Litigation Past and Present

From Calguns Foundation Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Current Litigation

Current Litigation
Year Filed Name of Case Issue at stake Jurisdiction Type Where Filed Case Number(s) Status
2012 Teixeira v. County of Alameda Alameda's 500' restriction on FFLs is facially unconstitutional and unconstitutional as applied. Federal Civil U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (SF/OAK) (CAND) 4:12-cv-03288 PACER

PACER USCA Case Number 13-17132

APPEALING
2012 Lu v. Baca Lee Baca and LASD impermissibly require carry license applicants to be denied by their cities. California Civil Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles (LASC) Complaint LITIGATION
2011 Sylvester v. Harris Second waiting periods for those who posses firearms are unconstitutional. Federal Civil U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (CAED) 1:11-cv-02137 PACER LITIGATION
2011 CGF v. San Mateo County San Mateo County's total ban on firearms in parks is preempted by state law California Government Code Section 53071. California Civil Superior Court of California (County of San Mateo) Case number 509185 Complaint LOSS
2011 Bauer v. Harris DROS fees are higher than the costs to run background checks and therefor unconstitutional. Federal Civil U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (CAED) 1:11-cv-01440-LJO -MJS PACER LITIGATION
2011 Baker v. Kealoha Hawaii Defense Foundation challenge to HI carry license practices. Federal Civil U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (CA9) USCA Case #12-16258

1:11-cv-00528-ACK -KSC PACER

APPEALING
2011 J&G Sales and Foothill Firearms v. Melson consolidated with NSSF v. Melson NRA and NSSF challenges to the ATF multiple rifle sales reporting requirement Federal Civil U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (CADC)] USCA Case #TBD

1:11-cv-01401-RMC PACER

APPEALING
2011 Rossow v. Merced County Merced Sheriff must comply with the Penal Code, Government Code in his carry license process. California Civil Superior Court of California (County of Merced) Waiting for case number Complaint LITIGATION
2011 Ezell v. Chicago

(Ezell II)

The plaintiffs have already won a preliminary injunction against the firing-range ban in the 7th circuit court of appeals. Ezell II further challenges Chicago's gun range ban. The ordinance has been rewritten three times and it's still unconstitutional. Federal Civil U.S. District Court for the District of Northern Illinois (ILND) 1:10-cv-05135 PACER LITIGATION
2011 Lane et al v. Holder et al Fed law requiring handguns to be bought in residents own state is onerous. Federal Civil U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (CA4) USCA Case #11-1847

1:11-cv-00503 PACER

APPEALING
2011 Enos v. Holder 18 U.S.C. §§ 921(a)(33), 922(d)(9) and 922(g)(9) violates the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution because it imposes a lifetime ban on the exercise of a fundamental constitutional “right to keep and bear arms” after conviction of a minor crime. Federal Civil U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (CA9) USCA Case #12-15498

2:10-CV-02911-JAM-EFB PACER

APPEALING
2011 Richards v. Harris CA 'assault weapon' law unconstitutional for vagueness; 12031(e) law unconstitutional vs 4th Amendment (Consolidated with Haynie) Federal Civil U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (SF/OAK) (CAND) 3:10-cv-01255 PACER LITIGATION
2011 Scocca v. Smith Sheriff Smith must treat citizens equally under the law and conform her Carry License issuance polices to established court precedent. Federal Civil U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (CAND) 5:11-cv-01318 PACER DISMISSED / WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
2011 Sheridan et al v. Madigan et al NRA/ISRA Challenge to Illinois’ statutory prohibitions on all forms of carry. (Citizens have neither open nor concealed carry) Federal Civil U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois (CA7) USCA Case #TBD

3:11-cv-00405 PACER

WIN
2011 Fletcher et al v. Haas et al Challenges Massachusetts' ban on handgun possession and firearm and ammunition purchases by legal resident aliens Federal Civil U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (MAD) 1:11-cv-10644 WIN
2011 Moore v. Madigan Challenges Illinois’ statutory prohibitions on all forms of carry. (Citizens have neither open nor concealed carry) Federal Civil U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (CA7) USCA Case #12-1269

