View Full Version : Jennings over D'Cruz 2-0 ?

03-30-2011, 2:23 PM
Fresh reminder/101 on the 2 TX NRA cases underway, at least as they stood before February...

D'Cruz v. BATFE, 18-20yo Handgun purchase restrictions. Good on the surface as this was going after portions of 922. Bring it on...

D'Cruz v. McCraw, 18-20yo TX Concealed Carry Permit prohibition (must be 21).

Did I mention it was NRA running these cases vs. someone like SAF or CGF? They didn't vet D'Cruz very well, and I'm not slamming Mr. D'Cruz, just sayin'...

Brady's picked up on D'Cruz's Facebook page that the NRA didn't vet or cleanse: http://www.bradynetwork.org/site/MessageViewer/?em_id=42581.0&pgwrap=n

Mid Feb, D'Cruz is going to move to FL from TX so he withdraws as Plaintiff in the BATFE Case...WTF, as a FL resident the Federal prohibition still holds on 18-20yo purchases? The McCraw case is the TX CCW case.

Rebekah Jennings and 2 others are moved in as the Plaintiffs in the BATFE case...much more sterile and wholesome and Ivory Soapish than D'Cruz: http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2011/02/changes-in-nra-lawsuits-in-texas.html

Good job NRA...I was still confused on the case which D'Cruz withdrew from...oh well...

Monday, Plaintiffs NRA in D'Cruz v McCraw (18-20 TX CCW) filed a 2nd Amended Complaint. The complaint requests the removal of D'Cruz as Plaintiff, request the addition of Rebekah Jennings, Brennan Harmon, and Andrew Payne as party-plaintiffs.

Defendants State of TX are apparently balking at what they call a late-stage change since the Discovery is due to be completed in 2 months. NRA states the Plaintiffs can blow smoke up...oh, something like that.

Welcome Ms Jennings...hopefully the Judge will sign off on this in short order.

Speaking of the Judge, how about this for a name that brings up visions of an old spaghetti western, Judge Sam R. Cummings?

Shotgun Man
03-30-2011, 5:08 PM
Please explain reference to judge cummings's name and spaghetti westerns.

Connor P Price
03-30-2011, 5:11 PM
For a detailed discussion of the matter, check out this thread. (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=398019)

03-31-2011, 4:08 AM
I knew this was coming but am surprised that the NRA attorneys took so long to file an amended complaint.

The moment James D'Cruz moved to Florida you knew he would ultimately be removed from the McCraw case. James confirmed it to me in an email in mid-February as did his attorneys. I was asked by the attorneys to not say anything until the motions were actually filed.

The three replacement plaintiffs are all good - especially Ms. Jennings. If you do a Google search on them, you will find nothing objectionable and much good stuff on Ms. Jennings and her shooting prowess. I doubt the Brady Campaign or CSGV will find anything on any of them that could be used in a fund raising letter.

I just quickly read the 2nd Amended Complaint that the attorneys wish to file. I think the delay is because they wanted all three of the new proposed plaintiffs to take and pass the Texas CCW class. They all took it during the month of February 2011. That would explain it.


Gray Peterson
03-31-2011, 6:50 AM
Mid Feb, D'Cruz is going to move to FL from TX so he withdraws as Plaintiff in the BATFE Case...WTF, as a FL resident the Federal prohibition still holds on 18-20yo purchases?

It's a jurisdictional issue. You have to sue governments where the violation occured, either where the government is or where you are.

For example, my case against Colorado, I had to file where the violation occured, which is a denial that occured in Colorado. In a suit against the US government agencies, you have to file where you live, or where the government resides (DC). For example, the Shraeder case, Shraeder is from Georgia, filed by SAF against denial based on a common law misdemeanor. They filed in DC circuit. Same principle applies to D'Cruz. He can file against the Government from the florida district court or dc district court.

01-21-2012, 8:23 AM
Jennings v. McGraw is a loss at the District Court. The opinion is somewhat contradictory-on one hand CCWing could implicate the 2A, but then we get the "only in the home line". Then there's the odd part about McGraw not enforcing Texas law. If I read right, he's saying that plaintiffs haven't made any assertion that McGraw would prosecute if they openly carry a handgun or carry w/o a license, so they lack standing. WTF?

Mods may want to change the thread title-I searched but couldn't find a specific thread for this case, only Jennings v. BATF.

Edit:Nevermind, just saw a new thread.Whoops. Mods can close if they want.

01-21-2012, 11:19 AM
Just mopped up the spill in the aisle. Carry on, nothing to see here....

01-21-2012, 11:47 AM
The opening brief in the Jennings (Handguns sales to 18 - 20 year olds) has been filed - http://www.nraila.org/pdfs/TransportRoom.pdf


01-21-2012, 3:51 PM
I have much more confidence in these cases at CA5 given the number of GOP nominees and their holdings in the past. Also given that this case shouldn't be controversial at all since people above the age of 18 are considered adults, can served in the armed forces, and can purchase long guns from FFLs. But the Brady's are still referring to this case as the case that will let teenagers carry handguns...