PDA

View Full Version : Peterson v. LaCabe: LaCabe MSJ Denied!


Gray Peterson
10-22-2010, 1:29 PM
Defendant's Cross Motion for Summary Judgement has been denied. (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cod.117112/gov.uscourts.cod.117112.26.0.pdf)

Highlights:

I am not entirely persuaded by LaCabe’s contention that he is not a proper defendant in this action. I note that a basic element of standing for Article III purposes is an injury “fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant” and a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. Bronson v. Swensen, 500 F.3d 1099, 1106 (10th Cir. 2007). Here, it is undisputed that LaCabe is the responsible official in enforcing the statutory scheme in Denver. Moreover, LaCabe’s action in denying Plaintiff’s application is the cause of Plaintiff’s alleged injury (inability to obtain a concealed handgun permit) and a favorable decision will redress the injury. Therefore, for the purposes of Article III standing, it appears that LaCabe is an appropriate defendant.

Moreover, that LaCabe could not exercise discretion does not necessarily bar an action against him. See, e.g., Finberg v. Sullivan, 634 F.2d 50, 54 (3d Cir. 1980) (examining whether, under Ex Parte Young, local officials enforcing statutory scheme were proper defendants and concluding that the fact that their duties were entirely ministerial was not a defense to liability; “Under Ex Parte Young the inquiry is not the nature of an official’s duties but into the effect of the official’s perform nce of his duties on the plaintiff’s rights”). The court in Finberg similarly rejected any notion that the defendants did not have a sufficient interest in the constitutionality of the rules to be adverse to the plaintiff, similar to what LaCabe argues here. Id. (“Once the [local officials] have relied on the authority conferred by the [state] procedures to work an injury to the plaintiff, they may not disclaim interest in the constitutionality of these procedures.”). Accordingly, I disagree that the motion for summary judgment should be denied on this basis.

LaCabe has provided no legal authority to show why he cannot address the constitutional arguments presented by Plaintiff regarding the statute. Nonetheless, given that the Attorney General is now a party and will presumably respond to these issues, I will also reserve ruling on Defendant LaCabe’s liability.

.......

Accordingly, it is ordered:
1. The Motion to Dismiss Executive Director Peter Weir and Colorado Attorney General’s Request to Be Heard (ECF No. 6) is granted.
2. All claims against Defendant Peter Weir shall be dismissed.
3. John W. Suthers, Attorney General for the State of Colorado, is a party to this action as an intervenor.
4. The Attorney General may file a response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment against Defendant LaCabe (ECF No. 17) within 30 days of the date of this order and Plaintiff may file a reply brief in accordance with D.C.COLO.LCivR 56.1.A..
5. Defendant LaCabe’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff (ECF No. 19) is denied.

The further posture of this case is that AG Suthers may respond on behalf of LaCabe as intervenor on behalf of the state statute that is being challenged.

safewaysecurity
10-22-2010, 1:30 PM
So... this is good?

Gray Peterson
10-22-2010, 1:34 PM
So... this is good?

It means the judge is paying attention to the issues and is allowing the state to intervene (which we said it's OK). The judge I believe all but called Denver's defense counsel incompetent and offer the state a chance to respond to my MSJ against LaCabe.

The issues are essentially narrowed to non-resident licensure until appeals are made to the 10th circuit.

My MSJ is being held for the state's response and our reply to their response.

safewaysecurity
10-22-2010, 1:36 PM
Yeh.... this legal jargon hurts my head.. lol

safewaysecurity
10-22-2010, 1:42 PM
When can we expect a ruling on your case? A month or two?

krucam
10-22-2010, 1:45 PM
Great news Gray! I know this one has been dragging on ad nauseum for you, it is great to see some motion, particularly something positive on the surface...

chuckdc
10-22-2010, 1:49 PM
When can we expect a ruling on your case? A month or two?

Need I say it? :D

safewaysecurity
10-22-2010, 1:50 PM
Need I say it? :D

:ban:

press1280
10-22-2010, 1:55 PM
Any guesses on the AG ordering non-res licenses to be issued, or will he try to drag it out?

Peter.Steele
10-22-2010, 2:02 PM
The judge I believe all but flat-out called Denver's defense counsel incompetent and offer the state a chance to respond to my MSJ against LaCabe.


Fixed.


The issues are essentially narrowed to non-resident licensure until appeals are made to the 10th circuit.



But really, Weir's inclusion was overreaching a little bit. The judge's reasoning on that was sound and well-supported. Take that one up later, from a different angle.

Window_Seat
10-22-2010, 2:04 PM
When can we expect a ruling on your case? A month or two?

Someone already implied & insinuated it, so I'll just say "go eat a sandwich & take a nap". :D

Seriously,
Apparently the Judge all but granted SJ based on LaCabe's reply brief full of "I just work here, so he should go sue someone else". The Judge is basically telling LaCabe that he isn't dismissing the suit, and that LaCabe isn't off the hook as easily as he thought he would be. The Judge basically says that the "He is suing the wrong guy" defense is not worth granting his motion for summary judgment, and that the lawsuit will continue.

Yeh.... this legal jargon hurts my head.. lol

It once hurt my head, and still does, but not as much as it did a few years ago.

I've found that the best way to learn as much about this kind of jargon is to go and read caselaw opinions, complaints, briefs, and general court documents. I have been doing that, and it really helps. To give an example, I received a court document in the mail the other day regarding a death in the family. A few years ago, I would have had to have it all deciphered & decoded, but I was able to read it and interpret it. I attribute it to reading of court documents over the past few years, and looking up the different terminology. I still have to look stuff up, but it's easier than before.

Try it, it really works.

Erik.

safewaysecurity
10-22-2010, 2:16 PM
Someone already implied & insinuated it, so I'll just say "go eat a sandwich & take a nap". :D

Seriously,
Apparently the Judge all but granted SJ based on LaCabe's reply brief full of "I just work here, so he should go sue someone else". The Judge is basically telling LaCabe that he isn't dismissing the suit, and that LaCabe isn't off the hook as easily as he thought he would be. The Judge basically says that the "He is suing the wrong guy" defense is not worth granting his motion for summary judgment, and that the lawsuit will continue.



It once hurt my head, and still does, but not as much as it did a few years ago.

I've found that the best way to learn as much about this kind of jargon is to go and read caselaw opinions, complaints, briefs, and general court documents. I have been doing that, and it really helps. To give an example, I received a court document in the mail the other day regarding a death in the family. A few years ago, I would have had to have it all deciphered & decoded, but I was able to read it and interpret it. I attribute it to reading of court documents over the past few years, and looking up the different terminology. I still have to look stuff up, but it's easier than before.

Try it, it really works.

Erik.

I'm actually good with law and am actually studying law to be a future lawyer. My friends usually come to me for legal information and stuff but it's hard to understand everything all the time. XD

Gray Peterson
10-22-2010, 2:29 PM
Fixed.




But really, Weir's inclusion was overreaching a little bit. The judge's reasoning on that was sound and well-supported. Take that one up later, from a different angle.

Unless granted on appeal, I am collaterrally estopped from taking it up myself. Someone else will have to do that.

hoffmang
10-22-2010, 4:42 PM
Unless granted on appeal, I am collaterrally estopped from taking it up myself. Someone else will have to do that.

Enh - now that the AG is part I think you can make the case against him. You were not prejudiced in naming someone else appropriate.

This judge is taking this case seriously and will reach the merits. As to timeline, I'd expect 90 more days of briefing and reply and then 90-180 more days before a ruling.

-Gene

Gray Peterson
10-22-2010, 4:49 PM
Enh - now that the AG is part I think you can make the case against him. You were not prejudiced in naming someone else appropriate.

This judge is taking this case seriously and will reach the merits. As to timeline, I'd expect 90 more days of briefing and reply and then 90-180 more days before a ruling.

-Gene

True, but I have a feeling that no matter which state authority (the AG, the Governor) that I name, I'll run into the same problem with them claiming immunity per Ex Parte Young, given the judge's apparent factual errors and merging the two causes of action together.

It'll be about 45 days of briefing. I just hope it doesn't take 3 months for him to decide on merits.

loather
10-23-2010, 8:39 AM
Good news, but it sucks that it's going to take so long for an answer. Right to speedy trial? Hogwash.

hoffmang
10-23-2010, 9:18 AM
Good news, but it sucks that it's going to take so long for an answer. Right to speedy trial? Hogwash.

