Second Amendment Case Update (Richards v. Prieto, Silvester v. Harris)

In our federal Second Amendment lawsuit Richards v. Prieto (challenging California’s handgun carry “good cause” / “good moral character” requirements and same as applied by Yolo County Sheriff Ed Prieto), attorney Alan Gura filed two additional supplemental notices with the court (below). One responds to the defendants’/appellees’ invocation of the Third Circuit’s decision in Drake v. Filko.  The other argues that we and the other appellants should prevail under the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in U.S. v. Chovan.

In our federal Second Amendment lawsuit Silvester v. Harris (challenging California’s 10-day waiting period ban), attorney Victor Otten filed a supplemental brief (also citing Chovan) in support of our opposition to Defendant Kamala Harris’ Motion for Summary Judgement.

While some (generally anonymous) internet commenters might inaccurately claim that the Chovan court applied the “substantial burden” test from Nordyke v. King , the following documents filed yesterday and today inform that such arguments are plainly false.

Related documents:

Richards v. Prieto – Notice of Supplemental Authority (FRAP 28(j)) filed by appellants in re U.S. v. Chovan

Richards v. Prieto – Notice of Supplemental Authority (FRAP 28(j)) filed by appellees in re Drake v. Filko


Richards v. Prieto – Appellants’ response to appellees’ Notice of Supplemental Authority in re Drake v. Filko

Silvester v. Harris – Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Brief in Support of Opposition to Defendant’s MSJ