Another Kachalsky Update

[Yellowfin]

Update:

Whew...I'm a bit behind on this and the case docket wasn't updated for a while, then got loaded up with a lot of stuff all at once. Here is the case docket so you can see all of the entries for documents and proceedings. Again, sorry I didn't have this here right away but here it is: http://ia700105.us.archive.org/2/ite...87.docket.html


NOTICE of Newly Decided Authority re: 30 MOTION to Dismiss Notice of Motion to Dismiss.. Document filed by Eric Detmer, Alan Kachalsky, Anna Marcucci-Nance, Johnnie Nance, Christina Nikolov, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc.. (Gura, Alan) (Entered: 03/21/2011)

http://www.archive.org/download/gov....65487.74.0.pdf

TO THE HONORABLE COURT AND ALL PARTIES, please take notice that on March
7, 2011, the Supreme Court decided Skinner v. Switzer, U.S. Supreme Ct. No. 09-9000, 2011
U.S. LEXIS 1905.

In Skinner, the petitioner filed a Section 1983 claim challenging the constitutionality of a state statute that barred him access to DNA testing of criminal trial evidence. The state
respondent argued that Skinner’s claim was foreclosed by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, apparently because Skinner had unsuccessfully invoked the challenged statute.

The Supreme Court rejected the defense:
Skinner does not challenge the adverse [Criminal Court of Appeals] decisions themselves; instead, he targets as unconstitutional the Texas statute they authoritatively construed. As the Court explained in Feldman, and reiterated in Exxon, a state-court decision is not reviewable by lower federal courts, but a statute or rule governing the decision may be challenged in a federal action. Skinner’s federal case falls within the latter category. There was, therefore, no lack of subject-matter jurisdiction over Skinner’s federal suit.
Skinner, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 1905 at *21 (citations and footnotes omitted).

Skinner disposes of the Rooker-Feldman defense in this case. As the petitioner in Skinner, Plaintiff Kachalsky does not claim that the state courts have misapplied the challenged provision, but rather, Kachalsky challenges the constitutionality of the provision itself. As Skinner demonstrates, this is clearly not a case that falls within the parameters of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

In this case we see a specific legal doctrine (established rule): the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. What that states is that the federal courts aren't to be used as an avenue of further appeal on state law matters just because one side or the other lost at the state level and doesn't want to settle for losing. There has to be a question of federal law and/or constitutionality of the state law for there to be a matter to be considered by a federal court. Interestingly enough, there's a rather good Wiki on this kind of thing, for your reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstention_doctrine

[Yellowfin]

BIG update: Mr. Gura filed notice of supplemental authority (translated: additional case just ruled on that says we're right and/or the defendant's argument is wrong):

TO THE HONORABLE COURT AND ALL PARTIES, please take notice that on April 15, 2011, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the opinion in Hodgkins v. Holder, 677 F. Supp. 2d 202 (D.D.C. 2010).

Defendants relied heavily on Hodgkins for the proposition that Plaintiffs lack standing. The D.C. Circuit has now rejected Defendants’ standing theories, as embodied in that decision. A copy of the D.C. Circuit’s opinion is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

[Yellowfin]

Also to add: if the Williams case from Maryland goes before the Supreme Court it could help out a LOT.

[Koi]

Thanks for the update Yellowfin.

[kev74]

I'm sure I'm missing something here, but I haven't seen anything in this case that specifically addresses restrictions placed on licenses here in NY.

In the original case filings, it said the plaintiffs were denied handgun licenses because they couldn't show good cause. Does this mean that no handgun licenses were issued, or were they issued restricted "Hunting, Target" type licenses, but weren't satisfied?

[Yellowfin]

There will be litigation to strike down the restrictions.

Meanwhile, another update!!

NY filed a memorandum pointing out a NY State court case involving a criminal possessing a pistol. http://www.archive.org/download/gov....65487.76.0.pdf Irrelevant because it's a state rather than federal court case--they're saying it's OK because they have already said so-- and the person wasn't eligible to legally carry a gun anyway. This is a good thing because it means that they have no useful and relevant points to make--i.e. they know they're going to lose but they figure they have to try with something.

[Yellowfin]

...Another big boost comes from a Notice of Newly Decided Authority from our side, referencing the Ezell decision in the 7th Circuit.
http://www.archive.org/download/gov....65487.77.0.pdf

Key Points:
1. 2nd Amendment claims demand higher scrutiny standard of review for any laws pertaining thereto.
2. 1st Amendment standards regarding prior restraint and irreparable harm apply. Defense has been trying like heck to say that they don't, because they lose if they do.
3. Individual and associations have standing for demanding relief.

This is giving the district court the option of either agreeing with our side or otherwise writing an opinion that is easy to reverse at the next level up.

[greg631]

...Another big boost comes from a Notice of Newly Decided Authority from our side, referencing the Ezell decision in the 7th Circuit.
http://www.archive.org/download/gov....65487.77.0.pdf

Key Points:
1. 2nd Amendment claims demand higher scrutiny standard of review for any laws pertaining thereto.
2. 1st Amendment standards regarding prior restraint and irreparable harm apply. Defense has been trying like heck to say that they don't, because they lose if they do.
3. Individual and associations have standing for demanding relief.

This is giving the district court the option of either agreeing with our side or otherwise writing an opinion that is easy to reverse at the next level up.

Any new info?

[SilverBulletZ06]

There is an opening brief in the CA2 courts, not much else.

[Pun11]

any news on this?

i just got caught up with the woollard case in MD