This is judicial speed. The judiciary isn't up to internet speed and probably will not be for a while. However, as these 2A related claims get less and less novel they will speed up or not even get to court in the first place.

-Gene

snobord99
10-23-2010, 10:42 AM
Good news, but it sucks that it's going to take so long for an answer. Right to speedy trial? Hogwash.

This isn't a criminal case.

Connor P Price
10-23-2010, 11:14 AM
Good stuff, now its time to hurry up and wait. Can't wait to see the victory thread. It looks like were going to be getting a lot of those in 2011.

gunsmith
10-23-2010, 7:21 PM
good news, now-when can I carry in CA with my NV ccw?

Window_Seat
10-23-2010, 7:25 PM
good news, now-when can I carry in CA with my NV ccw?

Don't make me say it...:mad: :D

Erik.

ke6guj
10-23-2010, 7:30 PM
Don't make me say it...:mad: :D

Erik.

um...
14 days
336 hours
20160 minutes
1209600 seconds
etc..

:D

Gray Peterson
10-23-2010, 9:49 PM
good news, now-when can I carry in CA with my NV ccw?

Why don't we get the licensing processed opened up to all non-residents first, OK?

hill billy
10-24-2010, 9:53 AM
Thanks again, Gray, your hard work is appreciated.

Smokeybehr
10-24-2010, 12:44 PM
Need I say it? :D

TWO WEEKS!

Gray Peterson
10-25-2010, 12:41 AM
Great news Gray! I know this one has been dragging on ad nauseum for you, it is great to see some motion, particularly something positive on the surface...

The good news is that this judge doesn't tend to do oral arguments and considers things on the briefings, an additional plus for myself and my attorney John Monroe.

Mulay El Raisuli
10-25-2010, 7:14 AM
um...
14 days
336 hours
20160 minutes
1209600 seconds
etc..

:D


"Etc.." being a fortnight? :)


The Raisuli

J.D.Allen
10-25-2010, 8:30 AM
Why don't we get the licensing processed opened up to all non-residents first, OK?

I second that motion!!! :D

IrishPirate
10-25-2010, 8:38 AM
Enh - now that the AG is part I think you can make the case against him. You were not prejudiced in naming someone else appropriate.

This judge is taking this case seriously and will reach the merits. As to timeline, I'd expect 90 more days of briefing and reply and then 90-180 more days before a ruling.

-Gene

a lifetime for us, a second for the courts.....




glad to see that the judge isn't swaying to the wrong side of this one. Everytime i read about a pro2A case going the right way it makes my whole week seem better. Keep up the good fight Grey,i'll see if i can help by donating :D

wash
10-25-2010, 8:48 AM
This is judicial speed. The judiciary isn't up to internet speed and probably will not be for a while. However, as these 2A related claims get less and less novel they will speed up or not even get to court in the first place.

-Gene
I hope it never gets to internet speed, that would be like Judge Roy Bean justice.

That's ok for some, but not for all.

p.s. I would like it to be about 3-10x as fast as the present rate.

snobord99
10-25-2010, 9:07 AM
The good news is that this judge doesn't tend to do oral arguments and considers things on the briefings, an additional plus for myself and my attorney John Monroe.

True of pretty much every judge. Most things are won and lost on paper, not in the courtroom.

Gray Peterson
10-25-2010, 9:37 AM
True of pretty much every judge. Most things are won and lost on paper, not in the courtroom.

There have been mostly oral arguments with the carry cases that I know of. Judge Miller in this case hasn't been really doing any oral arguments and his preference is not to. He likes stuff in writing than spoken.

snobord99
10-25-2010, 10:14 AM
There have been mostly oral arguments with the carry cases that I know of. Judge Miller in this case hasn't been really doing any oral arguments and his preference is not to. He likes stuff in writing than spoken.

Oh, I think you misunderstood me (not your fault). I'm not saying that an oral argument doesn't even take place. What I'm saying is that the parties generally file a written motion before the oral argument and judges already know how they're going to rule based on that written motion. The oral argument is basically for the losing side to change the judge's mind (even though neither party knows for sure if they're winning or losing) but it's very rare for someone to change the judge's mind during oral argument.

