Difference between revisions of "Litigation Past and Present"
|Line 232:||Line 232:|
|[http://archive.recapthelaw.org//245180/ Second Amendment Arms v City of Chicago]
|Challenges '''ban''' on gun stores in Chicago.
|Challenges '''ban''' on gun stores in Chicago.
Revision as of 23:59, 20 August 2011
|Year Filed||Name of Case||Issue at stake||Jurisdiction||Type||Where Filed||Case Number||Status|
|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. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (VAED)||1:11-cv-00503 PACER||APPEALING|
|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) (CAND)||3:10-cv-01255 PACER||LITIGATION|
|2011||Scocca v. Smith||Sheriff Smith must treat citizens equally under the law and conform her CCW issuance polices to established court president.||Federal||Civil||U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (CAND)||5:11-cv-01318 PACER||LITIGATION|
|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 (ILSD)||3:11-cv-00405 PACER||LITIGATION|
|2011||Moore et al v. Madigan et al||Challenges Illinois’ statutory prohibitions on all forms of carry. (Citizens have neither open nor concealed carry)||Federal||Civil||U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois Springfield Division (ILCD)||3:11-cv-03134 PACER||LITIGATION|
|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|
|2009||Pena v. Cid||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||Williams v. Maryland||Whether peaceably carrying or transporting a registered handgun outside the home, without a carry permit that is unobtainable by ordinary, law-abiding citizens, is outside of the scope of “the right of the people to . . . bear arms” protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.||Maryland||Criminal||U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS)||10-1207||CERT PETITION|
|2009||Richards v. Prieto||(Formerly Sykes v. McGinness) Challenges carry licensing policy in Yolo County, CA||Federal||Civil||U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (CAED)||2:09-cv-1235-MCE-KJM||Appealing - appealed to 9th Circuit 16 May 2011|
|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||WAITING|
|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 CA9||No. 10-56971||APPEALING|
|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||No. 11-1149||APPEALING|
|2010||Kachalsky v. Cacace||Challenge to New York State "proper cause" requirement for a carry license.||Federal||Civil||U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (NYSD)||7:10-cv-05413 PACER||LITIGATION|
|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. District Court District of Columbia (DCD)||1:10-cv-01736 PACER||LITIGATION|
|2010||Woolard v. Sheridan||Challenge to may-issue carry requirements in Maryland||Federal||Civil||U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (MDD)||1:10-cv-02068 PACER||LITIGATION|
|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||Muller et al v. Maenza et al||Challenge to New Jersey's horribly crafted carry laws.||Federal||Civil||U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (NJD)||2:10-cv-06110-WHW-CCC PACER||LITIGATION|
|2008||Hightower v. Boston||Challenge to discretionary issue of Licenses To Carry, which are also required to own firearms.||Federal||Civil||US District Court for Massachusetts(MAD)||1:08-cv-11955 PACER||LITIGATION|
|2010||OOIDA v. Lindley||Seeking a judicial declaration that Penal Code section 12318 (AB962) (ammo) is unconstitutional and unenforceable because it is in direct conflict with federal law.||Federal||Civil||U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (CAED)||2:10-cv-02010||DISMISSED|
|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||SETTLED / VICTORY|
|2010||State Ammunition v. Lindley||Seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to determine whether California's Anti-Gang Neighborhood Protection Act of 2009, AB962 (ammo) is unconstitutional.||Federal||Civil||U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (CAED)||2:10-cv-01864||DISMISSED|
|2010||Ezell v. Chicago||Challenge to Chicago banning gun ranges inside the city limits.||Federal||Civil||U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals CA7||No. 10-3525 1:10-cv-05135 OPINION PACER||SETTLED / VICTORY CA-7, Remanded|
|1999||Nordyke v. King||Banning Gun Shows on Alameda County Property, CA||Federal||Civil||U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals CA9||No. 07-15763||REMANDED / LITIGATION|
|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||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 (COD)||1:10-cv-02408 PACER||LITIGATION|
|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. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (TXND)||5:10-cv-00140 PACER||LITIGATION|
|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. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (TXND)||5:10-cv-00141 PACER||LITIGATION|
|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||LITIGATION|
|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||No. 10-36094 9:09-cv-00147||APPEALING|
|2009||Dearth v. Holder||This suit challenges the prohibition for U.S. Citizens to purchase a firearm without a U.S. residence.||Federal||Civil||U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (CADC)||No. 10-5062 1:09-cv-00587 PACER||REMANDED / LITIGATION|
|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||(Heller II) Heller et al v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al||Challenges many statures enacted by D.C. after the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Heller||Federal||Civil||U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (CADC)||No. 10-7036 1:08-cv-01289||WAITING|
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|
|Past Cases and Settled Law|
|Year Decided||Name of Case||What was the Decision?||Jurisdiction||Type||Where Filed||Case Numbers||Status|
|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||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 CCW 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||CCW 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
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
- Maryland Shooters - Our friends at Maryland Shooters have an active thread on Post-McDonald 2A litigation.
- Wikipedia - Second Amendment to the United States Constitution Lots of good reading on 19th and 20th century U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
- LCAV - Summary of Second Amendment Case Law - Federal Appellate Cases (Mostly Appeals from criminal cases that are not too interesting)
- LCAV - Significant Ongoing Civil Second Amendment Post-Heller Lawsuits (See Appendix A, at the end of the document for an objective list of cases)
- PACER - 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 - 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" (Non-9th Circuit of Appeals cases), and "Other Litigation" for all other interesting U.S. District or other Non California State 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.