3:11-cv-03134 PACER

WIN
2010 Calguns Foundation v. Ventura County Ventura Sheriff must comply with the California Public Records Act, ("PRA"). California Civil Superior Court of California (County of Ventura) 56-2010-00383664-CU-WM-VTA OPINION SETTLED / VICTORY
2010 Peterson v. LaCabe Challenges carry residency requirement for City and County of Denver, CO Federal Civil U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (CA10) 10-CV-00059-WDM-MEH

PACER

LOSS
2010 Kachalsky v. Cacace Challenge to New York State "proper cause" requirement for a carry license. Federal Civil U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (CA2) 7:10-cv-05413 USCA Case #11-3642 Petition for certiorari denied on April 15, 2013
2010 Schrader v. Holder Challenge to NICS denying purchases for MD resident convicted of a misdemeanor that had no sentencing limit. Federal Civil U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (CADC) 1:10-cv-01736 PACER APPEALING
2010 Woolard v. Sheridan(now Gallagher, 10/12) [T]he Court finds that the right to bear arms is not limited to the home. A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs. The Court [...] finds Maryland‘s requirement that a permit applicant demonstrate ―good and substantial reason to be unconstitutional. Federal Civil U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (MDD) 1:10-cv-02068 PACER Petition for Cert denied Oct 2013
2010 Mishaga v. Monken Challenge to Illinois State Law Prohibiting non-state residents from obtaining FOID. FOID Is necessary for possession. Federal Civil U.S. District Court for the Central Distrcit of Illinois Springfield Division (ILCD) 3:10-cv-03187-MPM -CHE

PACER

LITIGATION
2010 Wisconsin Carry, Inc. v. Wray, Noble Litigation to stop harassment of law abiding citizens who are exercising their rights to carry a loaded handgun in public. Federal Civil U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (WIWD) 3:10-cv-00548 PACER LITIGATION
2010 Drake v. Jerejian

Formerly: Muller v. Maenza

Challenge to New Jersey's horribly crafted carry laws. Federal Civil U.S. Supreme Court U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (NJD) USCA Case #12-1150

2:10-cv-06110-WHW-CCC PACER

PETITION FOR CERT.
2010 Parker v. California CRPA Foundation filed a lawsuit to invalidate AB962 (ammo) because it's unconstitutionally vague. California Civil Superior Court of CA, Fresno 10CECG02116 OPINION VICTORY, DOJ APPEALING
2010 Second Amendment Arms v City of Chicago Challenges ban on gun stores in Chicago. Federal Civil U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (ILND) 1:10-cv-04257 PACER LITIGATION
2010 Benson v City of Chicago NRA challenge to many aspects of the new Chicago handgun ordinances. Federal Civil U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (ILND) 1:10-cv-04257 PACER LITIGATION
2010 Bonidy v. U.S. Postal Service Challenges the firearm ban on U.S. Post Office Property. Federal Civil U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals PACER Appealed
2010 Jennings v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Challenge to the federal ban on adults aged 18 - 20 from purchasing a handgun. Federal Civil U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (CA5) USCA Case #TBD

5:10-cv-00140 PACER

APPEALING
2010 Jennings v. McCraw Challenge to the Texas ban on adults aged 18 - 20 from acquiring a license to carry a handgun from Texas DPS. Federal Civil U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (CA5) USCA Case #TBD

5:10-cv-00141 PACER

APPEALING
2010 Bateman v. Perdue Challenge to NC regulations that prohibit carry and sales of firearms during State declared emergencies. Federal Civil U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina (NCED) 5:10-cv-00265-H PACER VICTORY/Appeal Likely
2009 Pena v. Cid/Lindley Challenge the California Roster of "Safe" Handguns Federal Civil U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (CAED) 2:09-cv-01185 PACER LITIGATION
2009 Richards v. Prieto (Formerly Sykes v. McGinness) Challenges carry licensing policy in Yolo County, CA Federal Civil U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (CA9) 2:09-cv-1235-MCE-KJM