Ksmash01
10-25-2010, 3:02 PM
Keep in movin' Gray. May you float on the winds of success, and attain your victory........good fighting brave soldier, but the battle is not yet ours.....

Gray Peterson
10-26-2010, 10:59 AM
Keep in movin' Gray. May you float on the winds of success, and attain your victory........good fighting brave soldier, but the battle is not yet ours.....

It's not about me. It's about the 2A at it's core.

Gray Peterson
10-29-2010, 5:04 PM
Btw, all, I'm sorry to particularly bump it for this purpose, but I fixed the links in my signature to allow for further donations (GPal...eh....yeah, no donations there since that whole thing blew up, and the Paypal link was bad).

Peterson v. LaCabe is a touchstone case on carry and the right to travel while carrying. Peterson is critically important to right to carry not only just in Colorado, but also especially important to the California carry cases and all carry cases across this country.

Because of the recent decision by the judge, the attorney general of Colorado will be responding to our our MSJ rather than the extraordinarily incompetent counsel of the City/County of Denver. This means we'll be dealing with more competent counsel, which means winning the case will not be a shoo-in. We'll have to redo the work in our reply to the Colorado AG. The fact that we did not have our MSJ dismissed at this stage shows that my attorney (John Monroe) is very competent at this sort of work.

The musician in Sacramento who shot that crazed thug resided in Nevada. I want it to where if he has to do it again, he will have a California CCW in his pocket and will not even remotely face charges (Yes, Peterson will have a direct influence on California law in more senses than I originally realized). This especially goes out to people who live in California but have family who carries in their own states but cannot in California, Freedom isn't Free (https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=JH3DGQ6FQ2MLW), as Gene is fond of pointing out.

hoffmang
10-29-2010, 8:07 PM
Please add some dollars for Gray's interstate travel carry case.

-Gene

Apocalypsenerd
10-29-2010, 11:37 PM
Tried to donate, but Paypal wouldn't let me login from the link. So either a crapload of money just got donated, or none. Can you offer an item id? it might make it easier for me.

Gray Peterson
10-30-2010, 8:02 AM
Tried to donate, but Paypal wouldn't let me login from the link. So either a crapload of money just got donated, or none. Can you offer an item id? it might make it easier for me.

PM hoffmang, since he's CGF's contact on this specific case.

hoffmang
10-30-2010, 8:39 AM
Tried to donate, but Paypal wouldn't let me login from the link. So either a crapload of money just got donated, or none. Can you offer an item id? it might make it easier for me.

Odd - it just worked for me...

-Gene

Gray Peterson
10-30-2010, 8:49 AM
Tried to donate, but Paypal wouldn't let me login from the link. So either a crapload of money just got donated, or none. Can you offer an item id? it might make it easier for me.

So you're having a login problem with paypal? Worse case scenario, send a paper check to the address, and let us know how much it is so we can find it in the mail.

dunndeal
10-30-2010, 10:21 AM
Please add some dollars for Gray's interstate travel carry case.

-Gene

$50 donation made.

Gray Peterson
10-30-2010, 10:59 AM
$50 donation made.

:thumbsup: Thanks, man.

Apocalypsenerd
10-30-2010, 3:09 PM
Figured it out. $20 on the way.

Gray Peterson
10-31-2010, 7:21 AM
Figured it out. $20 on the way.

Thanks. :thumbsup:

krucam
10-31-2010, 7:32 AM
Good luck Gray...just chipped in what I can for your fantastic efforts.

Since the 2A is now a fundamental right, I should start saving "receipts" for tax time...
;-)

Gray Peterson
11-25-2010, 6:40 PM
from Krucam:

A lot of docs filed in this one over the last few days:

11/17/2010 27 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Matthew David Grove on behalf of John W. Suthers (Grove, Matthew) (Entered: 11/17/2010)

11/17/2010 28 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 17[RECAP] MOTION for Summary Judgment against Defendant LaCabe by Intervenor John W. Suthers. (Grove, Matthew) (Entered: 11/17/2010)
11/17/2010 29 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Cross-motion for Summary Judgment by Intervenor John W. Suthers. (Grove, Matthew) (Entered: 11/17/2010)

