Summary: Linton v. Becerra is a federal Second Amendment, Full Faith and Credit Clause, Privileges and Immunities Clause, and Fourteenth Amendment constitutional challenge to the State's laws and policies that prevent people who had their firearm rights restored in other states from possessing and purchasing firearms and ammunition in California.
Plaintiffs: Chad Linton, Paul McKinley Stewart, Kendall Jones; Firearms Policy Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, The Calguns Foundation, and Madison Society Foundation
Defendants: Attorney General Xavier Becerra; Acting DOJ Bureau of Firearms Chief Brent Orick (sub'd; prev. Martin Horan); Deputy Attorney General Robert Wilson
Litigation Counsel: George M. Lee, Seiler Epstein Ziegler & Applegate LLP
Docket: N.D. CA case no. 3:18-cv-07653 | CourtListener Docket
Fund this Lawsuit: Click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support this case!
Related Press Releases:
- December 20, 2018: Federal Lawsuit Seeks to Restore Individuals' Firearms Rights in State of California
Key Filings & Events:
- 2021-3-5: ORDER. The motion for summary judgment, Dkt. No. 47, is administratively terminated, and the case is stayed and administratively closed pending further order. The Ninth Circuit recently vacated the panel opinion in Duncan v. Becerra, 970 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2020), and voted to re-hear the case en banc. The panel's majority and dissenting opinions both addressed standards central to plaintiffs' Second Amendment arguments, and the majority opinion was discussed in detail in plaintiffs' reply brief. Consequently, there is a strong possibility that the outcome of the summary judgment motion will be affected by the result of the en banc proceedings, and so deferring a decision on the motion is warranted. The parties are directed to file a joint status report within thirty days of the en banc decision that addresses whether it warrants new or additional briefing.
- 2020-9-21: Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, or In The Alternative, For Partial Summary Judgment
- 2020-8-21: Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment or, In the Alternative, For Partial Summary Judgment
- 2020-6-22: Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion and Motion For Summary Judgment, or In The Alternative, For Partial Summary Judgment
- 2019-12-16: Defendants' Answer to First Amended Complaint
- 2019-12-2: First Amended Complaint
- 2019-12-2: Order: "Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended complaint is granted..."
- 2019-11-15: Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint; Declaration of George Lee in Support of Motion; Proposed Order
- 2019-8-22: Minute Order Terminating Motion to Dismiss (Filed 8/23/19)
- 2019-8-22: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss
- 2019-3-22: Defendants' Reply in support of Motion to Dismiss
- 2019-3-12: Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
- 2019-3-8: Plaintiffs' Request for Judicial Notice ISO Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
- 2019-2-22: Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
- 2018-12-20: Complaint with exhibits