View Single Post
Old 11-29-2012, 1:37 PM
NoJoke's Avatar
NoJoke NoJoke is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,539
iTrader: 4 / 100%

Originally Posted by Window_Seat View Post
On Monday, Alan Gura filed a 28(j) Letter discussing the decision in Hightower and how that court [did] not reach the issue of the scope of the Second Amendment as to carrying firearms outside the vicinity of the home without any reference to protection of the home. (Citing Slip Op. at 22 n.8.1) (Gura, 2012).

Yesterday, the Counsel in Peruta submitted a 28(j) Letter discussing Kachalsky, (2012 U.S. App. Lexis 24363 (2nd Cir. 11/27/12) affirmed).

Today, the Court issued an order advising the parties that they should be prepared to explain the significance of the State of CA not showing up at the appeal. 28 USC 2403 and Fed. Rules of Civil Procedure 5.1 tells me (and please correct me otherwise) that this is the Court's way of pinging the AGs office in the event of an en banc order, is it not?

One does not need to be an expert in American history
to understand the fault inherent in a gun-permitting system that would allow
a licensing body carte blanche authority to decide who is worthy of carrying
a concealed weapon. The constitutional right to bear arms would be

NO ISSUE / MAY ISSUE / SHALL ISSUE - LTC progress over time since 1986

Reply With Quote