11/18/2010 30 MEMORANDUM regarding 28 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 17[RECAP] MOTION for Summary Judgment against Defendant LaCabe filed by John W. Suthers. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty by Judge Walker D. Miller on 11/18/10. TEXT ONLY ENTRY - NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED(wdmsec, ) (Entered: 11/18/2010)

11/18/2010 31 MINUTE ORDER granting 29 Intervenor's Motion to File Cross-Motion, by Judge Walker D. Miller on 11/18/10.(ebs, ) (Entered: 11/18/2010)

11/19/2010 32[RECAP] MINUTE ORDER granting 28 the Attorney General's Motion for Extension of Time to File Response Brief to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. The Attorney General shall respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment on or before December 10, 2010. Plaintiff may reply within fourteen days of the Attorney General's response. By Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 11/19/2010. (mehcd) (Entered: 11/19/2010)

Basically Defendants requested time to respond to 17 Plaintiff MSJ. This was granted...Def response to MSJ due 12/10/2010. Plaintiff reply to Defendant response due 14 days later, 12/24/2010.

Peterson Docket is HERE (http://ia700202.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.cod.117112/gov.uscourts.cod.117112.docket.html). The latest entries will be there shortly...

Patrick-2
07-27-2011, 2:57 AM
We've been watching this over on MDShooters and noticed one of the defendants failed to file their brief...maybe even twice?

Anyone know what is happening...???

Today, 2 filings in Peterson...

07/15/2011 Open Document [9884926] Deficiency notice issued. Type of deficiency: Appellee Lacabe has not filed a brief. Appellee/Respondent brief now due 07/25/2011 for Alvin Lacabe.


07/15/2011 Open Document [9885014] Supplemental authority filed by NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund. Served on 07/15/2011. Manner of Service: ECF/NDA. MB

The NRA Supplemental filing is of course, that of Ezell. Nice of the two big boys to cooperate and "play nice"...well, one of the two...

Regardless, who cares, right?

NRA Brief is attached. (note: Check out the thread here (http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=45221&page=4) for docs and downloads)



EDIT: I revived a necro-thread asking this question. Could not find a more recent thread covering the case. Mods: please move and correct me if I missed it. I have a hard time finding milk in the refrigerator some days... ;)

yellowfin
07-27-2011, 5:21 AM
As mentioned there, I don't think the defense is taking this case seriously. They probably don't think it's possible that a Circuit court would dare to rule against them on a 2A matter of significance. Good for our side, of course.

Gray Peterson
07-27-2011, 6:30 AM
We've been watching this over on MDShooters and noticed one of the defendants failed to file their brief...maybe even twice?

Anyone know what is happening...???



The federal rules of appellant procedure (FRAP) requires responses by all parties to the case, under pain of not being able to participate in that level of litigation, or oral arguments.

The attorneys for the City/County of Denver essentially, from what I can gather, did not believe it needed to respond. When called out on it by the Court of Appeals clerk, they decided at that point to essentially let the state do the defense, as the state essentially threw Denver under the bus, stating the the source of my problem was Denver's requirement that guns only be carried concealed with a CHL (their OC ban).

Denver at that point realized that the state was taking a position that was detrimental to their OC ban, and essentially opted out of defending LaCabe's denial of my CHL at the Court of Appeals level.

So now it's essentially becoming a situation where it's me against the state of Colorado. Denver maintains their right to appeal to SCOTUS if I prevail in my case (they are on the hook for attorneys fees and court costs), but they just gave up their ability to participate in the court of appeals level.

This situation also gave me more time to reply as replies were all not gotten in until 7/20 when Denver tapped out. My reply is due 8/8/2011.

Patrick-2
07-27-2011, 6:36 AM
As the (Appellate) World Turns...

Gray, thanks for the information. Al will be happy to see the news, as will the others. We're keeping the torch lit for you...


Denver = fail. I don't see how they can claim a right to appeal to SCOTUS when they skate out the Circuit. Even if possible, certainly not wise.

Crom
07-27-2011, 7:27 AM
Thanks for the update Gray. I think with sufficient persistence you will prevail.

Gray Peterson
07-27-2011, 7:37 AM
As the (Appellate) World Turns...

