This Methusala of right to arms lawsuits was filed in 1999 and challenges an Alameda County ban on gunshows at the county fairgrounds. Itĺ─˘s supported by California CalGuns Foundation; attorney is Don Kilmer. The Ninth Circuit panel (3 judges) initially ruled (before McDonald v. Chicago) that the 14th Amendment incorporated the 2nd Amendment, but that the ban was a reasonable regulation. The entire Circuit then voted to rehear the case en banc (i.e., by a special panel of about half the Circuitĺ─˘s judges). After McDonald, and after en banc argument, the en banc panel remanded to the original 3 judge panel, which has called for briefing. by August 18. Panel ruling; Remand from en banc; text of current briefing order; briefs and other documents.
Panel ruling http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/04/20/0715763.pdf
Text of briefing order: http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2010/07/update_in_nordy.php
Briefs and other documents: http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Nordyke_v._King
NRA amicus (pdf)
Amicus briefs at http://www.calgunlaws.com/
Palmer v. District of Columbia
Challenge to DCĺ─˘s new handgun regulations, which restrict registration to registration for use in the home, and require proof that the applicant resides in the District. Complaint; Motion for Summary Judgment.
Motion for summary judgment: http://saf.org/legal.action/dc.carry.lawsuit/SJ_brief.pdf
Bateman v. Perdue
This is a challenge to a North Carolina statute that forbids carrying of arms outside one's property during a declared emergency. Alan Gura is lead attorney, and SAF supports the suit. This was the first endeavor to extend the right to "bearing"; Heller and McDonald were both about "keeping." Complaint. Defendants have filed the usual motions to dismiss, and briefing is underway.
Benson et al v. City of Chicago et al
Challenge to Chicagoĺ─˘s new handgun regulations. Sponsored by NRA. Complaint and amended complaint have been filed; no response yet.
Ezell v. Chicago.
Challenge to Chicagoĺ─˘s express ban on shooting ranges; the new Chicago regulations require at least one hour of range training, yet the city bans ranges within city limits. Also challenges regulations that effectively bar use of a range to obtain a city permit, e.g., that bar possession of ammunition other than for handguns already owned and registered. Sponsored by SAF and Illinois State Rifle Association; attorneys are Alan Gura and David G. Sigale. Now in briefing, on an expedited schedule. Complaint; Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
Motion for preliminary injunction: http://saf.org/legal.action/chicago2.lawsuit/preliminary.injunction.pdf
Wollard v. Sheridan.
Challenges Marylandĺ─˘s ĺ─˙may issueĺ─¨ carry permit system. Sponsored by SAF; attorneys are Alan Gura and Cary J.. Hansel. Complaint.
Kachalsky v. Cacace.
Challenges New Yorkĺ─˘s ĺ─˙may issueĺ─¨ firearms permit laws, arguing that under Heller and McDonald a licensing authority may not require a heightened standard of need for self defense (i.e., that the person can demonstrate a special need, beyond that shared by others, for self defense). Complaint.
Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association et al. v. Lindley
Challenge to California Handgun Ammunition Sales Law, which requires that the buyer provide identification, delivery be made only to the purchaser and not to anyone at his residence, etc. . Challenge argues that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994, which regulates interstate shipment by commercial carriers, and implementing regulations on labeling shipments of ammunition, pre-empt the State law insofar as it affects interstate shipments. California has not yet responded. Sponsored by NRA and CalGuns Foundation; attorneys are Jason Davis and Chuck Michel. Complaint.
Complaint here: http://ia360709.us.archive.org/23/items/gov.uscourts.caed.211363/gov.uscourts.caed.211363.1.0.pdf ____
Challenges the California ammunition regulations on Commerce Clause grounds. Article.
Second Amendment Arms v. Chicago.
Challenges Chicagoĺ─˘s new gun regulations, which include bans on gun shops, a limit on one functional firearm in the home, etc.. Complaint.
Sykes v. McGinness
Challenge to Californiaĺ─˘s ĺ─˙may issueĺ─¨ carry permit system, under which any sheriff can determine what is ĺ─˙good causeĺ─¨ for issuance, and the defendants have ruled that a desire for self defense or fear of becoming a victim of violent crime are insufficient cause. Sponsored by SAF and CalGuns Foundation; attorneys are Alan Gura and Don Kilmer. Complaint; Motion for Summary Judgment; Wiki Page.
First Amended Complaint: http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/sykes/Sykes-v-McGinness-Complaint-2009-05-09.pdf
Baker v. Biaggi et al
This challenges Nevadaĺ─˘s ban on gun possession in State parks, with an exception for possession in residences. Argument is that a tent is a temporary residence. Sponsor is Mountain States Legal Foundation. Current status is that some but not all defendants have filed answers.
Mishaga v. Monken
This challenges the Illinois Firearm Owner Identification Cardĺ─˘s limitation on nonresidents. A nonresident can only obtain the card for firearms competition or hunting, and without such a card a person cannot possess a handgun. Sponsor is Mountain State Legal Foundation. Webpage.
Wisconsin Carry v. Milwaukee
Challenges the State "gunfree schoolzones act," as applied to several persons who were arrested or threatened with arrest for carrying a firearm in their own yard or house, which happened to be within 1,000 feet of a school. Brought by Wisconsin Carry, Inc.; attorney is John Monroe. Complaint.