Mirror, mirror on the wall ...

... Who's the fairest lawyer I can call? Today's frivolous lawsuit -- a restaurant owner in California gets sued for a restroom mirror being placed a couple inches too high (bet you didn't know the law tells you how high to hang your restroom mirrors, did you?):




And the government wonders why small business is hurting, or reluctant to expand. Everywhere faces stifling regulation, and this "mirror too high" violation is of a federal law, but places like California and New York are so overlawyered that lawyers have time to concoct lawsuits like this.


[Via Mish]

Court sides with cop who says he's "only one" allowed to carry

From Massachusetts:

... A case out of the First Circuit has some painful lessons for gun carriers in Georgia. A United States Circuit Court of Appeals last week upheld the constitutionality of pointing a gun at any citizen daring to carry, lawfully, a concealed weapon in public.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals is the Court just below the United States Supreme Court in the New England states. The case stems from a lawyer who sued a police officer after he was detained for lawfully carrying a concealed weapon while in possession of a license to carry concealed. According to the case opinion, the lawyer, Greg Schubert, had a pistol concealed under his suit coat, and Mr. Schubert was walking in what the court described as a "high crime area." At some point a police officer, J.B. Stern, who lived up to his last name, caught a glimpse of the attorney's pistol, and he leapt out of his patrol car "in a dynamic and explosive manner" with his gun drawn, pointing it at the attorney's face.

Officer Stern "executed a pat-frisk," and Mr. Schubert produced his license to carry a concealed weapon. He was disarmed and ordered to stand in front of the patrol car in the hot sun. At some point, the officer locked him in the back seat of the police car and delivered a lecture. Officer Stern "partially Mirandized Schubert, mentioned the possibility of a criminal charge, and told Schubert that he (Stern) was the only person allowed to carry a weapon on his beat." [emphasis added]

For most people, this would be enough to conclude that they were being harassed for the exercise of a constitutional right, but the officer went further, seizing the attorney's pistol and leaving with it. Officer Stern reasoned that because he could not confirm the "facially valid" license to carry, he would not permit the attorney to carry. Officer Stern drove away with the license and the firearm, leaving the attorney unarmed, dressed in a suit, and alone in what the officer himself argued was a high crime area. ...

Article here. Read the court's opinion here. Do the citizens of Massachusetts feel safer, knowing that this thug with a badge is "protecting" them?

Seattle sued over public building gun ban

From the Evergreen State:

SEATTLE -- A Kent man who chose to "exercise his right to bear arms" by carrying a holstered Glock pistol into a community center earlier this month has taken the mayor to federal court.

Robert C. Warden filed a complaint against the Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels and the city itself in U.S. District Court, alleging the city's gun ban defies his constitutional right to bear arms.

...

Warden's complaint defines the gun ban as a "substantial and comprehensive infringement of Second Amendment rights" -- an opinion the state Attorney General Rob McKenna shares, according to Warden. In a formal written opinion, McKenna said cities in Washington state do not have the power to regulate the possession of firearms on or in city property generally open to the public.

The complaint seeks an order permanently prohibiting the city and Nickels from enforcing any law that "in any way regulates any aspect of firearms unless specifically authorized by Washington Sate statutory law."

Warden, 44, protested the city's new gun ban by walking into the Southwest Community Center in West Seattle while carrying his gun at high noon on a Saturday earlier this month.

He had forewarned parks officials of his intent and, as a result, was asked to leave immediately after entering the center. Warden complied.

Warden, an attorney licensed to practice in Washington, said the incident gives him legal standing to file a lawsuit over the ban, which he believes is illegal. ...

Article here. Hopefully, in addition to a permanent injunction against the city, the city will be forced to pay a hefty settlement or punitive damages for its blatant disregard of state law.

New Mexico city ponies up $21,000 to settle open carry lawsuit

From Mike Stollenwerk, on a recent settlement by the city of Alamogordo, New Mexico in a lawsuit initiated by a man detained for open carrying a handgun [links omitted]:

As reported in the Alamogordo Daily News today, the Alamogordo, NM Police have paid $21,000 to settle with Matthew A. St. John whom police detained for open carrying a holstered handgun at a movie theater. This settlement follows a host of settlements by police departments around the country with plaintiffs who were detained by police for openly carrying a holstered handgun, including Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Virginia (see another settlement here), and Georgia. More cases are still pending in Ohio, Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

On September 8, 2009, Federal District Judge Bruce D. Black, issued an order previously examined here, that concluded as a matter of law that Alamogordo police officiers violated Matthew St. John's constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment because they seized and disarmed him even though there was not "any reason to believe that a crime was afoot." Judge Black's opinion is consistent with numerous high state and federal appellate court rulings, including the United States Supreme Court, holding that there is no firearms exception to the Fourth Amendment. ...

