View source for Litigation Past and Present

=Current Litigation= 

{| border="5"
!colspan="8" bgcolor="#F2ECCE" |Current Litigation
|-
!Year Filed
!Name of Case   
!Issue at stake
!Jurisdiction
!Type
!Where Filed
!Case Number(s)
!Status
|- align="center"
|2012
|[http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=545848 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 [http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/ (LASC)]
|[http://calgunsfoundation.org/resources/downloads/file/73-lu-v-baca-complaint.html Complaint]
|bgcolor="#9BAEF5"|LITIGATION
|- align="center"
|2011
|[http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=514592 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 [http://www.caed.uscourts.gov (CAED)]
|[http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.caed.233362/gov.uscourts.caed.233362.docket.html 1:11-cv-02137] [https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?233362 PACER]
|bgcolor="#9BAEF5"|LITIGATION
|- align="center"
|2011
|[http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=490930 CGF v. San Mateo County]
|San Mateo County's total ban on firearms in parks is preempted by state law [http://law.onecle.com/california/government/53071.html California Government Code Section 53071].
|California
|Civil
|Superior Court of California [http://www.sanmateocourt.org/ (County of San Mateo)]
|Waiting for case number [http://bit.ly/earlyvsm Complaint]
|bgcolor="#9BAEF5"|LITIGATION
|- align="center"
|2011
|[http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=471080 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 [http://www.caed.uscourts.gov (CAED)]
|[http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.caed.228128/gov.uscourts.caed.228128.docket.html 1:11-cv-01440-LJO -MJS] [https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?228128 PACER]
|bgcolor="#9BAEF5"|LITIGATION
|- align="center"
|2011
|[http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=470102 Baker v. Kealoha]
|Hawaii Defense Foundation challenge to HI carry license practices.
|Federal
|Civil
|U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals [http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ (CA9)]
|USCA Case #12-16258

[http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.hid.98653/gov.uscourts.hid.98653.docket.html 1:11-cv-00528-ACK -KSC] [https://ecf.hid.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?98653 PACER]
|bgcolor=ORANGE|APPEALING
|- align="center"
|2011
|[http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.149463/gov.uscourts.dcd.149463.1.0.pdf J&G Sales and Foothill Firearms v. Melson] consolidated with [http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.149464/gov.uscourts.dcd.149464.1.0.pdf 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 [http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/ (CADC)]]
|USCA Case #TBD
[http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.149464/gov.uscourts.dcd.149464.docket.html 1:11-cv-01401-RMC] [https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?149464 PACER]
|bgcolor=ORANGE|APPEALING
|- align="center"
|2011
|[http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=459984 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 [http://www.merced.courts.ca.gov/ (County of Merced)]
|Waiting for case number [http://calgunsfoundation.org/resources/downloads/category/15-merced.html Complaint]
|bgcolor="#9BAEF5"|LITIGATION
|- align="center"
|2011
|[http://archive.recapthelaw.org/ilnd/246475/ 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 [http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/home/ (ILND)]
|[http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.246475/gov.uscourts.ilnd.246475.docket.html 1:10-cv-05135] [https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?246475 PACER]
|bgcolor="#9BAEF5"|LITIGATION
|- align="center"
|2011
|[http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=447295 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  [http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/ (CA4)]
|USCA Case #11-1847
[http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.vaed.265997/gov.uscourts.vaed.265997.docket.html 1:11-cv-00503]
[https://ecf.ca4.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=CaseSummary.jsp&caseNum=11-1847&incOrigDkt=Y&incDktEntries=Y PACER]
|bgcolor="ORANGE"|APPEALING
|- align="center"
|2011
|[http://archive.recapthelaw.org/caed/215824/ 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 [http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ (CA9)]
|USCA Case #12-15498

[http://archive.recapthelaw.org/caed/215824/ 2:10-CV-02911-JAM-EFB] 
[https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?215824 PACER]
|bgcolor=ORANGE|APPEALING
|- align="center"
|2011
|[[Richards v. Harris]]
|CA 'assault weapon' law unconstitutional for vagueness; 12031(e) law unconstitutional vs 4th Amendment
|Federal
|Civil
|U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (SF/OAK) [http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ (CAND)]
|[http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.225676/gov.uscourts.cand.225676.docket.html 3:10-cv-01255] [https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?225676 PACER]
|bgcolor="#9BAEF5"|LITIGATION
|- align="center"
|2011
|[http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=412790 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 [http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ (CAND)]
|[http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.238467/gov.uscourts.cand.238467.docket.html 5:11-cv-01318] [https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?238467 PACER]
|bgcolor="3333fff"|STAYED UNTIL Aug. 24, 2012 PENDING NORDYKE VI
|- align="center"
|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 [http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/ (CA7)]
|USCA Case #TBD

