Litigation Past and Present

Current Litigation

Current Litigation
Year Filed	Name of Case	Issue at stake	Jurisdiction	Type	Where Filed	Case Number	Status
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	STAYED
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	LITIGATION
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	WAITING
2009	Peruta v. County of San Diego	Challenges carry licensing policy in San Diego County, CA	Federal	Civil	U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (CASD)	3:09-cv-02371-IEG-BGS	WAITING
2010	Peterson v. LaCabe	Challenges carry residency requirement for City and County of Denver, CO	Federal	Civil	U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (COD)	10-CV-00059-WDM-MEH	LITIGATION
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	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	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	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 Wisconson (WIWD)	3:10-cv-00548	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	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	LITIGATION
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 Appeals CA7	1:10-cv-05135 No. 10-3525	APPEALING
1999	Nordyke v. King	Banning Gun Shows on Alameda County Property, CA	Federal	Civil	U.S. 9th Circuit Appeals CA9	07-15763	WAITING
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	LITIGATION
2010	D'Cruz 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	LITIGATION
2010	D'Cruz v. McCraw et al	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	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	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. District Court for the District of Montana (MTD)	9:09-cv-00147	LITIGATION
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. District Court of District of Columbia (DCD)	1:09-cv-00587	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	LITIGATION
Next Case
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
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, Ninth 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