Gray Peterson
Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Starting the Official Appeals thread for my case in the 10th Circuit, Peterson v. Martinez. To get everyone up to speed.
U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Status
My commentary on the oral arguments will be necessarily limited, because I will make these comments as it was specifically discussed in oral argument and post-argument court orders:
1) We (myself and my attorney) did plead the Denver carry ban in the complaint in the district court. In similar fashion to Heller and McDonald, the prayer for relief was narrowly asked in order to not have questions of whether or not it is appropriate to license the right. The 10th Circuit may grant different relief than what was asked in the district court in accordance with the federal rules of appellate procedure. It is not in any way the intention to enshrine licensing as a pre-requisite, as prayers for relief and the granting of such relief do not determine the scope of the right.
2) The fact that amicus parties was asked sua sponte to argue in front of the court separate from the main parties is a testament to the seriousness that this panel is taking the constitutional issues at stake, unlike than mis-conceptualize the issues as the district court did in this case in a similar fashion to Ezell v. City of Chicago (total range ban prohibition, overturned by the 7th Circuit).
3) Peterson is shaping up to be the first case to be decided on the merits by an federal appellate court on the meaning of "bear" in the 2nd amendment.
4) Unlike the situation in DC and Chicago passing additional infringing ordinances requiring additional litigation (DC is DC and Illinois has no preemption), Denver is significantly cabin-ed by the state preemption statutes and state court rulings on the subject matter of state preemption and home rule in the state courts.
-Gray
U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Status
- This case was scheduled for oral argument on November 17th, 2011, 8:30AM.
- The pertinent case filings can be found here
- The oral argument is can be downloaded here.
- An unofficial transcript of the proceedings can be downloaded here.
- The 10th Circuit Panel (Circuit Judges Lucero, Hartz, and Baldock) stated in panel that they would be rehearing the case.
- The 10th Circuit Panel has rescheduled the case for March 19th, 2012, 2:00PM, for a special session of the court.
- The 10th Circuit Panel also granted amici curiae 10 minutes for oral argument. At this time, we are trying to determine if they mean all groups who filed an amicus, or if they mean just the NRA-Civil Rights Defense Fund.
- The panel also stated that they may be asking for supplemental briefing.
My commentary on the oral arguments will be necessarily limited, because I will make these comments as it was specifically discussed in oral argument and post-argument court orders:
1) We (myself and my attorney) did plead the Denver carry ban in the complaint in the district court. In similar fashion to Heller and McDonald, the prayer for relief was narrowly asked in order to not have questions of whether or not it is appropriate to license the right. The 10th Circuit may grant different relief than what was asked in the district court in accordance with the federal rules of appellate procedure. It is not in any way the intention to enshrine licensing as a pre-requisite, as prayers for relief and the granting of such relief do not determine the scope of the right.
2) The fact that amicus parties was asked sua sponte to argue in front of the court separate from the main parties is a testament to the seriousness that this panel is taking the constitutional issues at stake, unlike than mis-conceptualize the issues as the district court did in this case in a similar fashion to Ezell v. City of Chicago (total range ban prohibition, overturned by the 7th Circuit).
3) Peterson is shaping up to be the first case to be decided on the merits by an federal appellate court on the meaning of "bear" in the 2nd amendment.
4) Unlike the situation in DC and Chicago passing additional infringing ordinances requiring additional litigation (DC is DC and Illinois has no preemption), Denver is significantly cabin-ed by the state preemption statutes and state court rulings on the subject matter of state preemption and home rule in the state courts.
-Gray
Last edited:
