In an amazing opinion out of DC District Court just now, the Court granted in part and denied in part each parties' Motion for Summary Judgment. What does this mean? Well..... let's look at some of what the Court said: As a threshold matter, the defendants’ Vaughn index is inadequate as it “completely lacks any detail regarding any particular record and does nothing more than generally state that Exemption 5 is satisfied.” Cuban v. SEC, 744 F. Supp. 2d 60, 77 (D.D.C. 2010).
You can read it here. They appear to be arguing against the common use test (which, if you recall, we argued in Hollis and Watson that common use could not be a test because it yielded absurd results). They also argue that the categorical approach we took with regard to the complete ban on Tasers/Stun Guns is "illogical, dangerous and inconsistent with Second Circuit precedent." It's a shame that no pro-gun organizations filed in support of our position, but we will see wha
I guess before I argue these motions on March 24, 2017, I have to figure out if the Supreme Court's Heller opinion is binding law in New York. That sounds like a strange question, but if you've ever read Heller, then you would know that most of what is written in the New York Attorney General's response completely contradicts Heller. It amazes me that after three fairly clear and recent Supreme Court cases, we can be fighting over something innocuous as a Taser or stun gun a