PACER

VICTORY
2009 Palmer v. District of Columbia Challenges the carry licensing in the District of Columbia Federal Civil U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (DCD) 1:09-cv-01482-HHK PACER VICTORY
2009 Peruta v. County of San Diego Our conclusion [is] that the right to bear arms includes the right to carry an operable firearm outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Federal Civil U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (CA9) 3:09-cv-02371-IEG-BGS

PACER

VICTORY
2009 Montana Shooting Sports Association et al v. Holder, Jr. An attempt to limit enforcement of the National Firearms Act (“NFA”), and the Gun Control Act of 1968 (“GCA”) by way of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (“MFFA”) Federal Civil U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (CA9) 9:09-cv-00147

PACER 10-36094

APPEALING
2009 Dearth v. Holder

(Dearth II)

This suit challenges the prohibition for U.S. Citizens to purchase a firearm without a U.S. residence. Federal Civil U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (DCD) 1:09-cv-00587 PACER LITIGATION
2009 Osterweil v. Bartlett Challenges New York state law that requires someone be domiciled in New York to obtain a permit to possess a handgun in the home thus banning part-time residents from handgun possession. Federal Civil U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (CA2) USCA Case #11-2420

1:09-cv-00825 PACER

USCA PACER

APPEALING
2009 Jackson v. San Francisco The requirement to keep handguns unloaded or trigger locked or otherwise in a locked case is unconstitutional.The suit also challenges the fact that the "no discharge" ordinance has no exception for self defense. Further the suit challenges the ban on the sale of hollow point ammunition or any ammunition that is not suitable for "sporting purposes" in San Francisco. Federal Civil U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (CAND) 3:09-cv-02143-PJH PACER LITIGATION
2008 Hightower v. Boston Challenge to discretionary issue of Licenses To Carry, which are also required to own firearms. Federal Civil U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (CA1) USCA Case #TBD

1:08-cv-11955 PACER

APPEALING
2008 Heller et al v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al

(Heller III)

Challenges many statures enacted by D.C. after the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Heller but mostly about long-gun registration. Federal Civil U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (CADC) USCA Case# 10-7036

1:08-cv-01289

APPEALING
1999 Nordyke v. King

(Nordyke VI)

After 12 years of litigation, this case is now over. Gun shows may be held on County property provided that the Nordykes' comply with the ordinance by tethering guns to tables. Despite this action, the Nordykes were not awarded prevailing party status.

Nordyke VI OPINION

Federal Civil U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (CA9) PACER #07-15763 LOSS

Supreme Court Decisions

United States Supreme Court Cases
Year Decided Name of Case What was the core holding? Jurisdiction Type Where Filed Case Numbers Status
2010 McDonald v. Chicago We have previously held that most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights apply with full force to both the Federal Government and the States. Applying the standard that is well established in our case law, we hold that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States. Federal Civil U.S. Supreme Court (08-4241, 08-4243, 08-4244) SETTLED
2008 District of Columbia v. Heller The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Federal Civil U.S. Supreme Court (04-7041) SETTLED
1939 United States v. Miller The National Firearms Act, as applied to one indicted for transporting in interstate commerce a 12-gauge shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches long without having registered it and without having in his possession a stamp-affixed written order for it, as required by the Act, held: Not unconstitutional, does not violate of the Second Amendment. Federal Criminal U.S. Supreme Court 307 U.S. 174 SETTLED

Case Law

Past Cases and Settled Law
Year Decided Name of Case What was the Decision? Jurisdiction Type Where Filed Case Numbers Status
2012 Moore v. Madigan The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside. (The IL. law baring all forms of carry is unconstitutional.) Federal Civil U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit No.12-1269, 12-1788 WIN


2012 US v. Henry He contends that he has a Second Amendment right to possess a homemade machine gun in his home. We reject this argument because machine guns are "dangerous and unusual weapons" that are unprotected by the Second Amendment. Federal Criminal U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit No. 11-30181 FAIL
2011 Heller et al v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al

