New Orleans Municipal Code § 54-1 defines a stun gun or a Taser as a destructive device. “The term ‘destructive devi...
Today we filed a Taser challenge against the City of New Orleans
November 17, 2016
Today, New Jersey filed this letter with the Court, requesting that "... the Court schedule an in-person conference in the hopes of resolving this cas...
New Jersey requests "in-person" settlement conference in Taser case
November 16, 2016
Today, we received the following production in the NFATCA FOIA filed on behalf of Mr. Savage. For ease of reviewing, we have broken it into two separ...
ATF Delivers Documents in NFATCA FOIA Case
November 22, 2016
Today we filed the Opposition to En Banc rehearing in Young v. State of Hawaii, et al
November 8, 2018
Alan Beck and I filed a very detailed response in Opposition to the State of Hawaii's Petition for En Banc Rehearing in Young v. State of Hawaii, et al today. Here is a quote from the response:
The Panel Opinion in this case correctly concluded that “the right to bear arms must guarantee some right to self-defense in public,” and “that section 134-9 eviscerates [this] core Second Amendment right.” Panel Opinion at 46, 53. As the Panel thoroughly explained, that conclusion is compelled by the constitutional text, the history surrounding it, and centuries of precedent—including the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago, 130 S.Ct. 3020 (2010), neither of which Defendants’ petition even mention.
You can read the filing here.* This is a tremendously important case for the Second Amendment.
(if the link does not work on mobile devices, the address for the filing is: http://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/c601ae_1900f9e2cd1b4cd8b1e3165aa6140dfc.pdf)