[http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilsd.52207/gov.uscourts.ilsd.52207.docket.html 3:11-cv-00405] [https://ecf.ilsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?52207 PACER]
|bgcolor=ORANGE|APPEALING
|- align="center"
|2011
|[http://ia700607.us.archive.org/23/items/gov.uscourts.mad.135876/gov.uscourts.mad.135876.docket.html 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 [http://www.mad.uscourts.gov/ (MAD)]
|[http://ia700607.us.archive.org/23/items/gov.uscourts.mad.135876/gov.uscourts.mad.135876.docket.html 1:11-cv-10644]
|bgcolor="#9BAEF5"|LITIGATION
|- align="center"
|2011
|[http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=452974 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 [http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/ (CA7)]
|USCA Case #12-1269
[http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015.docket.html 3:11-cv-03134] 
[https://ecf.ilcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?52015 PACER]
|bgcolor=ORANGE|APPEALING
|- align="center"
|2010
|[[Calguns Foundation v. Ventura County]]
|Ventura Sheriff must comply with the California Public Records Act, ("PRA").
|California
|Civil
|Superior Court of California [http://www.ventura.courts.ca.gov/ (County of Ventura)]
|[http://www.ventura.courts.ca.gov/via/CaseInformationSummary.aspx?CaseNo=56-2010-00383664-CU-WM-VTA 56-2010-00383664-CU-WM-VTA]  [http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/ventura/CGF-v-Ventura-Int-Dec-2011-07-01.pdf OPINION]
|bgcolor="green"|SETTLED / VICTORY
|- align="center"
|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 [http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov (CA10)]
|[http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cod.117112/gov.uscourts.cod.117112.docket.html 10-CV-00059-WDM-MEH]
[https://ecf.ca10.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=CaseSummary.jsp&caseNum=11-1149&incOrigDkt=Y&incDktEntries=Y PACER]
|bgcolor="ORANGE"|APPEALING
|- align="center"
|2010
|[http://archive.recapthelaw.org/nysd/365487/ 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 [http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/ (CA2)]
|[http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.365487/gov.uscourts.nysd.365487.docket.html 7:10-cv-05413] [https://ecf.ca2.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=CaseSummary.jsp&caseNum=11-3642&incOrigDkt=Y&incDktEntries=Y USCA Case #11-3642]
|bgcolor="ORANGE"|APPEALING
|- align="center"
|2010
|[http://archive.recapthelaw.org/dcd/144464/ 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 [http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/ (CADC)]
|[http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.144464/gov.uscourts.dcd.144464.docket.html 1:10-cv-01736] [https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?144464 PACER]
|bgcolor="ORANGE"|APPEALING
|- align="center"
|2010
|[[Woolard v. Sheridan]]
|[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 [http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/ (MDD)]
|[http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772.docket.html 1:10-cv-02068] [https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?180772 PACER]
|bgcolor="green"|VICTORY/Appeal Likely
|- align="center"
|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 [http://www.ilcd.uscourts.gov/ (ILCD)]
|[http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilcd.49772/gov.uscourts.ilcd.49772.docket.html 3:10-cv-03187-MPM -CHE]
[https://ecf.ilcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?49772 PACER]
|bgcolor="#9BAEF5"|LITIGATION
|- align="center"
|2010
|[http://archive.recapthelaw.org/wiwd/28879/ 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 [http://www.wiwd.uscourts.gov/ (WIWD)]
|[http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.wiwd.28879/gov.uscourts.wiwd.28879.docket.html 3:10-cv-00548] [https://ecf.wiwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?28879 PACER]
|bgcolor="#9BAEF5"|LITIGATION
|- align="center"
|2010
|[http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.njd.249720/gov.uscourts.njd.249720.docket.html Piszczatoski v. Filko]
Formerly: Muller v. Maenza
|Challenge to New Jersey's horribly crafted '''carry''' laws.
|Federal
|Civil
|U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey [http://www.njd.uscourts.gov/ (NJD)]
|USCA Case #[https://ecf.ca3.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=CaseSummary.jsp&caseNum=12-1150&incOrigDkt=Y&incDktEntries=Y 12-1150]
[http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.njd.249720/gov.uscourts.njd.249720.docket.html 2:10-cv-06110-WHW-CCC] [https://ecf.njd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?249720 PACER]
|bgcolor=ORANGE|APPEALING
|- align="center"
|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
|[http://www.calgunlaws.com/index.php/current-litigation/82-cases-litigation/915-crpa-foundation-seeks-injunction-to-stop-ab-962.html 10CECG02116] [http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Parker-Final-Order_R.pdf OPINION]
|bgcolor="ORANGE"|VICTORY, DOJ APPEALING
|- align="center"
|2010
|[http://archive.recapthelaw.org/ilnd/245180/ 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 [http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/ (ILND)]
|[http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.245180/gov.uscourts.ilnd.245180.docket.html 1:10-cv-04257] [https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?245180 PACER]
|bgcolor="#9BAEF5"|LITIGATION
|- align="center"
|2010
|[http://archive.recapthelaw.org/ilnd/245065/ 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 [http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/ (ILND)]