(Heller II)

We hold the District had the authority under D.C. law to promulgate the challenged gun laws, and we uphold as constitutional the prohibitions of assault weapons and of large-capacity magazines and some of the registration requirements. We remand the other registration requirements to the district court for further proceedings because the record is insufficient to inform our resolution of the important constitutional issues presented. Federal Civil U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit No. 10-7036 LOSS / REMANDED
2011 Ezell v. Chicago

(Ezell I)

The plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction against the firing-range ban. The harm to their Second Amendment rights cannot be remedied by damages, their challenge has a strong likelihood of success on the merits, and the City's claimed harm to the public interest is based entirely on speculation. Federal Civil U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit No. 10-3525 REMANDED
2011 Dearth v. Holder

(Dearth I)

...we conclude Dearth does have standing, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings. ...We agree with Dearth that the Government has denied him the ability to purchase a firearm and he thereby suffers an ongoing injury. Federal Civil U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit No. 10-3525 REMANDED
2010 United States v. Chester Chester ... [is] ... a domestic violence misdemeanant. Accordingly, we conclude that intermediate scrutiny is more appropriate than strict scrutiny for Chester and similarly situated persons. Accordingly, the government must demonstrate under the intermediate scrutiny standard that there is a “reasonable fit” between the challenged regulation and a “substantial” government objective. Federal Criminal U.S. Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit No. 09-4084 REMANDED
2010 Kuck v. Danaher III The procedures to renew a permit to carry a firearm are subject to procedural due process of law. Federal Civil U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 08-5368-cv REMANDED
MCDONALD v. CHICAGO DEMARCATION 6/28/2010
2008 Fiscal v. City and County of San Francisco San Francisco's Handgun ban was wrong because it was preempted by state law. California Civil California Court of Appeals, First District, Division Four. 70 Cal.Rptr.3d 324 (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 895 SETTLED
2002 Silveira v. Lockyer This was a challenge to the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act (AWCA). The challenge failed because the 9th Circuit found that the Second Amendment does not confer and individual right to own and possess arms. The court did however invalidate a statutory exception with respect to retired peace officers; they can't purchase AW at retirement time. Federal Civil U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 312 F.3d 1052 (2002) SETTLED
2001 Harrot v. County of Kings Trial courts cannot determine if a given firearm/receiver is a member of AR or AK “series”. Banned weapons in AR/AK “series” must be specifically banned by make and model, and the DOJ must promulgate these banned firearms . California Civil California Supreme Court 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 445 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1138 25 P.3d 649 SETTLED
2000 Kasler v. Lockyer Challenged the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 - The case did not succeed because there is no RKBA in CA Constitution. California Civil California Supreme Court 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 334 (2000) 23 Cal.4th 472 2 P.3d 581 SETTLED
1999 Edwards v. City of Goldsboro Police chiefs can't stop their officers from performing carry license classes on the side. Officers are entitled to free speech and freedom of association. Federal Civil U.S. Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit 178 F.3d 231 (1999) SETTLED
1986 CBS Inc. v. Block Carry License Applications are public documents, therefore anyone may view them. California Civil California Supreme Court 42 Cal.3d 646 (1986) 725 P.2d 470 230 Cal. Rptr. 362 SETTLED
1984 Guillory v. County of Orange CA PC 12025 "Good cause" is subject to equal protections under the law. This case is also known as Guillory v. Gates Federal Civil U.S. Court of Appeals 9th Circuit 82-5062 SETTLED
1976 Salute v. Pitchess “[w]hile a court cannot compel a public officer to exercise his discretion in any particular manner, it may direct him to exercise that discretion.” The decision went on to declare that “[i]t is the duty of the sheriff to make such an investigation and determination, on an individual basis, on every application under section 12050.” California Civil California Court of Appeals, Second District, Division Four. 61 Cal. App. 3d 557 - Cal: Court of Appeals, 2nd Appellate Dist., 4th Div. 1976 SETTLED

