|
2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Roe v. United States, EDCA - Gun bans after certain mental health holds
Roe v. United States Eastern District of California Judge: Dale Drozd 1:19-cv-00270 From the complaint: Quote:
2/25/19: Complaint 3/31/20: First Amended Complaint Last edited by FirearmFino; 02-24-2021 at 6:54 PM.. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
I hope she is well and stable. Good luck.
__________________
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. Robert J. Hanlon No more dems, rinos, commies, , pinkos, crooks, pedos, frauds, idiots, lunatics, wanna-be dictators, traitors, old fools, or kleptocratic thieves for President from any party. The demonstrators who infiltrated the Capitol have defiled the seat of American democracy. Donald J. Trump 1/7/21 |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
the 925a claim should get them what they need
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/925A Last edited by wolfwood; 11-13-2019 at 7:09 PM.. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
MINUTES (TEXT Only) for proceedings before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 11/20/2019: STATUS CONFERENCE held. Order to follow. Counsel for Plaintiffs Jane Roe #1, Jane Roe #2, John Doe #1, John Doe #2, John Doe #3, John Doe #4, John Doe #5, John Doe #6, and Second Amendment Foundation: Donald Kilmer appeared by telephone - present. Counsel for Defendants United States of America, United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, William Barr, Christopher Wray, and Thomas Brandon: James Bickford appeared by telephone - present. Counsel for Defendant Xavier Becerra: Nelson Richards appeared by telephone present. Court Reporter/CD Number: in chambers, off the record. (Valdez, E) (Entered: 11/20/2019)
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
MINUTE ORDER (TEXT Only): This Court held a STATUS CONFERENCE on November 20, 2019. As discussed at the conference, discovery is open in this action. The parties represented that they intend to discuss a stipulation to amend the complaint and a stipulation to allow Plaintiffs to proceed pseudonymously. Defendants agreed to provide initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and Plaintiffs represented that their initial disclosures have already been provided. The Court SETS a FURTHER STATUS CONFERENCE for January 22, 2020 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom 8 (BAM) before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe to discuss the status of this action, including the status of amendment of the complaint, Plaintiffs' request to proceed pseudonymously, and Defendants' initial disclosures. Minute order signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 11/22/2019. (Valdez, E) (Entered: 11/22/2019)
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
STIPULATION and ORDER to Re-Calendar Status Conference, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 1/21/2020. Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, and cause appearing, the Status Conference currently set for January 22, 2020, is HEREBY CONTINUED to February 25, 2020, at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 8 (BAM) before the undersigned.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/...51465.28.0.pdf |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
MINUTE ORDER (TEXT Only): This Court held a STATUS CONFERENCE on February 25, 2020. The parties discussed the status of this action with the Court and Plaintiffs' counsel confirmed that he received initial disclosures from Defendants. The parties have also received the Order Granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Proceed Pseudonymously (Doc. 30 ) and the Standing Order in Light of Ongoing Judicial Emergency in the Eastern District of California (Doc. 29 ). Discovery is open and the parties indicated that they are meeting and conferring to determine whether they may stipulate to any facts in order to streamline discovery and motion practice. Following a discussion regarding Plaintiffs' intent to amend the complaint, the parties agreed to a deadline and briefing schedule for amendment of the pleadings. Accordingly, any stipulated amendments or motions to amend the pleadings shall be filed by March 16, 2020, and set before District Judge Dale A. Drozd. Any opposition to a motion to amend the pleadings shall be filed by April 6, 2020, and any reply shall be filed by April 13, 2020. The matter will then be deemed submitted upon the record and briefs pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). (See Doc. 29 .) The Court SETS a FURTHER STATUS CONFERENCE for May 13, 2020 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 8 (BAM) before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe to discuss the status of this action, including the status of amendment of the complaint, and to determine whether a scheduling conference may be reset.
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
I kinda like this case. Obviously I don't know all the details as the confidentiality will likely keep some stuff hidden forever.
But one thing I'd add? IIRC a medical institution is only required to keep a copy of their medical record for 7 years once it goes inactive. I believe this is still the case but now that we have electronic records they tend to be forever (I'm not sure that is a good thing). There may be format or software changes which result in the record sort of disappearing but that is not certain. But given the time frame for Jane Roe, the place where she may have had the incident resulting in an un-adjudicated loss of her right probably has no records at all which would support or not support the abridging of her rights. Those records have likely not existed for literally decades. So at this time no one can go back and look at the details of the case way back when and determine exactly what happened. The way I see it (from the information currently available) the government may not be able to support their case beyond an assertion that they can assume that they followed procedures at the time to deny her rights for some reason which they probably can no longer support. Fascinating!
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Don't consider anything I post as advice or as anything more than opinion (if even that). |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
It seems to me government should have the burden of establishing the existence of a disqualification from exercise of a fundamental right by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
__________________
Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference. Mark Twain "One argues to a judge, one does not argue with a judge." Me "Never argue unless you are getting paid." CDAA "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." George Bernard Shaw |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|