|[http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.245065/gov.uscourts.ilnd.245065.docket.html 1:10-cv-04257] [https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?245065 PACER]
|bgcolor="#9BAEF5"|LITIGATION
|- align="center"
|2010
|[http://archive.recapthelaw.org/cod/122068/ Bonidy v. U.S. Postal Service]
|Challenges the firearm '''ban''' on U.S. Post Office Property.
|Federal
|Civil
|U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado [http://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Home.aspx (COD)]
|[http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cod.122068/gov.uscourts.cod.122068.docket.html 1:10-cv-02408] [https://ecf.cod.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?122068 PACER]
|bgcolor="#9BAEF5"|LITIGATION
|- align="center"
|2010
|[http://archive.recapthelaw.org/txnd/199403/ Jennings v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives]
|Challenge to the <u>federal</u> '''ban''' on adults aged 18 - 20 from purchasing a handgun.
|Federal
|Civil
|U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals [http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/ (CA5)]
|USCA Case #TBD 
[http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txnd.199403/gov.uscourts.txnd.199403.docket.html 5:10-cv-00140] 
[https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?199403 PACER]
|bgcolor=ORANGE|APPEALING
|- align="center"
|2010
|[http://archive.recapthelaw.org/txnd/199405/ Jennings v. McCraw]
|Challenge to the <u>Texas</u> '''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 [http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/ (CA5)]
|USCA Case #TBD
[http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txnd.199405/gov.uscourts.txnd.199405.docket.html 5:10-cv-00141] [https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?199405 PACER]
|bgcolor=ORANGE|APPEALING
|- align="center"
|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 [http://www.nced.uscourts.gov/ (NCED)]
|[http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nced.107258/gov.uscourts.nced.107258.docket.html 5:10-cv-00265-H] [https://ecf.nced.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?107258 PACER]
|bgcolor="green"|VICTORY/Appeal Likely
|- align="center"
|2009
|[[Pena v. Cid]]
|Challenge the California Roster of "Safe" Handguns
|Federal
|Civil
|U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California [http://www.caed.uscourts.gov (CAED)]
|[http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.caed.191444/gov.uscourts.caed.191444.docket.html 2:09-cv-01185] [https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?191444 PACER]
|bgcolor=3333fff|LITIGATION 
STAYED PENDING NORDYKE VI
|- align="center"
|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 [http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ (CA9)]
|[http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.caed.191626/gov.uscourts.caed.191626.docket.html 2:09-cv-1235-MCE-KJM]
[https://ecf.ca9.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=CaseSummary.jsp&caseNum=11-16255&incOrigDkt=Y&incDktEntries=Y PACER]
|bgcolor=3333FFF|APPEALING
STAYED PENDING NORDYKE VI
|- align="center"
|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 [http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/dcd/ (DCD)]
|[http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.docket.html 1:09-cv-01482-HHK] [https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?137887 PACER]
|bgcolor="#FFD500"|WAITING
|- align="center"
|2009
|[[Peruta v. County of San Diego]]
|The Judge thinks that UOC is okay for self defense and the Court does not need to decide whether the Second Amendment encompasses a right to carry a loaded handgun in public.
|Federal
|Civil
|U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ (CA9)]
|[http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.casd.308678/gov.uscourts.casd.308678.docket.html 3:09-cv-02371-IEG-BGS]
[https://ecf.ca9.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=CaseSummary.jsp&caseNum=10-56971&incOrigDkt=Y&incDktEntries=Y PACER]
|bgcolor=3333FFF|APPEALING
STAYED PENDING NORDYKE VI
|- align="center"
|2009
|[http://archive.recapthelaw.org/mtd/36897/ 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 (“[http://firearmsfreedomact.com/montana-lawsuit-updates/ MFFA]”)
|Federal
|Civil
|U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals [http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ (CA9)]
|[http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mtd.36897/gov.uscourts.mtd.36897.docket.html 9:09-cv-00147]
[https://ecf.ca9.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=CaseSummary.jsp&caseNum=10-36094&incOrigDkt=Y&incDktEntries=Y PACER 10-36094]
|bgcolor="ORANGE"|APPEALING
|- align="center"
|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 [http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/dcd/ (DCD)]
|[http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.135946/gov.uscourts.dcd.135946.docket.html 1:09-cv-00587] [https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?135946 PACER]
|bgcolor="#9BAEF5"|LITIGATION
|- align="center"
|2009
|[http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nynd.77044/gov.uscourts.nynd.77044.1.0.pdf 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 [http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/ (CA2)]
|[http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/osterweil/ USCA Case #11-2420] 
[http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nynd.77044/gov.uscourts.nynd.77044.docket.html 1:09-cv-00825] 
[https://ecf.nynd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?77044 PACER]

[https://ecf.ca2.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=CaseSummary.jsp?caseNum=11-2420&dktType=dktPublic&incOrigDkt=Y&incDktEntries=Y USCA PACER]
|bgcolor="ORANGE"|APPEALING
|- align="center"
|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 [http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ (CAND)]
|[http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.215014/gov.uscourts.cand.215014.docket.html 3:09-cv-02143-PJH] [https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?215014 PACER]
|bgcolor="#9BAEF5"|LITIGATION
|- align="center"
|2008
|[http://archive.recapthelaw.org/mad/118935/ 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 [http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/ (CA1)]
|USCA Case #TBD
[http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mad.118935/gov.uscourts.mad.118935.docket.html 1:08-cv-11955] [https://ecf.mad.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?118935 PACER] 
|bgcolor="ORANGE"|APPEALING
|- align="center"
|2008
|[http://archive.recapthelaw.org/dcd/132350/ 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 [http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov (CADC)]
|USCA Case# 10-7036

[http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.132350/gov.uscourts.dcd.132350.docket.html 1:08-cv-01289]
|bgcolor=ORANGE|APPEALING
|- align="center"
|1999
|[[Nordyke v. King]]
(Nordyke VI)
|After 12 years of litigation Nordyke has finally won and the County has conceded defeat.  The ruling did not impact the 2A right.
Gun shows may be held on County property provided that the Nordykes' comply with the ordinance by tethering guns to tables like other merchandise at retail stores. [http://calgunsfoundation.org/resources/litigation/nordyke_v_king/07-15763%20Nordyke%20Opinion%206-1-12.pdf Nordyke VI OPINION]
|Federal
|Civil
|U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals [http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ (CA9)]
|[https://ecf.ca9.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=CaseSummary.jsp&caseNum=07-15763&incOrigDkt=Y&incDktEntries=Y PACER #07-15763]
|bgcolor=GREEN|VICTORY
|}

=Supreme Court Decisions=

{| border="5"
!colspan="8" bgcolor="#F2ECCE" |United States Supreme Court Cases
|-
!Year Decided
!Name of Case   
!What was the core holding?
!Jurisdiction
!Type
!Where Filed
!Case Numbers
!Status
|- align="center"
|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
|[http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/08-1521.htm (08-4241, 08-4243, 08-4244)]
|bgcolor="green"|'''SETTLED'''
|- align="center"
|2008
|[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller 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
|[http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/07-290.htm (04-7041)]
|bgcolor="green"|'''SETTLED'''
|- align="center"
|1939
|[http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZS.html 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
|[http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZS.html 307 U.S. 174]
|bgcolor="green"|'''SETTLED'''
|}