Rest here. Hopefully, the salutary effect of these lawsuits will be to force law enforcement agencies to properly train their officers on the legalities of open carry.

Montana suit to challenge federal gun laws

From Big Sky Country, on the potential for a lawsuit to test Montana Fireams Freedom Act:

The man who helped write the bill that exempts federal regulation of Montana made firearms says that the idea is gaining support around the country.

The state legislature passed the Montana Firearms Freedom Act during its last session and now the Montana Shooting Sports Association plans to file a lawsuit on October 1st.

The suit will challenge the authority of Congress to regulate Montana manufactured guns, accessories and ammunition that stay within the state, according to Montana Shooting Sports Association President Gary Marbut. ...

College grad can't find job, wants money back from school

From NBC New York comes this story:

She went to college to boost her chances of finding a great job once she got out of school, but now that that hasn't happened, Trina Thompson wants her money back.

Thompson, a graduate of Monroe College, is suing her school for the $70,000 she spent on tuition because she hasn't found solid employment since receiving her bachelor's degree in April, according to a published report.

The business-oriented school in the Bronx didn't do enough to help her find a job, Thompson alleges, so she wants a refund. The college says it does plenty for grads. ...

Article here. Unfortunately, absent an explicit promise by the college of a job upon graduation, Ms. Thompson's lawsuit is likely to prove unavailing.

But it does raise the question of accountability: Should colleges and universities be accountable to their students for a job after graduation? Isn't that why most students, particularly those who study business, or engineering, or medicine or law, go to school in the first place? I would guess that getting a good, well-paying job upon graduation is probably at least one of the top three reasons for doing so.

I mean, ask yourself this question: What other product, costing anywhere from $40,000 to $250,000 paid over three to six years, comes with no warranty or guarantee of basic merchantability and fitness of purpose whatsoever? Outside of a house, a college education is probably the biggest single expenditure you (or your parents) will make. Shouldn't students be able to get a refund if the "product" doesn't perform as advertised?

Hell(er) ain't a bad place to be

From Reason Magazine, an interview with Alan Gura, the lawyer who sucessfully litigated last year's historic Heller case:

Last week was the first anniversary of the District of Columbia v. Heller, where the Supreme Court for the first time declared that the Second Amendment indeed protects an individual right to own guns in the home for self-defense. It was a great victory for individual rights, but by no means a final one.

The lawyer who successfully argued that case, Alan Gura, has remained a dedicated opponent of all sorts of gun regulations that still stand post-Heller. Senior Editor Brian Doherty talked to Gura by phone earlier this week about the various legal challenges Gura is fighting against state and local gun laws. (The Second Amendment Foundation is backing all of the challenges where Gura is serving as counsel.)

Read the article here. The piece has details on lots of Second Amendment-related litigation currently underway, from Washington, D.C. to Chicago to California.

SAF files gun rights lawsuit against Washington, D.C.

From the Legal Times blog:

Gun rights advocates have filed a new lawsuit in D.C. federal court, this time seeking to make it possible for American expats to buy guns when they’re back home in the United States.

The suit, filed Friday at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, challenges a government requirement that forces gun buyers without a federal firearms license to fill out their state of residence on a special transaction form. It also targets a law that bar gun dealers from selling fire arms to non-U.S. residents for anything other than hunting or sports purposes.

The case is being brought by the Bellevue, Wash.-based Second Amendment Foundation, as well as two American citizens living in Canada and England. According to the complaint, the two individual plaintiffs have gun licenses from Arizona and Utah, but say they are unable to buy weapons while in the United States because they do not have a state of residence that they can use to fill out the required forms. They argue that the government’s restrictions violate the Second Amendment and Fifth Amendment equal protection rights of U.S. citizens who live abroad. ...

Read the post here.

NRA files amended complaint in lawsuit against D.C.

From NRA-ILA:

NRA filed a second amended complaint in Dick Anthony Heller et al v. District of Columbia in U.S. District Court. NRA and other plaintiffs are asking the court to issue a preliminary and permanent injunction to prevent the D.C. Council from implementing laws that violate the Second Amendment and from enforcing its prohibitions on the possession of commonly owned firearms.

NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox said, “It’s time to fully restore the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding residents in the District of Columbia. The D.C. Council’s latest gun registration scheme is proof of its continued contempt for the Supreme Court.”

NRA filed the original suit last summer after D.C. enacted a restrictive gun registration law in response to the landmark Supreme Court decision in the first District of Columbia v. Heller. The historic Heller decision struck down D.C.’s long-standing ban on handguns and self-defense in the home. The second amended complaint challenges D.C.’s current laws, which will become permanent in early April if not vetoed by Congress. ...

Read the rest here.

Gun Rights News Roundup

Articles, news stories, and op-eds of interest to gun owners:

[Texas] Military weaponry from U.S. government inventory available on black market:

EL PASO -- Military weaponry and supplies, everything from fighter jet parts to meals for combat soldiers, are vanishing from the U.S. government inventory. A recent government report says some of that lost equipment could be used against America's military and police agencies.

A weapon stash in Juárez and night-vision rifle scopes stolen from combat teams in Iraq for sale on the black market in El Paso are part of a wider problem, according to the 2008 Government Accountability Office report.

The report documents the purchase of sensitive military items on eBay and Craigslist by undercover GAO agents between January 2007 and March 2008.

They bought the items "no questions asked," according to the report. They also found dealers who regularly bought and sold the gear. Store owners said that they purchased much of the equipment from U.S. service members, but that some was obtained from government liquidators.

The gear included military aircraft antennas, military-specification night-vision goggles, Army combat uniforms with infrared tabs used to identify friendly forces, and body-armor vests with the most recent plates. ...

[Illinois] State Supreme Court dismisses lawsuit against gun manufacturers:

Fairfax, Va. - Today, the Illinois Supreme Court dismissed yet another reckless lawsuit aimed at putting firearms manufacturers out of business. Adames v. Beretta was dismissed under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005 (PLCAA). The court’s order affirmed the original trial court judgment in the case.

This is the second judicial decision in 2009 upholding a dismissal under the PLCAA. Ten days ago, the U.S. Supreme Court denied appeals in the cases of New York v. Beretta and District of Columbia v. Beretta.

NRA chief lobbyist Chris W. Cox said, “We are pleased that the Court recognized that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is the law of the land. America’s law-abiding firearms manufacturers must be protected from reckless suits, such as this one, that have no legal merit. Blaming gun manufacturers for the acts of criminals is not the way we do things in America, and today the Illinois Supreme Court confirmed this view.”

The Illinois Supreme Court found that “the discharge of the Beretta was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense, which act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death.”

The Court also agreed with the appellate court in finding the PLCAA was constitutional. Finally, it let stand the trial court’s findings that "the Beretta [pistol] was not unreasonably dangerous or defectively designed" and that the danger of pointing a gun at another person and pulling the trigger is open and obvious, even if the person pointing the gun mistakenly believes that the gun is not loaded. ...

[Montana] Bill would allow concealed carry without permit:

HELENA — Members of Montana's law enforcement community came out in force Tuesday against a controversial bill that would allow citizens to carry concealed firearms without a permit.

During a lengthy hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee, House Bill 228 pitted public safety officials against the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights advocates.

Under the proposed law, citizens could carry a firearm inside city limits without a permit and would have the right to defend themselves with it without having to first call for help or try to run away.

Opponents of the measure call it a "shoot-to-kill" bill, adding it will weaken prosecutors' ability to convict violent criminals.

The measure was introduced by Rep. Krayton Kerns, R-Laurel, but its primary author is Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association. The bill has become one of the most controversial and politically divisive bills of the 2009 legislative session. It passed the evenly divided House 60-40, with several Democrats crossing party lines.

Rep. Deborah Kottel, D-Great Falls, is one of SB228's most ardent champions.

"Currently, in the state of Montana, when you raise the defense of self-defense, it is an affirmative defense, and the burden of proof shifts to you to prove that you were justified in using that defense," Kottel said. "This bill clearly keeps the burden of proof with the state, which is where it should be." ...

