Today we filed an amicus brief in the Seventh Circuit in a case challenging the City of Chicago’s buffer zone ordinance, which was designed to prevent pro-life sidewalk counselors from speaking to pregnant women at the last opportunity before they enter an abortion clinic. Our brief argued that the case should be decided as any other First Amendment case — and the First Amendment rules should not be bent because this case involves an abortion clinic. We discuss how the courts have allowed a separate abortion rights jurisprudence to have precedence over legal principles of general applicability. We also explain that the Chicago ordinance violates the often ignored First Amendment “right of the people peaceably to assemble.”
U.S. v. Steven M. Skoien Amicus Brief for Gun Owners Foundation and Gun Owners of America, Inc. in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Today our firm filed an amicus brief for Gun Owners Foundation (“GOF”) and Gun Owners of America, Inc. in the case of U.S. v. Skoien, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
This document compares quotes from the GOF amicus brief with quotes from the NRA amicus brief, which were both filed in the Skoien case —http://www.gunowners.com/gof-vs-nra-quotes.pdf.
Olofson Case — Oral Argument
On January 22, 2009, Herb Titus presented oral argument before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in support of David Olofson’s appeal from having been wrongfully convicted of transfering a machinegun. At the heart of the Olofson appeal, Titus contended, is that the Government pressed a wrongful definition of a machinegun in order to secure Olofson’s conviction. According
U.S. v. David R. Olofson Brief in Support of Appellant Olofson in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Docket No. 08-2294)
We filed a brief on behalf of David R. Olfoson, who was convicted and is serving a sentence for “transferring a machinegun,” which actually was a legal but malfunctioning AR-15 rifle.
U.S. v. David R. Olofson Reply Brief in Support of Appellant Olofson in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Docket No. 08-2294)
We filed our reply brief, responding to the government’s opposition which maintained that a malfunctioning AR-15 rifle is a machinegun.