The Supreme Court allowed us to file a reply to the government’s opposition to our motion for an emergency stay of the ATF bump stock ban, which we filed at noon today.
Today our firm filed an emergency application for stay with the U.S. Supreme Court (directed to Justice Sotomayor, Circuit Justice for the Sixth Circuit), requesting that the Court stay the effective date of the ATF’s Final Rule banning bump stocks pending review of the case by the Sixth Circuit.
Today our firm filed a 28(j) letter with the Sixth Circuit, citing additional information in the D.C. Circuit cases of Guedes and Codrea. We point out that although the courts have issued stays in these and similar cases, the stays only apply to the specific appellants in each case, and do not grant the nationwide relief to bump stock owners being sought by Gun Owners of America, et al.
The ATF reclassification of bump stocks as machineguns will take effect on Tuesday, March 26. The federal district court in which we challenged this classification change has yet to rule on our motion for an injunction. Therefore, we were forced to file this emergency petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Today, our firm filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking to stop the Bumpstock regulations from going into effect on March 26, as planned.
(Plaintiffs’) Motion for Preliminary Injunction (December 26, 2018)
(Plaintiffs’) Memorandum in Support of Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (December 26, 2018)
(Plaintiffs’) Party Declarations (December 26, 2018)
(Plaintiffs’) Richard Vasquez Declaration (December 26, 2018)
Today, ATF published in the Federal Register its final regulations imposing a total ban on private ownership of bumpstocks, overruling numerous prior ATF decisions. Later that same day, our firm filed a chellenge to this regulation on behalf of Gun Owners of America, Guy Owners Foundation, Virginia Citizen Defense League, and three individuals — Matt Watkins, Tim Harmsen and Rachel Malone. The challange was filed in the federal district court for the Western District of Michigan.
Our firm has been pleased to be co-counsel on a state constitutional challenge to the 2013 Colorado firearms gun control laws restricting possession of “high capacity” magazines and requiring background checks for private sales. The Colorado Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding that we were entitled to a hearing on the magazine issue, but affirmed the background check issue. Notably, one of the judges filed an important dissent. Judge Graham’s opinion adopted our arguments that the Second Amendment is to be analyzed by a “text, history, tradition” analysis, not according to interest balancing tests such as in a pre-Heller Colorado case that used a “reasonableness” analysis.
Rob Olson has called in to report that after two hours of deliberation, the jury has come back with a Not Guilty verdict on all counts.
Bob Arwardy and Richard Medrano were accused of participating in a “straw purchase” of firearms on February 27, 2014 and other firearms offenses in an eight count indictment. After significant motions practice, including work by both Rob Olson and Herb Titus of our firm, the government dropped six of the eight counts, pressing the other two counts against both defendants. Obviously, the jury was not persuaded. This case required four trips to Houston, Texas by Rob Olson, for motions practice, trial preparation, pretrial, and trial.
Coach Dave Daubenmire reports on the release of Pastor Kent Hovind from a federal correctional facility after over eight years. We were honored to have played a role in Pastor Hovind’s defense.
On July 1, 2015, our firm again joined with co-counsel Barry K. Arrington, Esquire to file in the Colorado Court of Appeals a Reply Brief. We counter the arguments in Colorado’s brief which asked the Court to affirm the district court’s order dismissing our complaint challenging Colorado’s new gun laws.
Today, representing Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, our firm joined with Alabama local counsel Douglas McElvy in filing a Motion to Dismiss a suit filed against certain Alabama state officials seeking to penalize their opposition to same sex marriage. A Brief in Support of the Motion was also filed.
On March12, 2015, our firm joined with co-counsel with Barry K. Arrington, Esquire of Centennial, Colorado, and filed in the Colorado Court of Appeals a brief challenging the constitutionality of the recent 2013 Colorado laws banning so-called “large capacity” magazines and requiring criminal background checks for all private transfers of firearms.
In 2013, representing the National Association for Gun Rights and Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, our firm challenged Colorado’s recent gun control laws in a Denver court. This suit was based exclusively on violations of the Colorado State Constitution. Interestingly, the Colorado Constitution is stronger even than the U.S. Constitution in defending gun rights. In two recent cases, Colorado courts had upheld gun rights that have been denied in the federal courts. Nevertheless, the district court dismissed the case without a hearing, not allowing us to present evidence of the flaws in the statue, nor the state’s rich history of promoting and protecting gun rights. We took an appeal to the Colorado Court of Appeals.
On October 30, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the disclosure of certain records relating to the U.S./Mexico Social Security Toatalization Agreement that we have been seeking for our client, The Senior Citizens League. Here is the Order and the Opinion.
A story about this decision appeared in Courthouse News Service entitled “Mexican Social Security Deal Files Face Release” on November 1, 2013.
Today a complaint was filed in the case of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners,et al. v. John C. Hickenlooper in the District Court, City and County of Denver, Colorado on behalf of plaintiffs Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, National Association for Gun Rights, Inc., John A. Sternberg, and DV-S,LLC, d/b/a Alpine Arms. This case is a constitutional challenge of two Colorado firearm laws, HB 1229 and HB 1224. Our firm is serving as of counsel to the plaintiffs.
Today our firm filed Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Open America Stay in the case ofGun Owners Foundation v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives on behalf of plaintiff Gun Owners Foundation in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
Today our firm filed Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings in the case of Gun Owners Foundation v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives on behalf of plaintiff Gun Owners Foundation in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
Our reply responds to the following ATF opposition and exhibits filed on August 9, 2012:
Today our firm filed Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings in the case of Gun Owners Foundation v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives on behalf of plaintiff Gun Owners Foundation in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. We filed the motion because the Government failed to respond to GOF’s FOIA request for 15 months, until this suit was filed, and then admitted it had asserted no specific exemptions.
On June 6, 2012, on behalf of Gun Owners Foundation, our firm filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The suit stemmed from an April, 2011 Freedom of Information Act request in which GOF sought records pertaining to the infamous “Fast and Furious” and program where ATF federal agents deliberately and incomprehensibly put firearms directly into the hands of Mexican drug cartels.
The Michael New case is back.
On May 16, 2012, we filed a Petition for a Writ of Coram Nobis based on the Army’s withholding of exculpatory evidence contained in two classified Executive Orders, access to which was unlawfully denied to Mr. New at his 1995 court-martial, at which he was charged and convicted of disobeying a lawful order for refusing to wear the U.N. uniform to serve in a U.N. peace operation in Macedonia.
Today our firm joined with other co-counsel to file the following additional pleadings in the case of Sergeant Gary A. Stein v. Colonel C.S. Dowling,et al. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of plaintiff Sergeant Gary A. Stein:
- Page 1 of 2