VT SuPEg te te! Ms dIGENOVA & TOENSING, LLP ‘ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW August 27, 2018 wig WG 27! P 2S) By Hand Donna Waters Ft! Court Office Manager Washington Superior Court Civil Division 65 State Street Montpelier, VT 05602 RE: Ve tion of Sportsmen's Clubs, et al,_v. Matthew Birmingham, et al. Docket No. 224-4-18-Wenv Dear Ms. Waters: Enclosed for filing with the Court in the above-referenced matter are originals of the following documents. 1, Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, and Brief in Support Thereof (including a certificate of service); and 2, Plaintiffs" Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. I can be reached any time at (202) 297- 4245 or by email at Brady@digtoe.com. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. Sincerely, Ene. {1776 K STREET, NW - SUITE 737 - WASHINGTON, DC 20006 202-288-7701 - 202-289-7706 (FACSIMILE)STATE OF VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION WASHINGTON UNIT Docket No. 224-4-18-Wnev VERMONT FEDERATION OF SPORTSMEN'S CLUBS, VERMONT STATE, RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., POWDERHORN OUTDOOR SPORTS. CENTER, INC., WILLOW LLC, dba LOCUST CREEK OUTFITTERS, JOHN FOGARTY, SAMUEL FRANK, and LEAH STEWART, Plaintiffs, v. MATTHEW BIRMINGHAM, in his Official Capacity as Director of the Vermont State Police, T. J. DONOVAN, in his Official Capacity as Attorney General of the State of Vermont, SARAH GEORGE, in her Official Capacity as State’s Attorney for Chittenden County, DAVID CAHILL, in his Official Capacity as State’s Attorney for Windsor County, and WILLIAM PORTER, in his Official Capacity as State’s Attorney for Orange County, Defendants. PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT THEREOF David H. Thompson* Brady Toensing Nicole J. Moss* DIGENOVA & TOENSING, LLP John D. Ohlendorf* 2613 Greenbush Road Cooper & Kirk, PLLC Charlotte, Vermont 05445 1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. (202) 289-7701 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 289-7706 (fax) (202) 220-9600 Brady@diGToe.com (202) 220-9601 (fax) dthompson@cooperkirk.com * Appearing pro hac vice Attorneys for PlaintiffsTABLE OF AUTHORITIES....... INTRODUCTION .sessosesensee FACTUAL BACKGROUND. i L ARGUMENT... L TABLE OF CONTENTS ‘Vermont's ban on common firearm magazines. ‘The ban's impact on Plaintiffs..... ‘A. Powderhorn and Locust Creek B. The Individual Plaintiffs.. C. The Associational Plaintiffs. Each of the Plaintiffs has standing to challenge Vermont's magazine ban. A. Retailers Powderhorn and Locust Creek have standing. u 1. Economic loss constitutes an injury-in-fact..... 2. Powderhom and Locust Creek have third-party standing to vindicate their customers’ constitutional rights... 1B B. Leah Stewart, John Fogarty, and Samuel Frank have standing... 15 1. Leah Stewart, John Fogarty, and Samuel Frank have a well-founded fear that Vermont's ban will be enforced against them. 16 2. Leah Stewart, John Fogarty, and Samuel Frank face a concrete, imminent injury.... 18 C. VSRPA and VTFSC have standing. 222, 1, VSRPA and VTFSC have organizational standing due to a direct economic injury. 2 2. VSRPA and VTFSC have associational standing on account of their members’ injuries... 24