How the Federal Courts work

Civil Cases

A federal civil case involves a legal dispute between two or more parties. To begin a civil 
lawsuit in federal court, the plaintiff files a complaint with the court and "serves" a copy 
of the complaint on the defendant. The complaint describes the plaintiff's injury, explains 
how the defendant caused the injury, and asks the court to order relief. A plaintiff may seek 
money to compensate for the injury, or may ask the court to order the defendant to stop the 
conduct that is causing the harm. The court may also order other types of relief, such as a 
declaration of the legal rights of the plaintiff in a particular situation.

READ MORE HERE

The Appeals Process

The losing party in a decision by a trial court in the federal system normally is entitled to 
appeal the decision to a federal court of appeals. Similarly, a litigant who is not satisfied 
with a decision made by a federal administrative agency usually may file a petition for review 
of the agency decision by a court of appeals. Judicial review in cases involving certain federal 
agencies or programs — for example, disputes over Social Security benefits — may be obtained 
first in a district court rather than a court of appeals.
 
In a civil case either side may appeal the verdict.

A litigant who files an appeal, known as an "appellant," must show that the trial court or 
administrative agency made a legal error that affected the decision in the case. The court of 
appeals makes its decision based on the record of the case established by the trial court or 
agency. It does not receive additional evidence or hear witnesses. The court of appeals also 
may review the factual findings of the trial court or agency, but typically may only overturn 
a decision on factual grounds if the findings were "clearly erroneous." 

Appeals are decided by panels of three judges working together. The appellant presents legal 
arguments to the panel, in writing, in a document called a "brief." In the brief, the appellant 
tries to persuade the judges that the trial court made an error, and that its decision should be
reversed. On the other hand, the party defending against the appeal, known as the "appellee," 
tries in its brief to show why the trial court decision was correct, or why any error made by the 
trial court was not significant enough to affect the outcome of the case.

Although some cases are decided on the basis of written briefs alone, many cases are selected 
for an "oral argument" before the court. Oral argument in the court of appeals is a structured 
discussion between the appellate lawyers and the panel of judges focusing on the legal principles
in dispute. Each side is given a short time — usually about 15 minutes — to present arguments 
to the court.
 
The court of appeals decision usually will be the final word in the case, unless it sends the 
case back to the trial court for additional proceedings, or the parties ask the U.S. Supreme 
Court to review the case. In some cases the decision may be reviewed en banc, that is, by a larger 
group of judges (usually all) of the court of appeals for the circuit.
 
A litigant who loses in a federal court of appeals, or in the highest court of a state, may file 
a petition for a "writ of certiorari," which is a document asking the Supreme Court to review the
case. The Supreme Court, however, does not have to grant review. The Court typically will agree to 
hear a case only when it involves an unusually important legal principle, or when two or more federal
appellate courts have interpreted a law differently. There are also a small number of special 
circumstances in which the Supreme Court is required by law to hear an appeal. When the Supreme Court 
hears a case, the parties are required to file written briefs and the Court may hear oral argument. 
  
READ MORE HERE

The Supreme Court of the United States of America

The United States Supreme Court consists of the Chief Justice of the United States and eight 
associate justices. At its discretion, and within certain guidelines established by Congress, 
the Supreme Court each year hears a limited number of the cases it is asked to decide. Those 
cases may begin in the federal or state courts, and they usually involve important questions 
about the Constitution or federal law.

The Supreme Court is the highest tribunal in the nation for all cases and controversies arising 
under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. The Court stands as the final arbiter 
of the law and guardian of constitutional liberties. 

READ MORE HERE

Map of the Federal Circuit Courts

External Resources

About this Page

This page is a work in progress. It may be further developed to separate "current litigation" into three tables. One table for litigation that directly affects California, another table for "persuasive case law" (outside the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals), and "Other Litigation" for all other noteworthy litigation.

What this page should not ever be is a universal place to keep track of the hundreds of 2A cases currently in motion in the United States.