[Illinois] Anti-gun indoctrination in school:

... Ms. Razeq emailed me to ask if I would be willing to come and speak to her students about the proposed concealed carry law in Illinois, after she had been unable to find another pro gun person who was willing to do so. I emailed her back, and expressed possible interest in speaking to her class if she remained unable to find a speaker (I’ve never appeared as a pro gun speaker and therefore would prefer to have someone more experienced do the job if possible, not to mention that I’m rather busy at the moment with school, work, and preparing for the bar exam). Ms. Razeq politely emailed me back, said that she had found a pro gun rights speaker - but that the school was unwilling to allow any pro gun rights speaker to come speak to her class, out of concern for how the parents would react. The school said that only the anti gun rights speaker from the Million Mom March (an anti gun group) could come speak to the class, although Ms. Razeq (who is not an expert in the pro gun rights area) could offer her opinions. I emailed Ms. Razeq back, and explained that having a one-sided indoctrination session with the anti gun rights speaker would be a disservice to the students as well as the society in which those 11th graders would soon be voters. Unfortunately, she politely dismissed my concerns and decided to go ahead with plan of allowing the anti gun speaker to lecture to her class, while denying anyone from the pro gun rights side of the debate a chance to do the same. [emphasis added] ...

Comment: A follow-up article indicates that the school has canceled the anti-gun presentation due to numerous complaints about fairness. You wonder, however, how many of these anti-gun presentations go on below the radar, in schools across the nation.


[United Kingdom] Ad for new film banned for "glorifying" gun use:

A television advert for the DVD release of Angelina Jolie's film Wanted has been banned for "glorifying" gun use.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruled that the commercial gave the impression that "using guns was sexy and glamorous".

Makers Universal Pictures have been told the advert cannot be shown again in its current form, and is unsuitable to be seen by older children.

One complaint from a member of the public was received by the ASA. [emphasis added]

The complainant said the promotion glamorised guns and claimed it was unsuitable to be shown early on a Saturday morning when children were likely to be watching. ...

Comment: Those evil, sexy guns! Note that a single complaint from one person was all it took to get the ad banned.


Columnist asks: Are we shadow boxing on gun rights?

... It seems that when it comes to guns, the administration dodges and weaves, advances and retreats. There are two ways we could see that: As ineptitude, in which Obama isn’t capable of keeping his people marching to the same tune …

… or as disingenuity, in which administration henchmen launch little, plausibly deniable, trial balloons.

What if, for example, Obama or Holder or the ever-partisan Rahm Emanuel decided that they would make us chase shadows for awhile? Perhaps make us seem to cry “wolf” enough times that when the onslaught really comes, fewer people will be listening.

That’s just conjecture, of course. But one thing is certain: At some point, the jab will come at you from the shadows. When it does, you’d better have your guard up.

[D.C.] Mayor Fenty says bite the bullet to get D.C. a House vote:

Mayor Adrian M. Fenty said he believes that District residents support pushing a voting rights bill through Congress even if it means the city's gun control laws would be weakened by an amendment being offered by gun rights supporters.

In an interview with The Washington Post this week, Fenty (D) said that it would be a "tough call" to accept an amendment to the bill and that he hopes the city "won't have to make that choice."
...
"Hopefully, it will be resolved, and I think there's a couple of strategies in play," Fenty said during an interview for "Voices of Power," a Post online series about Washington power players. "But if we had to make that call on a close margin, I do believe a majority of District residents say: 'Give us the vote. Give us the vote, and we hate this gun law, but we'll find a way to get rid of that if necessary.' "

The mayor's position appeared to differ from that of several D.C. Council members, who have questioned whether the city should support the legislation if it means loosening the firearms restrictions. The Senate already has approved a similar D.C. vote bill with an amendment that would overturn the gun control laws. The council passed a resolution opposing the move.

"I strongly disagree," said council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large). "He is under-appreciating the severity of the amendment. A lot of work is being done to get the amendment off the bill." ...

Supreme Court turns down gun lawsuit appeals

The AP reports that yesterday, the Supreme Court denied cert (refused to hear appeals) in City of New York v. Beretta and Lawson v. Beretta:

The Supreme Court has turned away pleas by New York City and gun violence victims to hold the firearms industry responsible for selling guns that could end up in illegal markets.

The justices' decision Monday ends lawsuits first filed in 2000. Federal appeals courts in New York and Washington threw out the complaints after Congress passed a law in 2005 giving the gun industry broad immunity against such lawsuits.

Article here. Suing gun manufacturers for the damage caused by criminals who misuse guns is a favored tactic of the anti-gunners, particularly when they can use taxpayer funds (in this case those of New York City taxpayers) to foot the legal bill. The 2005 federal law limiting such suits was intended to put the kibosh on such frivolous lawsuits. We don't allow lawsuits against car manufacturers for the damage caused by drunk drivers (assuming the car was not defective), and the same common sense rule should apply for guns and gun manufacturers.

Heller sequels move along

From SCOTUSblog, on the Second Amendment-related cases filed against Chicago and Oak Park, IL, currently working their way through the system:

On a pace that very likely will put them in the Supreme Court at its next Term, three significant test cases on the scope of the Second Amendment — the “gun rights” Amendment — are moving along in the lower courts. Briefing on the core question of whether state and local governments must obey the Amendment — and thus allow private ownership of handguns, for example — will be completed in the Seventh Circuit Court by mid-March. Argument and a decision by summer appear likely.

The three cases were filed swiftly after the Supreme Court, late last June, declared for the first time that the “right to keep and bear arms” is a personal, individual right — at least to have a gun in one’s own home for self-defense (District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290). The Justices, however, did not then settle whether the Amendment applies to state and local governments, as well as the federal government amd the District of Columbia.

The sequel cases tested handgun bans or controls in the cities of Chicago and Oak Park, Ill., a Chicago suburb. (A California case that also had been filed promptly has been settled.) The Illinois cases were narrowed to the core question of whether the Amendment applied to the states. Consolidated, the cases were decided Dec. 4 by Senior U.S. District Judge Milton I. Shadur of Chicago. ...
...
The briefs by the NRA and others seeking to curb state and local controls on guns are studied efforts to get around the Supreme Court’s 1886 Presser decision. They argue that the Presser ruling either did not decide the issue of applying the Second Amendment to the states (because the notion of “incorporating” the Bill of Rights so that they applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment had not yet existed at the time), or that it is outdated and essentially overturned by modern Supreme Court precedent.

The NRA makes the bolder argument on this point, suggesting that any specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights necessarily applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. But the other challengers contend that, at least the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms has been incorporated to apply to the states. The two groups either rely on the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, or its Privileges and Immunities Clause, as the basis for the absorption of gun rights against state and local governments.

The two groups also make an argument that failure to extend gun rights to individuals, for their own self-defense and other personal uses of guns, discriminates against them when others are allowed to have guns (an Equal Protection argument). ...

Article here. Links to some of the earlier rulings are available at the preceding link.

Tenth Circuit upholds guns-in-vehicles law

In a follow-up to this post, the Tenth Circuit has upheld the Oklahoma law prohibiting employers from banning guns in employees' locked vehicles:

DENVER — Oklahoma's law requiring employers to allow workers to have guns in their locked vehicles at work is valid, an appeals court decided Wednesday.

The decision by the Denver-based court overturns a court order by a judge in Tulsa who in 2007 barred enforcement of the law.

A panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided 3-0 that U.S. District Judge Terrence Kern erred in concluding that the law is pre-empted by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act.

The appellate judges said Kern's ruling "interferes with Oklahoma's police powers and essentially promulgates a court-made safety standard — a standard that OSHA (the Occupational Safety and Health Administration) has explicitly refrained from implementing on its own. Such action is beyond the province of federal courts." ...

Article here.

Read the appeals court opinion here.

[via How Appealing]

Virginia judge clears man charged with open-carry violation

From Old Dominion, in a follow up to this post from last Fall:

It's legal to wear a gun on your hip in Waterside, a judge decided Tuesday.

After hearing more than two hours of testimony, a General District Court judge dismissed a trespassing charge against Dan Moore, a Hampton resident who police said was ordered to leave Waterside for carrying a weapon, and refused to leave.

State laws permit openly carrying firearms in public places. City officials contended that Waterside, though built in part with public funds, is owned by a private entity and thus is a private facility not subject to state laws.

Judge James S. Mathews did not agree. After hearing from six witnesses called by the city attorney's office, he dismissed the charges, ruling that Waterside is a public facility, said Stephen Merrill, a Norfolk attorney who represented Moore.
...
Moore was ecstatic.

"I had a hard time sleeping last night," he said. "This has been a very stressful thing. It was a great relief to hear the judge dismiss the charges."

Moore had several previous run-ins with the Norfolk police while carrying a gun in a holster. After he was detained downtown in 2007 for standing outside the Bank of America building with a gun, the city paid him $10,000 to avoid a lawsuit.

In September, he was detained while trying to ride a Hampton Roads Transit bus.

A month later, after he and other gun -rights activists spoke to the City Council, he was arrested at Waterside. Moore said he will sue for the bus and Waterside incidents.

"The police think they can do this to me, but they can't," he said. "Someone has to answer for this." ...

Article here. Hopefully Mr. Moore will prevail in his lawsuit against Norfolk, and receive another substantial sum from the city for the violation of his civil rights.

Lberal think tank supports Second Amendment incorporation

From Reason Magazine:

As Brian Doherty noted earlier, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has held that the 2nd Amendment does not apply against state and local governments. In more positive gun rights news, the Constitutional Accountability Center, a liberal law firm and think tank "dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of our Constitution's text and history," filed a friend of the court brief last week on behalf of the plaintiffs in McDonald v. City of Chicago, arguing that the 14th Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause does make the 2nd Amendment applicable against the states (Alan Gura, the lawyer who argued D.C. v. Heller before the Supreme Court, is representing the plaintiffs in McDonald). Among the authors of the CAC's brief is legal scholar Michael Kent Curtis, one of the foremost experts on the history and meaning of the 14th Amendment. Curtis was also the lead author of the friend of the court brief filed last fall in Nordyke v. King, which also argued that the 2nd Amendment applies to the states via the 14th.

Article here. Good to see at least a few honest liberal thinkers support application of the Second Amendment to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, just as they support the incorporation of, e.g., the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments. No principled reason exists to deny having the Second Amendment similarly apply against the states like those other individual rights.

Indiana Supremes allow Gary lawsuit to continue

From Hoosierville:

The Indiana Supreme Court today declined to get involved again with the city of Gary’s 10-year-old lawsuit against several gun makers, allowing the case to proceed to trial.

The court’s order, issued after the justices reviewed the gun manufacturers’ request that they take up the case, lets stand an October 2007 Indiana Court of Appeals ruling. That 3-0 ruling said a provision in the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, passed by Congress in 2005, did not bar the Gary lawsuit from proceeding in state court.

Gary’s lawsuit, filed in 1999, alleged that 16 gun makers and six Northern Indiana gun dealers sold guns they knew would end up in criminals' hands.

Article here.

Federal appeals court orders libel suit against NYC mayor back to state court

From Georgia:

ATLANTA (AP) - The federal appeals court in Atlanta has ordered a lawsuit claiming New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg libeled a Georgia sporting goods store by calling it 1 of several "rogue gun dealers" to be returned to the state court where it originated.

Friday's decision by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was the latest development in a 2-year legal battle that began when Bloomberg sued 15 firearms brokers in five states, including Georgia. The suit said they were selling weapons that ended up in the hands of New York criminals.

Article here. This ruling likely favors the gun dealer plaintiff, as a Georgia state court may be more sympathetic to that in-state plaintiff, versus the mayor of New York City.

Norfolk pays to settle lawsuit stemming from open carry

From Virginia:

A Yorktown gun-rights advocate who sued Norfolk after his arrest at Town Point Park for openly carrying a handgun will receive a $15,000 payout to settle the federal lawsuit.

Chester "Chet" Szymecki Jr. sued the city after his arrest in June 2007 on a charge of violating a city ordinance prohibiting firearms at Harborfest. The city later learned that the ordinance is unenforceable because state law prohibits localities from regulating firearms.

Szymecki sued in U.S. District Court claiming violations of his Second Amendment right to bear arms, but a judge threw out that part of the case. The judge ruled, however, that city police may have violated Szymecki's privacy rights by demanding his Social Security number.

The case was scheduled for trial Tuesday.

City Attorney Bernard A. Pishko said the settlement avoids the high price of going to trial. The city did not admit any wrongdoing, he said.

Article here.

Nex Mexico lawmakers want more legal protections for homeowners who act in self-defense

From New Mexico:

FARMINGTON — A person who kills or hurts a criminal while defending his or her property should be immune from lawsuits, two Farmington lawmakers say.

State law does not protect home and property owners from lawsuits brought on by criminals injured while committing crimes, state senators Bill Sharer and Steve Neville said.

Neville wants to pen legislation that would force those lawsuits to be dismissed. He has not yet written the proposed law, but he hopes to gauge support for it before the next legislative session begins in January.

A similar law was defeated by state legislators in the past.

Article here.

Student group plans lawsuit to overturn CU carry ban

From Colorado:

Representatives from Students for Concealed Carry on Campus said they will file a lawsuit Thursday asking the court to strike down the University of Colorado's concealed carry ban.

The Colorado Springs chapter of the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus has argued before, to the school's regents, that gun-free zones on college campuses translate into a ban on self-defense. Members want the university to loosen gun-control rules and allow those with handgun permits to pack heat on campus.

Article here.