, CA
Challenging the San Francisco Police Department’s and Oakland Police Department’s interpretations of CA law governing the return of seized firearms. The parties have agreed that the case may proceed before a magistrate judge. On 8/30/12, after the parties filed a stipulation resolving the case against the City of Oakland, the state defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Briefing on the motion is ongoing.  01-02-2013 – CMC reset for Apr. 18. 2013.  Case Management Conference set for 6/27/2013 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom C, 15th Floor, San Francisco.

Teixeira v. County of Alameda
No. 12-03288
County of Alameda, CA
Challenging County laws that prohibit the operation of any gun store within 500 feet of any school, liquor store, or restaurant. After the complaint was filed on 6/25/12, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss which was granted along with a denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction.  Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to which the defendants once again filed a motion to dismiss.  As of June 3, 2013 we are awaiting a decision on the motion to dismiss.

Williams et al v. Puerto Rico Superior Court et al
3:2012cv01218
San Juan, Puerto Rico
Challenges the constitutionality of Peurto Rico’s licensing scheme to carry a loaded firearm in public. Lawsuit was filed on 03/28/2012. Defendants filed a motion to dimiss on 07/12/2012 arguing that the Second Amendment applies only to one’s home. A series of motions and an objection followed with the lastest filing on 10/04/2012 responding to a motion.  Case dismissed on 12/21/2012.

 

Share