|Sean A. Brady|
Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco
Ongoing lawsuit challenging three San Francisco ordinances on Second Amendment grounds. This case alleges 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 unconstitutionally infringe the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. The case has already prompted the City to amend its discharge ban – a law that had been in place for some 75 years – to allow for discharges in lawful self-defense and all other circumstances allowed for under state and federal law. The NRA’s attorneys at Michel & Associates, P.C. have successfully defended against each of the City’s preliminary motions, and secured an important published “standing” ruling that clarifies the rights of future litigants in the Ninth Circuit to bring Second Amendment challenges to improper restrictions on the right to arms.
CBD v. Bureau of Land Management, et al.
Successfully intervened on behalf of hunters’ rights group in this lawsuit brought by environmental groups against the BLM to prohibit the use of lead ammunition for hunting in the Arizona Strip, a classic hunting area. Resulted in a favorable published decision on intervention standards (266 F.R.D. 369 (2010)).
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.” The Court ruled that AB 962 was unconstitutionally vague on its face and enjoined enforcement of the statutes it enacted. The case received significant media coverage:
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)
Peruta v. County of San Diego
Ongoing lawsuit challenging San Diego’s strict “good cause” requirements for obtaining a permit to carry a concealed weapon (CCW). This case of first impression addresses whether the right to “bear” arms includes a right to carry a handgun in public. It also alleges favoritism by the San Diego Sheriff in issuing CCW permits on Equal Protection grounds. The case received significant media coverage:
Group Sues County and Sheriff over Concealed Weapon Permits, San Diego Union-Tribune (November 27, 2010)
More Evidence of Police Favoritism in Peruta v. San Diego Gun Case, Examiner.com (October 20, 2010)
Peruta v. San Diego Case Likely Delayed, Examiner.com (October 6, 2010)
Brady Center: Fed Court Must Uphold California Gun Law, OpposingViews.com (October 5, 2010)
Nordyke v. County of Alameda
Challenges a gun show ban in Alameda County. Provided logisitcal and research support and represented amici the NRA and CRPA filing multiple amicus briefs since the case was filed.
California Fish and Game Commission
Worked on gathering thousands of records from agencies involved with the California Condor recovery, and collaborated with scientists to debunk the pseudo-science being used to support the theory of condor death from lead ammo ingestion. Appeared at various Commission hearings to convince the Commission to vote against a proposal to ban lead .22 rimfire and shot for use in hunting squirrels and game birds, due to the scientific and legal deficiencies with the those regulations. The Commission ultimately agreed that the science was invalid and overwhelmingly voted to reject the proposed regulations.