Montana Lawsuit Timeline
Plaintiffs: Montana Shooting Sports Association, the Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. and Gary Marbut.
Defendant: Eric H. Holder, Jr. Attorney General of the United States of America.
—————————————————————————————————–
10/01/09 Complaint: Plaintiffs Complaint
10/05/09 Order: Preliminary Pretrial Conference set for February 2, 2010
10/05/09 Notice: Assigned to US Magistrate Judge
12/14/09 Complaint: Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint
1/19/10 Motion: Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
1/19/10 Memorandum: Memorandum in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
Exhibit
1/19/10 Notice: Defendant’s Notice of Constitutional Challenge
1/27/10 Stipulation: Plaintiffs Stipulation for Extension of Time to File a Response and to Suspend Scheduling Order
1/27/10 Order: Telephonic Conference set for February 2, 2010
1/27/10 Certification: Montana Attorney General certifies that the constitutionality of the MFFA has been called into question
2/02/10 Order: Pretrial Case Scheduling
2/12/10 Order: Goldwater Institute Granted to Appear as Amicus Curiae
2/11/10 Order: Case Reassigned to Judge Donald W. Molloy
3/12/10 Order: Nicholas C. Dranias Granted to Appear Pro Hac Vice
3/19/10 Order: Weapons Collector Society of Montana Granted to Appear as Amicus Curiae
3/24/10 Order: State of Montana Granted an Extension to April 12, 2010 to defend the constitutionality of the MFFA
4/09/10 Brief: Goldwater Institute, et al Opposing Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
4/09/10 Motion: Admission of Anthony T. Caso Pro Hac Vice
4/09/10 Application: Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence and Lawmakers from 17 States for to Participate as Amicus Curiae
4/09/10 Complaint: Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
4/12/10 Order: Amici Brief Filing Extended to April 23, 2010
4/12/10 Notice: Montana Attorney General Notice of Intervention
4/12/10 Brief: State of Montana in Support of the Constitutionality of the MFFA
4/12/09 Brief: Utah, Alabama, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, West Virginia, and Wyoming Opposing Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
4/12/10 Brief: Weapons Collectors Society of Montana Opposing Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 1
4/12/10 Brief: Plaintiffs Opposing Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
4/13/10 Brief: Gun Owners Foundation, et al Opposing Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
4/13/10 Brief: Paragon Foundation, Inc. Opposing Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
4/19/10 Brief: Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence Opposing Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
4/24/10 Brief: Montana Legislators Opposing Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
5/18/10 Brief: US Attorney General Reply Supporting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
5/18/10 Brief: Brady Center Supporting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
5/19/10 Order: Requiring Additional Parties and Counsel in Brady Center’s Brief to Appear Pro Hac Vice
6/1/10 Brief: Plaintiff’s Response to Brady Center Amicus
6/2/10 Brief: Affidavit of Plaintiff Gary Marbut Concerning Standing
6/7/10 Notice: State’s Allocation of Argument Time
6/7/10 Notice: Allocation of Plaintiff’s Time At Oral Arguments
6/16/10 Brief: Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Portions of Defendant’s Reply Memorandum
Exhibit A
6/30/10 Brief: Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Mx to Strike or Allow for Leave to File Surreply
7/1/10 Order: Denying Plaintiffs Motion to Strike but Granting Leave to Surreply
7/06/10 Brief: Plaintiffs’ Surreply in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
7/06/10 Brief: Defendant’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Surreply in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
7/13/10 Notice: Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Authority (Massachusetts v. United States DHHS)
7/13/10 Notice: Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Authority (Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project)
7/13/10 Notice: Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Authority (McDonald v. City of Chicago)
8/4/10 Notice: Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Authority (Virginia v. Sebelius and Dept. of HHS)
Memorandum Opinion
8/29/10 Transcript: Transcript of U.S. Motion to Dismiss 7/15/10
8/31/10 Finding: Magistrate Findings and Recommendations
9/13/10 Objection: State of Montana’s Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations
9/14/10 Objection: Plaintiffs’s Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations
Exhibit A
9/27/10 Response: Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s and Intervenor’s Objections to Findings and Recommendations
9/29/10 Order: Order Adopting Magistrate Findings and Recommendations
10/18/10 Opinion: Memorandum and Opinion Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
12/2/10 Notice: Appeal to 9th Circuit
Exhibit A
12/3/10 Order: Time Schedule Order
1/7/11 Order: Order Requiring Parties to Submit Mediation Views
1/10/11 Order: Case Not Selected for Mediation
2/23/11 Order: Granting Motion to Extend Proceedings
5/2/11 Motion: Second Unopposed Motion And Brief to Suspend Briefing Schedule
5/2/11 Order: Granting Motion to Suspend Briefing Schedule
5/5/11 Order: Setting New Briefing Deadlines
6/6/11: Appellants Principal Brief
6/6/11: Appellants Excerpts of Record
6/8/11: Brief of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence and State Legislators
6/9/11: Brief of Pacific Legal Foundation
6/13/11: Brief of Montana Legislators
6/13/11: Brief of Utah and Other States
6/13/11: Brief of Weapons Collectors Society of Montana
6/13/11: Brief of Weapons Collectors Society of Montana
6/13/11: Brief of Gun Owners of America
6/13/11: Brief of Goldwater and Cato Institutes
6/13/11: Brief of State of Montana
7/21/11: Brief of Eric Holder
Supplemental Excerpts of Record
7/27/11: Brief of Brady Center
8/4/11: Reply Brief of MSSA
12/20/11: Order Staying Proceedings Pending Nordyke v. King
02/11/13: Notice of Appearance – Lawrence VanDyke
Please tell the judge to hurry the hell up! I want a Montana suppressor!! Not really….I want 10 of them.
On a serious note. Would it be possible for this site to add a Java chat room and then allow us all to get either week or bi-weekly (maybe even an end of the month) updates from somebody in the know on this case. Perhaps a 30 minute update by the lead attorney?
“1/10/11 Order: Case Not Selected for Mediation”
For us non-legal type people, what does this mean?
Frank…here is a pretty good run down for the 9th circuit. http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/3502480-1.html
This is one of the first steps in what I hope will be a peaceful and lawful revolution against the plutocracy that America has become. Our government is run entirely for the benefit of large corporate interests on the backs of working people. When the cronies of both parties in the federal government essentially gave away 750 billion dollars of our money to their biggest campaign contributors, they crossed the line from at least pretending to represent us to openly flaunting the fact that they really don’t care what we think; they are going to run government for their own profit at our expense. Until we fire all our politicians, reform our election laws, and start over, America is lost, no matter what party is in power. There is no difference. We start by stripping them of the power they have stolen from us – the people and the States. And, by the way, I wouldn’t follow Sarah Palin out of burning building. People like her are the problem not the solution.
So this case is also stayed pending Nordyke v. King, 611 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2010)….how many cases are being held up? This is crazy and every one of those judges should be removed from the bench for taking this long. That case is an open and shut deal, the problem is that they don’t want to rule that yes, Strict Scrutiny applies.
A lot of laws are going to fall in 2011 and if we don’t win big in 2012, the big O will appoint another member to USSC and we will lose it all.
Time to update your website, guys. Nordyke v King was decided over 6 months ago. What’s going on with MSSA v. Holder? How many more years is this going to take to get a final decision?