Difference between revisions of "Litigation Past and Present"

From Calguns Foundation Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Current Litigation)
(Current Litigation)
Line 238: Line 238:
 
|U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois [http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/ (ILND)]
 
|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]
 
|[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
 
|bgcolor="#9BAEF5"|LITIGATION
 
|- align="center"
 
|- align="center"

Revision as of 01:05, 21 August 2011

Current Litigation

Current Litigation
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

3:09-cv-02371-IEG-BGS

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

10-CV-00059-WDM-MEH

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 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. 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
Next Case

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
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
Next Case
Next Case

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" (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.