Gray, thanks for the information. Al will be happy to see the news, as will the others. We're keeping the torch lit for you...


Denver = fail. I don't see how they can claim a right to appeal to SCOTUS when they skate out the Circuit. Even if possible, certainly not wise.

That's par for the course for Denver. They got caught not filing a case when they should have. They could have sent that letter at the deadline and they didn't.

yellowfin
07-27-2011, 7:54 AM
That's rather amusing and most encouraging. So I'm guessing by this your chances of winning at the Circuit level just improved substantially?

Al Norris
07-27-2011, 10:47 AM
Thanks Gray.

I had hoped that was what that meant, but had no real clue, as the phrasing could have been taken in either one of two ways to this layman.

curtisfong
07-27-2011, 11:10 AM
Highlights:

{win}

{win}

{win}

.......

Accordingly, it is ordered:
{#WINNING}


Go get em Gray!

Patrick-2
07-27-2011, 1:10 PM
That's rather amusing and most encouraging. So I'm guessing by this your chances of winning at the Circuit level just improved substantially?

The state is still going to do what it can to retain the power over permitting and reciprocity. No AG will willingly give up that power.

Shall-Issue does not mean "Pro-Right". Letting you exercise the right is quid pro quo for voting for the right guys. Remove half that barter, and next thing you know you are voting Chuck Schumer for Colorado AG, right?

hoffmang
07-27-2011, 1:30 PM
We'll post a summary of all the appellate filings in this case once our reply brief is in.

-Gene

press1280
07-27-2011, 1:45 PM
The federal rules of appellant procedure (FRAP) requires responses by all parties to the case, under pain of not being able to participate in that level of litigation, or oral arguments.

The attorneys for the City/County of Denver essentially, from what I can gather, did not believe it needed to respond. When called out on it by the Court of Appeals clerk, they decided at that point to essentially let the state do the defense, as the state essentially threw Denver under the bus, stating the the source of my problem was Denver's requirement that guns only be carried concealed with a CHL (their OC ban).

Denver at that point realized that the state was taking a position that was detrimental to their OC ban, and essentially opted out of defending LaCabe's denial of my CHL at the Court of Appeals level.

So now it's essentially becoming a situation where it's me against the state of Colorado. Denver maintains their right to appeal to SCOTUS if I prevail in my case (they are on the hook for attorneys fees and court costs), but they just gave up their ability to participate in the court of appeals level.

This situation also gave me more time to reply as replies were all not gotten in until 7/20 when Denver tapped out. My reply is due 8/8/2011.

CO should just let Denver's OC ban get knocked down, why would they defend a law that that's at odds with the rest of the state?

hoffmang
07-27-2011, 1:46 PM
CO should just let Denver's OC ban get knocked down, why would they defend a law that that's at odds with the rest of the state?

Then the CO AF should get right on that. I'm just shocked to tell you that he's not... </sarcasm>

-Gene

krucam
08-10-2011, 2:42 PM
The federal rules of appellant procedure (FRAP) requires responses by all parties to the case, under pain of not being able to participate in that level of litigation, or oral arguments.

The attorneys for the City/County of Denver essentially, from what I can gather, did not believe it needed to respond. When called out on it by the Court of Appeals clerk, they decided at that point to essentially let the state do the defense, as the state essentially threw Denver under the bus, stating the the source of my problem was Denver's requirement that guns only be carried concealed with a CHL (their OC ban).

Denver at that point realized that the state was taking a position that was detrimental to their OC ban, and essentially opted out of defending LaCabe's denial of my CHL at the Court of Appeals level.

So now it's essentially becoming a situation where it's me against the state of Colorado. Denver maintains their right to appeal to SCOTUS if I prevail in my case (they are on the hook for attorneys fees and court costs), but they just gave up their ability to participate in the court of appeals level.

This situation also gave me more time to reply as replies were all not gotten in until 7/20 when Denver tapped out. My reply is due 8/8/2011.

Gray's response is attached IRT the non-filing. At least we had a Brady Amicus to pick on....

choprzrul
08-10-2011, 3:44 PM
Gray's response is attached IRT the non-filing. At least we had a Brady Amicus to pick on....

This is a very thoroughly researched and well written document. Very easy to read and understand. Kudos to those who produced it.

.

