Anna M. Barvir

Anna M. Barvir, Associate

Anna(blue bg)1

 
 


View Anna Barvir's profile on LinkedIn

Admissions

United States Supreme Court (2014)
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit (2014)
United States Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit (2015)
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit (2012)
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit (2014)
United States District Court: Eastern District of California (2012)
United States District Court: Northern District of California (2011)
California State Bar Association (2010)

Memberships

Los Angeles County Bar Association
Orange County Bar Association
Orange County Equality Coalition
Girl Scouts of United States of America, Lifetime Member

Degrees and Certifications

Juris Doctorate, Whittier Law School, Magna Cum Laude (2009)
Bachelor of Arts, College of Notre Dame of Maryland, Summa Cum Laude (2005)
Certificate in Legal Writing, Whittier Law School (2009)

Honors and Awards

Rising Star, Southern California Super Lawyers Magazine (2016)
Rising Star, Southern California Super Lawyers Magazine (2015)
Rising Star, Southern California Super Lawyers Magazine (2014)
Rising Star, Southern California Super Lawyers Magazine (2013)
Dean’s Citation Award for Outstanding Leadership & Service to Whittier Law School (2009)
Whittier Law School Student Bar Association Member of the Year (2009)
Whittier Law School Dean’s Merit Scholarship (2007, 2008)
Maryland’s Top 100 Women Circle of Excellence Scholarship (2005)
Mildred Otenisek Award in History and Political Science (2005)
College of Notre Dame Academic Leadership Award (2005)
Jeanne Hackley Stevenson Award in History and Political Science (2004)
College of Notre Dame Student Leader Extraordinaire (2003, 2004)
College of Notre Dame Student Association Emerging Leader of the Year (2002)

Publications and Productions

In Pursuit of the Right to Bear Arms: Building a Nontraditional Career in Constitutional Law, Orange County Lawyer Magazine, May 2015, at 26.

When Hysteria and Good Intentions Collide: Constitutional Considerations of California’s Sexual Predator Punishment and Control Act, 29 Whittier L. Rev. 679 (2008), cited in In re J.L., 190 Cal. App. 4th 1394 (Ct. App. 2010), People v. Mosley, 188 Cal. App. 4th 1090 (Ct. App. 2010), People v. Mosley, 168 Cal. App. 4th 512 (Ct. App. 2008).

Teachings and Presentations

Legal Analysis of Obergefell v. Hodges;
Day of Decision Orange County (June 26, 2015)
Parker v. State of California Appellate Advocacy Course Case Study
Berkeley Law School, Berkeley, CA (Sept. 17, 2014).
Firearms Law Seminar
Women on Target, A Place to Shoot Shooting Range; (July 20, 2013).
Hollingsworth v. Perry: Standing and Prop 8
Day of Decision Orange County, Santa Ana, CA; (June 26, 2013).
Hollingsworth v. Perry & Windsor v. United States
Light the Way to Justice Orange County, Santa Ana, CA; (Mar. 25, 2013)
Firearms Law Seminar
Women on Target, Apple Valley Gun Club; (June 30, 2012.)

Significant Cases

Fyock v. Sunnyvale
Ongoing lawsuit representing individual gun owners in challenge to Sunnyvale’s voter-enacted ban on the possession of ammunition magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds—items that are commonly used by millions of Americans for lawful purposes, including self-defense.

Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco
Represented individual gun owners and the San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Association in a challenge to three San Francisco ordinances on Second Amendment grounds. The case alleged that city ordinances requiring that firearms be disabled by a trigger lock or stored in a locked container, banning the sale of certain ammunition, and prohibiting firearm discharges with no self-defense exception unduly burden the right to self-defense. The case has already prompted San Francisco to amend its discharge ban to allow for discharges in lawful self-defense.

Peruta v. San Diego
Represented individuals and the CRPA Foundation in challenging San Diego’s strict “good cause” requirements for obtaining a permit to carry a concealed firearm. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit recognized that the right to bear arms for self-defense extends beyond the home and that San Diego’s policy of requiring a special need to exercise that right violates the Second Amendment.

Sheriff Clay Parker v. State of California
Represented ammunition vendors and shippers, law enforcement, and individual consumers challenging controversial statewide legislation (AB 962) requiring law-abiding individuals to provide private personal information and a thumbprint for every purchase of “handgun ammunition” and prohibiting mail order and internet purchases of “handgun ammunition.” On appeal, the court upheld a ruling that AB 962 is unconstitutionally vague on its face.

Formal Injunction Against Enforcement of California Ammunition Sales Ban Regulations Issued, Ammoland.com (January 24, 2011)
California handgun ammunition rules shot down, Orange County Register (January 20, 2011)
Judge Rules California Ban On Some Handgun Ammunition Unconstitutional, CBS – San Francisco (January 19, 2011)
Calif. Handgun Ammo Rules Thrown Out, Associated Press (January 19, 2011)
California AB962 Found Unconstitutionally Vague, No Lawyers – Only Guns and Money (January 18, 2011)
Win in suit against California ammunition law, Of Arms & the Law (January 18, 2011)
нтиконституционный закон отменен, Путешествие длиною в жизнь (April 2011)

ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT:  This communication or portions thereof may be considered "advertising" as defined by Section 6157(c) of the California Business and Professions Code or within the jurisdiction in which you are viewing this.  Nothing in the discussion above is intended to be a representation or guarantee about the outcome of any legal proceeding in which you may be involved.  By providing the information above in this format, Michel & Associates is not soliciting you to hire it to handle a specific legal matter you may currently have or be anticipating commencing in the future.  Notwithstanding the discussion above, you should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of any content on this site without seeking appropriate legal advice regarding your particular circumstances from an attorney licensed to practice law.  This communication is informational only and does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Michel & Associates.  Michel & Associates's attorneys are licensed to practice in California, Texas, and the District of Columbia.