=Case Law =

{| border="5"
!colspan="8" bgcolor="#F2ECCE" |Past Cases and Settled Law
|-
!Year Decided
!Name of Case   
!What was the Decision?
!Jurisdiction
!Type
!Where Filed
!Case Numbers
!Status
|- align="center"
|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
|[http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8275795650929564765 No. 10-7036]
|bgcolor=ORANGE|'''LOSS / REMANDED'''
|- align="center"
|2011
|[http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2405736404846552515 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
|[http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2405736404846552515 No. 10-3525]
|bgcolor="green"|'''REMANDED'''
|- align="center"
|2011
|[http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4718668703462204522 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
|[http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4718668703462204522 No. 10-3525]
|bgcolor="green"|'''REMANDED'''
|- align="center"
|2010
|[http://volokh.com/2010/12/30/big-second-amendment-opinion-from-the-fourth-circuit-related-to-the-ban-on-gun-possession-by-domestic-violence-misdemeanants/ 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
|[http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/094084.P.pdf No. 09-4084]
|bgcolor="green"|'''REMANDED'''
|- align="center"
|2010
|[http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8891939336060278486 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
|[http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8891939336060278486 08-5368-cv]
|bgcolor="green"|'''REMANDED'''
|-
|colspan="8" bgcolor="YELLOW" align="center" |MCDONALD v. CHICAGO DEMARCATION 6/28/2010
|- align="center"
|2008
|[http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10313407778878388943 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.
|[http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10313407778878388943 70 Cal.Rptr.3d 324 (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 895]
|bgcolor="green"|'''SETTLED'''
|- align="center"
|2002
|[http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13948185712203065755 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
|[http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13948185712203065755 312 F.3d 1052 (2002)]
|bgcolor="green"|'''SETTLED'''
|- align="center"
|2001
|[http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7137949113994302706 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 [http://www.calguns.net/a_california_arak.htm .]
|California
|Civil
|California Supreme Court
|[http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7137949113994302706 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 445 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1138 25 P.3d 649]
|bgcolor="green"|'''SETTLED'''
|- align="center"
|2000
|[http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/History_of_%27Assault_Weapon%27_laws#Kasler Kasler v. Lockyer]
|Challenged the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 - The case <u>did not succeed</u> because there is no RKBA in CA Constitution.
|California
|Civil
|California Supreme Court
|[http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1634297592840751535 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 334 (2000) 23 Cal.4th 472 2 P.3d 581]
|bgcolor="green"|'''SETTLED'''
|- align="center"
|1999
|[http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8665733338115229248 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
|[http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8665733338115229248 178 F.3d 231 (1999)] 
|bgcolor="green"|'''SETTLED'''
|- align="center"
|1986
|[http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/CBS_Inc._v._Block CBS Inc. v. Block]
|Carry License Applications are public documents, therefore anyone may view them.
|California
|Civil
|California Supreme Court
|[http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/CBS_Inc._v._Block 42 Cal.3d 646 (1986) 725 P.2d 470 230 Cal. Rptr. 362]
|bgcolor="green"|'''SETTLED'''
|- align="center"
|1984
|[http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6217614771319591527 Guillory v. County of Orange]
|CA PC 12025 "Good cause" is subject to equal protections under the law.  This case is also known as ''[http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=58468 Guillory v. Gates]''
|Federal
|Civil
|U.S. Court of Appeals 9th Circuit
|[http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6217614771319591527 82-5062]
|bgcolor="green"|'''SETTLED'''
|- align="center"
|1976
|[http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16111191278700729423 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.
|[http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16111191278700729423 61 Cal. App. 3d 557 - Cal: Court of Appeals, 2nd Appellate Dist., 4th Div. 1976]
|bgcolor="green"|'''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.
 
 [http://www.uscourts.gov/FederalCourts/UnderstandingtheFederalCourts/HowCourtsWork/CivilCases.aspx 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. 
   
 [http://www.uscourts.gov/FederalCourts/UnderstandingtheFederalCourts/HowCourtsWork/TheAppealsProcess.aspx 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. 
 
 [http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/about_us.aspx READ MORE HERE]

=== [http://www.uscourts.gov/court_locator.aspx Map of the Federal Circuit Courts ] ===

=External Resources=
* The Firing Line Forum - [http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4665041&postcount=3 Al Noris's thread on active 2A litigation]
* Maryland Shooters Forum- [http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=41822 Our friends at Maryland Shooters have an active thread on Post-McDonald 2A litigation.]
* Wikipedia - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution Second Amendment to the United States Constitution] Lots of good reading on 19th and 20th century U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
* LCAV - [http://www.lcav.org/content/SecondAmendFedCases.asp Summary of Second Amendment Case Law - Federal Appellate Cases] (Mostly Appeals from criminal cases that are not too interesting)
* LCAV - [http://www.lcav.org/content/post-heller_summary.pdf Significant Ongoing Civil Second Amendment Post-Heller Lawsuits] (See '''Appendix A''', at the end of the document for an objective list of cases)
* PACER - [http://www.pacer.gov/ Public Access to Court Electronic Records] is an electronic fee-based public access service that allows users to obtain case and docket information from federal appellate, and district courts.
* RECAP - [http://archive.recapthelaw.org/ The RECAP Archive] Access to millions of U.S. Federal District and Bankruptcy Court documents, without charge.

=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.