Connor P Price
08-10-2011, 5:15 PM
Gives me something to do during work tonight! I'm sure this will be a good read.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk

Connor P Price
08-10-2011, 7:43 PM
Great response. Can't wait to see where things go from here.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk

Psy Crow
08-10-2011, 8:20 PM
Gray's response is attached IRT the non-filing. At least we had a Brady Amicus to pick on....

That Reply Brief was entirely readable, understandable (by mere mortals), and very entertaining - I lol'd :p

+1, would read (and lol) again. :D

Purple K
08-11-2011, 12:25 AM
A very nice read.

Mulay El Raisuli
08-11-2011, 5:54 AM
Gray's response is attached IRT the non-filing. At least we had a Brady Amicus to pick on....


A thoroughly entertaining read.


The Raisuli

VegasND
08-11-2011, 6:30 AM
I just took a few minutes to read it and it got my day off to a good start.

I am looking forward to see the response from the court.

Maestro Pistolero
08-11-2011, 8:51 AM
Excellent.

Caught a typo page 15:
". . . if the State of Colorado believes Denver’s licensing requirement is unconstitutional, then why hasn’t (doesn't?) the State of Colorado do (done?) something about it?"

Glock22Fan
08-11-2011, 8:56 AM
Excellent.

Caught a typo page 15:
". . . if the State of Colorado believes Denver’s licensing requirement is unconstitutional, then why hasn’t (doesn't) the State of Colorado do (done?) something about it?"

There's another one, somewhat earlier, where an "and" should have been an "an". But I didn't note exactly where, as it's probably way too late to do anything about it.

I am surprised however that so many legal briefs do have mistakes like this in them. I thought attorneys were so careful with the words they use.

mgkdrgn
08-11-2011, 6:43 PM
I am surprised however that so many legal briefs do have mistakes like this in them. I thought attorneys were so careful with the words they use.

Now you know why most laws are written so poorly ... lawyers in the legislature.

jwkincal
08-11-2011, 6:49 PM
Spell check and autocorrect. Bringing you unintelligible garbage since Y2K.

I miss the days when people used to actually proofread stuff.

Gray Peterson
08-11-2011, 8:24 PM
Now you know why most laws are written so poorly ... lawyers in the legislature.

Spell check and autocorrect. Bringing you unintelligible garbage since Y2K.

I miss the days when people used to actually proofread stuff.

Compared to certain lawyers *cough* Gorski *cough* John Monroe's filings are A grade. If one sentence looks wierd and there's just one typo, I can perfectly accept that.

Given that I was the one who proofread it along with a few others before filing, you can pin the blame on me rather than John since I gave the A-OK.

The point is well driven, and the circuit judges know damn well what we're talking about.

SoCal Bob
08-11-2011, 9:25 PM
I enjoyed reading the response and had no problem knowing what was being discussed, I don't know if anything has ever been typo free.

On a personal note, I kinda miss the Coyote or wolf avatar you used to have but I do recognize all the symbolism of your new avatar. Now, go get um.

Gray Peterson
08-11-2011, 9:55 PM
Now you know why most laws are written so poorly ... lawyers in the legislature.

Remember it was lawyers who made it where the state of California's cities and counties couldn't ban your handguns in your own home under state preemption grounds (Fiscal v. City/County of San Francisco, courtesy of Chuck Michel & Don Kates), expanded that to a constitutional 2A ruling that applies to federal and state government (Parker/Heller and McDonald, thanks to attorneys Alan Gura, Robert Levy, Clark Neily, and David Sigale), applied 2A to the state of California 14 months before McDonald (Nordyke, Donald Kilmer and Don Kates), and numerous filings in California.

Lawyers are saving your ***. Never forget that.

Window_Seat
08-11-2011, 10:45 PM
Compared to certain lawyers *cough* Gorski *cough* John Monroe's filings are A grade. If one sentence looks wierd and there's just one typo, I can perfectly accept that.

Given that I was the one who proofread it along with a few others before filing, you can pin the blame on me rather than John since I gave the A-OK.

The point is well driven, and the circuit judges know damn well what we're talking about.

All the profereading in the world won't make world perfectly round and soled, and that is why we will always still more have earthquakes.

Erik.

