U.S. v. Thomas

1 Citing brief

  1. Enos et al v. Holder et al

    OPPOSITION to 39 Motion for Summary Judgment

    Filed January 11, 2012

    ; United States v. Leuschen, 395 F.3d 155, 160 (3d Cir. 2005) (stating that “[t]he absence of firearms restrictions, however, becomes relevant only if the convict’s core civil rights have been restored” and “[i]f the defendant has not ‘had his civil rights restored,’ it simply does not matter what the state law provides concerning possession of firearms.”) (quoting Thomas, 991 F.2d at 211). M EM ORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 11 Case 2:10-cv-02911-JAM -EFB Document 49 Filed 01/11/12 Page 20 of 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 While plaintiffs point out that Andaverde, Valerio, and Brailey were decided prior to District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), this is irrelevant for two reasons.