PISZCZATOSKI submission date

esqappellate · Nov 2, 2012

February 12, 2013. That is the date it will be submitted for decision. Whether it will orally argued on that date is up to the panel. See attached. Note that the case name has changed to Jeffrey Muller v. Philip Maenza Same docket number

jrosenberger · Nov 2, 2012

Wasn't Mueller v Maenza the original name?

krucam · Nov 2, 2012

jrosenberger said:
Wasn't Mueller v Maenza the original name?

Yep...the Judge Maenza retired IIRC, the original Plaintiff Mueller talked a different Judge into granting his license (IIRC) and was replaced with Pszczatoski...

Read the "PARTIES" section of the District Docket if you want "clarity".

http://ia600301.us.archive.org/16/items/gov.uscourts.njd.249720/gov.uscourts.njd.249720.docket.html

press1280 · Nov 2, 2012

That sucks. I was hoping they'd be faster than that to help get a case to SCOTUS this term.

esqappellate · Jan 16, 2013

New briefing ordered regarding Kachalsky and Moore.

esqappellate · Jan 25, 2013

Oral argument now set for 1:00pm 2/12/13, The Panel is

HARDIMAN and *ALDISERT, Circuit Judges and **STARK, District Judge

jrosenberger · Jan 25, 2013

esqappellate said:
Oral argument now set for 1:00pm 2/12/13, The Panel is

HARDIMAN and *ALDISERT, Circuit Judges and **STARK, District Judge

Holy crap, Aldisert was nominated by LBJ! Hardiman was GWB, Stark is a Delaware district judge nominated by Obama in 2010.

esqappellate · Jan 25, 2013

jrosenberger said:
Holy crap, Aldisert was nominated by LBJ! Hardiman was GWB, Stark is a Delaware district judge nominated by Obama in 2010.

Aldisert is ancient, for sure. I am surprised he is still sitting. I have no clue concerning the 2A views of these three judges.

esqappellate · Jan 28, 2013

Gura's supp. brief on Moore and Kachalsky, as filed in the 3d Circuit. This brief is quite effective.

esqappellate · Jan 28, 2013

and the State's supp. brief on Moore and Kachalsky

Al Norris · Jan 28, 2013

In eleven double-spaced pages, Alan Gura lays out exactly why the ca2 decision was wrong and why the CA7 decision was correct. This, IMO, is a very compelling brief.

Whatever activity may lie at the Second Amendment’s core, “the interest in self-protection is as great outside as inside the home.” Id. “To confine the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second Amendment from the right of self-defense described in Heller and McDonald.” Id. at 12. Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit expects that ordinary Chicagoans will soon be able to carry handguns for self-defense. Id. New Jersey’s denial of the right to bear arms for all but those with exceptional self-defense needs would not survive Moore.

Moore properly recognized that “degrees of scrutiny” are not always required, as indeed they were not in that case. Id. at *26-*27. Nor are they required here, where the State simply denies that bearing arms is a right. And while intermediate scrutiny might weigh “the curtailment of gun rights” of a narrow criminal class against state interests, justifying laws infringing “the gun rights of the [state’s] entire law-abiding adult population” requires “a stronger showing.” Id. at *21.

CONCLUSION

Kachalsky largely discards history, text and precedent. Moore provides the better example of the path forward.

New Jersey, on the other hand, starts with false assumptions right out of the gate:

In Moore v. Madigan, the Seventh Circuit struck down a handgun licensing scheme from Illinois that operated as a complete prohibition on possession of a handgun in public. 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 25264, at *21-22.

There was no licensing scheme at all in IL. What was struck down was a pair of laws that forbade any public carry at all.

From that point, agrees completely with the decision in Kachalsky (of course) and twists the Moore decision, in carefully selected quotes, so that in appearance, Judge Posner agrees with New Jersey (and by inference, kachalsky).

Like the above quote, this is also a misleading argument. Judge Posner took the kachalsky panel to task over their shoddy decision.

esqappellate · Jan 29, 2013

Al Norris said:
In eleven double-spaced pages, Alan Gura lays out exactly why the ca2 decision was wrong and why the CA7 decision was correct. This, IMO, is a very compelling brief.

New Jersey, on the other hand, starts with false assumptions right out of the gate:

There was no licensing scheme at all in IL. What was struck down was a pair of laws that forbade any public carry at all.

From that point, agrees completely with the decision in Kachalsky (of course) and twists the Moore decision, in carefully selected quotes, so that in appearance, Judge Posner agrees with New Jersey (and by inference, kachalsky).

