Source: https://www.gunownersca.com/news/court-cases-briefs/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 00:25:39+00:00

Document:
As in years past, this year we’ve also put a lot of effort into the courts. We work with several other high-profile pro-gun organizations to support each other and the different court cases. As a team and with your support, we have been able to provide judges with common sense, pro-gun logic and will continue to do so in the cases listed below and any others that surface.
STATUS: On March 26, 2015, the court issued an order upon the vote of a majority of the judges sitting on the 9thCircuit to rehear the case en banc (the case will be heard by the Chief Justice and 10 other judges selected at random) along with Richards v. Prieto. Oral arguments took place June 16, 2015, in San Francisco, California. A decision from can be expected anywhere from 3‐9 months following oral arguments.
STATUS: The case has been stayed pending the resolution of Peruta. The timeline for this case is currently not known.
STATUS: On March 26, 2015, the court issued an order upon the vote of a majority of the judges sitting on the 9thCircuit to rehear the case en banc along with Peruta v. San Diego. Oral arguments took place on June 16, 2015, in San Francisco, California. A decision from can be expected anywhere from 3‐9 months following oral arguments.
STATUS: Pending the results of the Peruta case.
STATUS: On March 4, 2015, the 9th Circuit upheld the lower court’s denial of plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction. The litigation now resumes with discovery and depositions in the district court.
STATUS: Plaintiffs petitioned for Supreme Court review in December 2014. The Supreme Court did not grant Certiorari on this case. The lower court ruling stands for now.
STATUS: The federal district court held the Roster is constitutional on February 25, 2015. Plaintiffs have appealed. The opening brief was due on June 18, 2015. The answering brief was due on July 20, 2015. Once the case is fully briefed, oral arguments will be set, probably in late 2015 or early 2016.
STATUS: The case is currently being appealed to the 9th Circuit. The opening brief was due on March 25, 2015 and the answering brief on April 24, 2015; once the case is fully briefed, oral arguments will be set, likely in late 2015 or early 2016.
STATUS: On March 2, 2015, the District Court issued its opinion granting the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, upholding California’s use of DROS fees to fund the Armed Prohibited Persons System (APPS) as constitutional. Plaintiffs filed an appeal to the 9th Circuit. The opening brief was due on June 15, 2015, and the State’s answering brief was due on July 15, 2015. Once the case if fully briefed, oral arguments will be set, and will likely take place in late 2015 or early 2016.
STATUS: The case is currently in the discovery process in the trial court. The timeline for this case is currently unknown.
Parker V. California – Challenge To “Handgun Ammunition” Sale Registration Requirement And Mail Order Ban (Senator de Leon’s SB 962).
STATUS:The case is currently awaiting oral argument before the California Supreme Court. Oral arguments are expected to take place sometime in 2015, and a ruling will follow in late 2015 or early 2016.
STATUS: A hearing on the government’s motion to dismiss the case was held on January 23, 2015. A decision on the government’s motion to dismiss can come at any time.
Doe V. Harris – CA DOJ Regulation Prohibiting Sale Of More Than One Handgun In 30 Day Period To Valid Certificate Of Eligibility Holders.
STATUS: The Plaintiff’s request for preliminary injunction was denied in July, 2014. The case is now proceeding towards summary judgment motions to resolve the case at the trial court.
Tracy Rifle And Pistol V. Harris – 1st Amendment Challenge To Handgun Advertisement Prohibition.
STATUS:Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction on November 17, 2014. On March 6, 2015, the court issued an order submitting plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction for decision without a hearing. A decision on the request to enjoin the law while the case proceeds, will likely come in the next 1 ‐ 3 months. Opening Briefs have been filed in the 9th Circuit Court.
Belemjian V. Harris – Challenges CA DOJ’s Underground Regulations Regarding The Firearm Safety Certificate Program.
STATUS: On March 9, 2015, the Office of Administrative Law approved CA DOJ’s “emergency” regulations submitted as a result of the lawsuit. A hearing on the DOJ’s motion to dismiss is set for April 15, 2015, and plaintiffs filed a non‐opposition on April 2, 2015. The lawsuit prompted formal regulation from the DOJ and the case will likely conclude in the next 2 ‐ 4 months.
NSSF V. California – Challenges To Microstamping Requirements.
STATUS: On April 28, 2015, the Court denied the State’s request to dismiss the case. The ruling paves the way for a favorable ruling for the Plaintiffs on the merits. A motion for summary judgment is expected sometime in 2015.
STATUS:US Court of Appeals; awaiting judicial decision. There is no time limit and it can come at any time.
STATUS:Case was dismissed without prejudice (without loss or waiver of rights or privileges).
STATUS:The case was before the U.S. Supreme Court; oral arguments were heard in February. In a 9-0 decision, the court-ordered transfer of a felon’s lawfully owned firearms from government custody to a third party is not barred by a law that prohibits felons from possessing guns if the court is satisfied that the recipient will not give control over the firearms, so that he could either use them or direct their use.
STATUS: The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Maryland’s handgun licensing rules that limit the right to carry a concealed weapon to those who have proven a “good and substantial reason.” In the absence of clear standards, the judges “merely assume[d] that the Heller right exists outside the home.” Letting that assumption stand, or maybe not, the Supreme Court denied review on October 15, 2013.
STATUS:This case challenges the government’s violation of the legal principles in the original Heller and McDonald decisions. The District of Columbia continues to ignore the fact that the US Supreme Court has invalidated the application of their gun laws.

References: v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V.