Connor P Price
08-11-2011, 10:49 PM
I can't copy it from my phone but the reply mentions that invalidating the Colorado law is only one way of many that the court could remedy this issue. So what options does the court have, and how likely are they?

Removing the home state requirement?
Striking down Denver's ban on open carry?
Removing the residency requirement for CO permits?
Other options?

I'd guess striking down the residency requirement its most likely, but what do I know? What does everyone else think?

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk

Gray Peterson
08-11-2011, 11:02 PM
I can't copy it from my phone but the reply mentions that invalidating the Colorado law is only one way of many that the court could remedy this issue. So what options does the court have, and how likely are they?

Removing the home state requirement?
Striking down Denver's ban on open carry?
Removing the residency requirement for CO permits?
Other options?

I'd guess striking down the residency requirement its most likely, but what do I know? What does everyone else think?

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk

Well, removing the residency requirement is the most well developed of the cases. Striking down of Denver's OC ban was suggested by NRA-CDF's amicus brief. Home state removal is a secondary option from a pure equal protection basis.

Like the district court judge in Ezell did, my district court judge misapprehended the nature of the harm done to me. Regardless of what happens, I'll await with baited breath...

hoffmang
08-11-2011, 11:36 PM
I'd guess striking down the residency requirement its most likely, but what do I know? What does everyone else think?

The narrowest, and thus most correct ruling, would be to strike the residency requirement on Privileges or Immunities/Right to Travel grounds per Saenz v. Roe.

-Gene

dantodd
08-11-2011, 11:42 PM
I'll await with baited breath...

Sorry to be the idiom police but this one is a particular pet peeve of mine. Unless you've been eating night crawlers it's bated breath.

jdberger
08-11-2011, 11:49 PM
Tow the line
Mute court



...

Now back to your regularly scheduled program.

press1280
08-12-2011, 2:05 AM
The narrowest, and thus most correct ruling, would be to strike the residency requirement on Privileges or Immunities/Right to Travel grounds per Saenz v. Roe.

-Gene

Although if the court wanted the easiest, quickest route wouldn't forcing CO to accept either A)any reciprocal license,regardless of whether it resident or not or B)Similiar to Michigan, honor all state resident permits? I know that may not be what the case is necessarily seeking at this point, but having CO do out of state licenses might take longer to implement.

1JimMarch
08-12-2011, 2:57 AM
View Post
The narrowest, and thus most correct ruling, would be to strike the residency requirement on Privileges or Immunities/Right to Travel grounds per Saenz v. Roe.

Sidenote, but the USSC case most on-topic on this is the oldest: Ward v. Maryland 1870, the very first 14th Amendment case ever. That one said that Maryland couldn't require extra taxes and permits from a merchant visiting from New Jersey, at least not over and above what a Maryland resident merchant would pay. That decision said that the 14A Privileges Or Immunities clause acted as a barrier to cross-border discrimination. In turn, Ward was cited positively in the Slaughter-house cases of 1872/3, in which it was decided that this was ALL the PorI clause was going to be good for, effectively killing off the 14A as a functional document for more than two generations. Slaughter-house in turn was supported by McDonald in 2010.

Until now, none of the discriminations controlled by the Ward and Saenz class of cases infringed on a civil right enumerated in the BoR. The various gun cases dealing with this are a first in that regard, but if the Ward family of cases apply to UNenumerated rights (such as the right to engage in trade in Ward) then they damned well apply to incorporated pieces of the BoR.

I mention this because Ward doesn't get enough attention, and like I said, given the type of discrimination involved, it's closer to what we're dealing with than Saenz.

dantodd
08-12-2011, 10:33 AM
Tow the line
Mute court


Straight to the moon Alice! Pow, right in the kisser.

hoffmang
08-12-2011, 9:21 PM
Although if the court wanted the easiest, quickest route wouldn't forcing CO to accept either A)any reciprocal license,regardless of whether it resident or not or B)Similiar to Michigan, honor all state resident permits? I know that may not be what the case is necessarily seeking at this point, but having CO do out of state licenses might take longer to implement.

A or B would require the court to write legislation instead of simply striking a few words out of existing legislation - hence the end of the non-resident ban.

Now, what happens in the legislature after a win is another issue.

-Gene