Like the above quote, this is also a misleading argument. Judge Posner took the kachalsky panel to task over their shoddy decision.

I fully agree!

esqappellate · Jan 29, 2013

district judge Stark decided a 2A case, holding, under intermediate scrutiny, that the Second Amendment was not violated by a ban on firearms in common areas of public housing projects. See Doe v. Wilmington Housing Authority, --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2012 WL 3065285 D.Del.,2012.

"The Revised Policy, including the Common Area Provision, does not impose a complete ban, expressly recognizes a right to possess firearms in the home, and provides an exception for self-defense. Hence, the Revised Policy preserves the “core” of Plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights. Because the Revised Policy does not severely limit those rights inside the home—or come close to the level of infringement struck down in Heller—the Court's job is to determine whether the challenged policies can pass muster under intermediate scrutiny."
"The Court concludes that there is a reasonable fit between the Common Area Provision and the WHA's interest in protecting the safety of residents, guests, and others who are present from time to time at housing facilities owned or operated by the WHA. Public housing authorities like the WHA are generally afforded wide latitude in their ability to regulate what occurs on their property and determine the best policy for protecting the health, safety, and welfare of their residents. See generally Heller v. District of Columbia, 698 F.Supp.2d 179, 191 (D.D.C.2010) (stating intermediate scrutiny permits authorities to “paint with a broader brush than strict scrutiny”) (internal quotation marks omitted), aff'd in part and rev'd in part by Heller II, 670 F.3d at 1244. The Common Area Provision promotes these interests by limiting guns in the common areas, thereby limiting potential violence within those areas. Also relevant is the fact that a large proportion of the tenants and guests who are frequently present in the common areas are elderly or children, who may be particularly vulnerable."

Does not bode well.
"

Al Norris · Jan 29, 2013

I remember Leonard P. Stark. In his decision of 07-27-2012, he was another of several judges that essentially equated guns with criminal activity, unless the gun belonged to the police. A "law-abiding" citizen with a gun was merely a criminal that had yet to be caught.

esqappellate · Jan 30, 2013

Al Norris said:
I remember Leonard P. Stark. In his decision of 07-27-2012, he was another of several judges that essentially equated guns with criminal activity, unless the gun belonged to the police. A "law-abiding" citizen with a gun was merely a criminal that had yet to be caught.

Groan.......

press1280 · Feb 11, 2013

Oral arguments tomorrow at 1PM. Here's the link to check for oral arguments:
http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/oralargument/ListArguments7.aspx

May not be available right away though.

press1280 · Feb 12, 2013

It's up!

esqappellate · Feb 12, 2013

press1280 said:
It's up!

here it is

EDIT Whoops, too big to upload

press1280 · Feb 12, 2013

esqappellate said:
here it is

EDIT Whoops, too big to upload

Gura starts off for a while with no interruption, and then Aldisert(very old judge) professes that Kachalsky was "powerful".

NJ's lawyer is absolutely getting annihilated by Judge Hardiman, who has absolutely done his homework on the issue. NJ's lawyer seems like she's WAAAAYYY out of her league. Her facts are wrong, she can't remember statutes,exc.
Still listening.......

esqappellate · Feb 12, 2013

press1280 said:
Gura starts off for a while with no interruption, and then Aldisert(very old judge) professes that Kachalsky was "powerful".

NJ's lawyer is absolutely getting annihilated by Judge Hardiman, who has absolutely done his homework on the issue. NJ's lawyer seems like she's WAAAAYYY out of her league. Her facts are wrong, she can't remember statutes,exc.
Still listening.......

Aldisert is very much in NJ's corner. Hardiman is killing NJ's counsel. NJ's counsel is avoiding the obvious traps. she can't be truly responsive to Hardiman without losing the case. She knows that. Note she got NOWHERE with any judge in the argument that the right is home bound. Wow, she is denying that the objective is to limit guns on the streets. Hardiman is right "it is inescapable" To protect the public by having fewer guns on the street!! Aldisert is wrong in saying that "justifiable need" is without standard is the main argument for Gura. Vagueness is not the test, Good job on rebuttal

PISZCZATOSKI submission date

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

President, MSI

Attachments

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

President, MSI

Attachments

President, MSI

Attachments

Active Member

President, MSI

President, MSI

Attachments

President, MSI

Attachments

Spud Head

President, MSI

President, MSI

Spud Head

President, MSI

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

President, MSI

Ultimate Member

President, MSI

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics