PDA

View Full Version : DC Carry/Palmer: MSJ Filed


hoffmang
08-26-2009, 2:00 PM
SAF and Alan Gura filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.5.0.pdf) in Palmer v. DC today. You want to read the Memorandum in Support (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.5.1.pdf).

1 Main Document (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.5.0.pdf) 1 page
2 Memorandum in Support (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.5.1.pdf) 22 pages
3 Text of Proposed Order (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.5.2.pdf) 2 pages
4 Statement of Facts (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.5.3.pdf) 7 pages
5 Declaration of Tom G. Palmer (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.5.4.pdf) 2 pages
6 Declaration of George Lyon (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.5.5.pdf) 2 pages
7 Declaration of Edward Raymond (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.5.6.pdf) 2 pages
8 Declaration of Amy McVey (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.5.7.pdf) 2 pages
9 Declaration of Alan Gottlieb (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.5.8.pdf) 2 pages
10 Exhibit A (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.5.9.pdf) 3 pages
11 Exhibit B (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.5.10.pdf) 2 pages
12 Exhibit C (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.5.11.pdf) 3 pages
13 Exhibit D (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.5.12.pdf) 6 pages

madmike
08-26-2009, 2:32 PM
I wish I understood all of that better. It looks good to my untrained eyes though.

-madmike.

CHS
08-26-2009, 2:37 PM
Beautiful!

KCM222
08-26-2009, 2:37 PM
I wish I understood all of that better. It looks good to my untrained eyes though.

-madmike.

Basically the 2nd Amendment states you have the right to keep and bear and DC explicitly violates the latter.

madmike
08-26-2009, 3:15 PM
Basically the 2nd Amendment states you have the right to keep and bear and DC explicitly violates the latter.

I got the gist, I just start to glaze over from the long winded version that seems to be necessary for anything involving the courts(esp. SCOTUS). My attention span is to short for all the subtleties.

But thanks for the crayon drawing, as far as you knew I may have needed it. ;)

-madmike.

Kharn
08-26-2009, 4:12 PM
Isnt winning via an MSJ an extremely rare occurence in emerging civil rights cases?

otteray
08-26-2009, 4:16 PM
So, where are the crayon drawings? I need them, too. (EDIT: I've read the links now)
Hoffmang, artherd, bweise, Ivanimal, Kestryll, Librarian and holy cow, an ocean of many other brilliant minds here, keep me both in in awe and in a thankful posture for what they do so effectively for Calif gun owners.
I think that they get so focused and full of good zeal, that they sometimes need this small reminder.:iamwithstupid:

bulgron
08-26-2009, 4:30 PM
Isnt winning via an MSJ an extremely rare occurence in emerging civil rights cases?

As Gene explained in the Sykes thread, a MSJ is how these things are settled because there are no facts in dispute. This is only a question of law. So you don't have a trial, instead you just have a bunch of grumpy people in black robes deciding what the law means. When that happens, it's all about Motions of Summary Judgements.

1JimMarch
08-26-2009, 5:26 PM
They're challenging both the carry ban and the inability for out-of-district people to obtain permits. Arguing to the latter point, we find something that will make "Billy Jack" very happy:

Even absent a Second Amendment right, the Ninth Circuit held that a California Sheriff’s policies regarding the issuance of handgun carry permits may be restrained by the Equal Protection Clause. Guillory v. County of Orange, 731 F.2d 1379 (9th Cir. 1984).

If they win this point and force DC to issue permits to out-of-district people, AND incorporation either survives the Nordyke en banc or is ruled on by the Supremes, that means California cannot refuse to issue CCW to people like me living in Arizona. I think that's the case NOW under current precedents (mainly Ward v. Maryland 1872 and Saenz v. Roe 1999) but with this new combination of cases, there's no counter-argument even possible.

press1280
08-26-2009, 5:28 PM
Soooooo, I assume DC didn't reply to the complaint?
What's the timeline now?

Shotgun Man
08-26-2009, 5:59 PM
Nice motion, but I did get momentarily confused with the following verbiage:


Defendants have many options at their disposal. Assuming they wish to regulate the
carrying of weapons, Defendants may, as suggested by their basic carrying statute, license the
carrying of handguns much as they do the keeping of handguns. They may entirely proscribe the
carrying of handguns in either a concealed or open manner. And they may restrict the carrying of
handguns in sensitive places. But Plaintiffs do not ask the Court to legislate for the District, only
to enjoin those practices and policies that violate the right to arms until the District conforms its
conduct to constitutional requirements.


I get what we're saying, but I know the argument.

This above-bolded sentence could have been more artfully crafted to say something like, "They may entirely proscribe the carrying of handguns in a concealed manner or they may entirely proscribe the carrying of handgun in an open manner. A blanket prohibition on the carrying of handguns, however, is unconstitutional.

Not knowing the argument, the original sentence could be misinterpreted to mean DC is free to outlaw all forms of carry. Mind you, this paragraph precedes the argument where everything is fully explained.

dantodd
08-26-2009, 6:03 PM
Nice motion, but I did get confused with the following verbiage:

It means that the district can choose between OC and CC. The amendment defines a right to carry a gun. The government can determine HOW it is carried.

1JimMarch
08-26-2009, 8:49 PM
Exactly. Under this theory of Gura's, DC can pick whether people do CCW or LOC, or allow both, but they can't ban both.

But there's some "gotchas" Gura isn't mentioning yet (not saying he needs to mind you). If the agency "allows street carry by concealed means only", and that's the only way to exercise a constitutional right to carry, can the state (or DC) make people pay? There's a LOT of case law saying you can't bill people and make them pay to exercise a civil right - pay-to-vote (poll tax) was banned long ago for example, ditto "journalism permits". The gov't can't make people buy permits to carry out political or religious speech, which is why Jehovah's Witnesses don't have to buy "merchant's licenses" - they brought that case to the US Supreme Court because communities were trying to restrict their door-knocking. And there's other examples.

Put another way: if incorporation happens, will Texas be able to continue with banning open carry? They have concealed carry, yeah, but only if you pay.

Gray Peterson
08-26-2009, 9:08 PM
Exactly. Under this theory of Gura's, DC can pick whether people do CCW or LOC, or allow both, but they can't ban both.

But there's some "gotchas" Gura isn't mentioning yet (not saying he needs to mind you). If the agency "allows street carry by concealed means only", and that's the only way to exercise a constitutional right to carry, can the state (or DC) make people pay? There's a LOT of case law saying you can't bill people and make them pay to exercise a civil right - pay-to-vote (poll tax) was banned long ago for example, ditto "journalism permits". The gov't can't make people buy permits to carry out political or religious speech, which is why Jehovah's Witnesses don't have to buy "merchant's licenses" - they brought that case to the US Supreme Court because communities were trying to restrict their door-knocking. And there's other examples.

Put another way: if incorporation happens, will Texas be able to continue with banning open carry? They have concealed carry, yeah, but only if you pay.

We both know the answer to the question is "No", Murdock v. Pennsylvania already makes this clear. HOWEVER, attacking the fees for exercising of a civil right needlessly complicates the current case, which is to attack the carry ban outright. We can attack the fee requirements in the next steps, but not now. Gura's precision strikes are good for this sort of work.

Scarecrow Repair
08-26-2009, 10:01 PM
We both know the answer to the question is "No", Murdock v. Pennsylvania already makes this clear.

You have to get a permit to hold a parade or rally, and I believe there is some "nominal" charge for that. Newspapers have to pay business taxes; they just can't be targeted at business only. The post office can't refuse to mail your political propaganda, but they can charge for it, just like everything else they mail.

I doubt you will ever get ccw permit applications down to free as long as there are real costs associated with processing them.

Gray Peterson
08-27-2009, 12:01 AM
You have to get a permit to hold a parade or rally, and I believe there is some "nominal" charge for that. Newspapers have to pay business taxes; they just can't be targeted at business only. The post office can't refuse to mail your political propaganda, but they can charge for it, just like everything else they mail.

I doubt you will ever get ccw permit applications down to free as long as there are real costs associated with processing them.

True, however fingerprint checks cost $19.25 with the FBI. The amount charged, by NYC, for example (355 or 400 or some outrageous amount) for even being able to possess a firearm for three years is likely not constitutional.

wash
08-27-2009, 7:45 AM
That was beautiful. I can't wait to get my D.C. CCW license.

Maestro Pistolero
08-27-2009, 8:27 AM
Gura is brilliant. Robert Levy from CATO (who brought and single handedly financed Heller) had the wisdom to commit to Gura's arguing Heller before the SCOTUS, long before anyone knew who this young lawyer was. I am so grateful to Levy and Gura for getting this ball rolling early on. The subsequent monumental effort of all the parties here are equally humbling to me.

The contribution to preserving liberty into the future is incalculable. Thank you all.

Paladin
08-27-2009, 8:57 AM
If we win, street crime in D.C. may no longer pay.

Then we can focus on cleaning up the 3 branches of the federal government . . . .

1JimMarch
08-27-2009, 10:21 AM
We can attack the fee requirements in the next steps, but not now. Gura's precision strikes are good for this sort of work.

I agree completely. I'm just looking at the implications of where he's going, and if I can do that, so can the courts.

yellowfin
08-27-2009, 10:28 AM
If we win, street crime in D.C. may no longer pay.

Then we can focus on cleaning up the 3 branches of the federal government . . . . Which is precisely why the federal government and state governments of CA, IL, NJ, and NY do everything they can to stand in the way of the 2nd Amendment.

wash
08-27-2009, 11:15 AM
Which is precisely why the federal government and state governments of CA, IL, NJ, and NY do everything they can to stand in the way of the 2nd Amendment.
I don't think that's quite true.

Politicians do it to look tough on crime or something.

It's like Obama offering "Change".

He couldn't guarantee making things better, just making them different.

That's probably the biggest reason for anti-gun legislation, to make it look like the politicians are doing something.

There are politicians that want sheep to herd and want to disarm you for that reason but I don't think any are actually worried about any type of coup d-etat.

Sgt Raven
08-27-2009, 1:02 PM
I don't think that's quite true.

Politicians do it to look tough on crime or something.

It's like Obama offering "Change".

He couldn't guarantee making things better, just making them different.

That's probably the biggest reason for anti-gun legislation, to make it look like the politicians are doing something.

There are politicians that want sheep to herd and want to disarm you for that reason but I don't think any are actually worried about any type of coup d-etat.

Why does the government hate organized crime?
They don't like the competition. :p

SimpleCountryActuary
08-27-2009, 6:54 PM
Basically the 2nd Amendment states you have the right to keep and bear and DC explicitly violates the latter.

By golly, we'll teach those guys in D.C. how to read the English language word by word. Yesterday's word was "keep"; today's word is "bear"; tomorrow's word is "FREEDOM!!!"

dantodd
08-27-2009, 8:17 PM
By golly, we'll teach those guys in D.C. how to read the English language word by word. Yesterday's word was "keep"; today's word is "bear"; tomorrow's word is "FREEDOM!!!"

Maloney called. Tomorrow's word is ARMS.

Gray Peterson
08-27-2009, 8:39 PM
That case would likely be GVR'd.

dantodd
08-27-2009, 8:52 PM
That case would likely be GVR'd.

Are you speaking of Maloney? If so, what has changed since January of this year to warrant a GVR?

wildhawker
08-27-2009, 8:56 PM
Are you speaking of Maloney? If so, what has changed since January of this year to warrant a GVR?

Might be in reference to McDonald/incorporation; once 2A applies to the case a lower court should be able to address the arms issue (not saying it couldn't work its way back up).

dantodd
08-27-2009, 9:01 PM
Might be in reference to McDonald/incorporation; once 2A applies to the case a lower court should be able to address the arms issue (not saying it couldn't work its way back up).

Possibly but the problem with GVRing Maloney based on McDonald/NRA is that it doesn't address the question defining arms any further than "'nunchaku' are arms." It would seem the court would rather set a nation-wide precedent that more accurately defines "arms" rather than simply sending Maloney back to the circuit. Particularly with Sotomayor on the bench now.

wildhawker
08-27-2009, 9:18 PM
Possibly but the problem with GVRing Maloney based on McDonald/NRA is that it doesn't address the question defining arms any further than "'nunchaku' are arms." It would seem the court would rather set a nation-wide precedent that more accurately defines "arms" rather than simply sending Maloney back to the circuit. Particularly with Sotomayor on the bench now.

A GVR would be a strong message for the panel to carefully consider the issue at the CA level lest it be brought back to them again. They may be waiting for a later case to create a post-incorporation split and address at that time. It would seem there would be a ton of clarity cases to work up through the courts after 2A/en bloc incorporation.

SimpleCountryActuary
08-28-2009, 7:24 PM
Maloney called. Tomorrow's word is ARMS.

Yup, get it out of order and we end up keeping and arming bears.

swhatb
08-28-2009, 10:56 PM
Thanks for posting...

SAF and Alan Gura filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.5.0.pdf) in Palmer v. DC today. You want to read the Memorandum in Support (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.5.1.pdf).

1 Main Document (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.5.0.pdf) 1 page
2 Memorandum in Support (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.5.1.pdf) 22 pages
3 Text of Proposed Order (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.5.2.pdf) 2 pages
4 Statement of Facts (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.5.3.pdf) 7 pages
5 Declaration of Tom G. Palmer (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.5.4.pdf) 2 pages
6 Declaration of George Lyon (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.5.5.pdf) 2 pages
7 Declaration of Edward Raymond (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.5.6.pdf) 2 pages
8 Declaration of Amy McVey (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.5.7.pdf) 2 pages
9 Declaration of Alan Gottlieb (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.5.8.pdf) 2 pages
10 Exhibit A (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.5.9.pdf) 3 pages
11 Exhibit B (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.5.10.pdf) 2 pages
12 Exhibit C (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.5.11.pdf) 3 pages
13 Exhibit D (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.5.12.pdf) 6 pages

kf6tac
08-28-2009, 11:35 PM
Yup, get it out of order and we end up keeping and arming bears.

Haha, can you imagine if every American had a right to maintain an army of bears trained to use firearms?

SimpleCountryActuary
08-29-2009, 7:06 PM
Haha, can you imagine if every American had a right to maintain an army of bears trained to use firearms?

You would see a lot of Grand Theft Picnic Baskets.

7x57
08-29-2009, 9:02 PM
Haha, can you imagine if every American had a right to maintain an army of bears trained to use firearms?

We don't? Man, I may have a lot of 'splanin' to do.

7x57

loather
09-09-2009, 5:30 PM
You would see a lot of Grand Theft Picnic Baskets.

I don't think the ranger's going to like that, Yogi!

2009_gunner
01-22-2010, 10:24 AM
The wiki on the case shows that the oral arguments were held today.
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Palmer_v._District_of_Columbia

When can we look forward to a decision from the court?

CaliforniaCarry
01-22-2010, 10:26 AM
I was wondering about this as well. Do we know if audio was recorded, and if so when it will be released?

kf6tac
01-22-2010, 10:41 AM
The wiki on the case shows that the oral arguments were held today.
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Palmer_v._District_of_Columbia

When can we look forward to a decision from the court?

Whenever the clerks get around to drafting an opinion. lol.

CCWFacts
01-22-2010, 10:55 AM
But there's some "gotchas" Gura isn't mentioning yet (not saying he needs to mind you). If the agency "allows street carry by concealed means only", and that's the only way to exercise a constitutional right to carry, can the state (or DC) make people pay? There's a LOT of case law saying you can't bill people and make them pay to exercise a civil right - pay-to-vote (poll tax) was banned long ago for example, ditto "journalism permits".

I think you're wrong on this.

First, the same court upheld processing fees for gun permits in Heller itself. If fees to exercise the 2A were unconstitutional they would have removed those fees. If a fee is constitutional for "keep" then it's also constitutional for "bear".

Second, plenty of civil rights have fees attached. You need to pay for a parade permit. Churches need to pay various registration fees, both at the local level and probably at the IRS level. I presume that courts use some test to determine when fees can be applied and when they can't. It's intuitively obvious to me that poll taxes are not reasonable, but paying to process a parade application or process a gun permit does make sense.

Put another way: if incorporation happens, will Texas be able to continue with banning open carry? They have concealed carry, yeah, but only if you pay.

I'm sure the fees are not a problem.

yellowfin
01-22-2010, 11:48 AM
Fees can't be prohibitive, though. Poll taxes weren't as bad because they were a tax on a right as they were an obstruction.

Kharn
01-22-2010, 12:45 PM
I think you're wrong on this.

First, the same court upheld processing fees for gun permits in Heller itself. If fees to exercise the 2A were unconstitutional they would have removed those fees. If a fee is constitutional for "keep" then it's also constitutional for "bear".

Second, plenty of civil rights have fees attached. You need to pay for a parade permit. Churches need to pay various registration fees, both at the local level and probably at the IRS level. I presume that courts use some test to determine when fees can be applied and when they can't. It's intuitively obvious to me that poll taxes are not reasonable, but paying to process a parade application or process a gun permit does make sense.

I'm sure the fees are not a problem.Notice those fees are all on organizations or groups (or a reasonable fee given the costs incurred by the govt closing streets, blocking parking meters, cleaning the parade route, etc), never on a single person. You can't charge a person a fee for them to be able to hold a sign on a downtown street corner, nor can you charge that person a fee when they chose to pray before a meal at a restaurant or while in a park. Gura did not ask for the registration fee to be examined, so it was not.

press1280
01-22-2010, 2:40 PM
For some reason, Palmer v. DC doesn't appear on the court calendar for today's date(on the website for US District Court for DC), but it was on there earlier this week to be heard by Kennedy at 2PM. Does anyone know if it actually took place or did some shenenigans take place?

HowardW56
01-22-2010, 2:45 PM
For some reason, Palmer v. DC doesn't appear on the court calendar for today's date(on the website for US District Court for DC), but it was on there earlier this week to be heard by Kennedy at 2PM. Does anyone know if it actually took place or did some shenenigans take place?

It was argued and the Judge took it under submission....

hoffmang
01-22-2010, 2:48 PM
It was argued. Arguments went better than expected, but it's very hard to predict this District Court. I'm going to see if I can obtain audio.

ETA: Two tidbits from reports I've heard. 1. Alan Gura kept pushing DC on what Bear Arms means if it doesn't mean what he says it means. 2. A reporter in attendance things Alan will win...

-Gene

press1280
01-22-2010, 2:49 PM
OK, that's good. I thought DC might try to show up late to court and ask for a few months more.
Any chance of audios or transcripts of what happened?

hoffmang
01-22-2010, 2:58 PM
Any chance of audios or transcripts of what happened?

Working on that - not sure if we can get audio.

-Gene

G17GUY
01-22-2010, 3:15 PM
Sounds like positive news. Hopefuly audio is available.

nobody_special
01-22-2010, 5:04 PM
First, the same court upheld processing fees for gun permits in Heller itself. If fees to exercise the 2A were unconstitutional they would have removed those fees.


That is incorrect; DC's licensing was not at issue in Heller, and Scalia's opinion clearly states this. What was at issue is the fact that DC refused to issue licenses under any circumstances.

Lagduf
01-22-2010, 6:45 PM
The argument in this case gives me hope that we shall be able to legally carry loaded handguns in CA upon our persons in the near future.

yellowfin
01-22-2010, 8:57 PM
We're figuring DC is going to appeal, correct?

N6ATF
01-23-2010, 1:18 PM
We're figuring DC is going to appeal, correct?

As long as they are not on death row.

7x57
01-23-2010, 1:28 PM
As long as they are not on death row.

Wait! Is that an option? :43:

7x57

mblat
01-23-2010, 2:56 PM
forget audio - transcripts?

CSDGuy
01-23-2010, 2:59 PM
Give them 10 days and $2.90 a page...

More $$$ per page = less wait time... It's $4 something/page for a 2 day turn-around time.

2009_gunner
01-23-2010, 3:03 PM
forget audio - transcripts?

There's a posting of what generally happened over at opencarry by ianto94. I'm a little surprised this case is not making more news. If Gura is successful, it seems this will have a bigger impact than Heller version 1.
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=29546&forum_id=16&jump_to=630993#p630993

Back from the court. The hearing was on cross motions for summary judgement. I will give the highlights, but no doubt will omit some of the argument since I do not have a photographic memory.

Alan Gura went first. He said this case is pretty simply. He emphasized the Heller decision's definition of bear as to carry on the person a weapon for offensive or defensive use in the event of confrontation. He pointed out that the District has offered no other definition. He pointed out that this is a complete ban on carrying outside the home and is thus very similar to Heller which completely banned possession of handguns. He pointed out that handguns are protected under the second amendment as commonly used arms. He explained that Heller said that the right of self defense is protected by the second amendment and that the DC law bans persons from having handguns for self defense outside the home. Gura admitted that DC has many options in terms of regulating the carrying of firearms, including prescribing the manner of carrying and regulating the carrying through issuance of licenses, but cannot deny to all the right to carry anywhere outside their homes.

DC's argument was somewhat muddled and the judge seemed to suggest as much. DC's counsel argued that the whole of the city is a sensitive area due to foreign dignataries and the federal government being here. He argued that the court should adopt a standard of reasonableness and that DC's prohibition on carrying guns reasonable advances the important public interest in safety. He also argued that the court should ask the federal government to intervene in the case. Finally he suggested that this case was inappropriate for a facial challenge to the statute because facial challenges are upheld only when there is no set of circumstances under which the law would be constitutional.

Gura said a facial challenge was appropriate given that the law is a complete prohibition on carrying outside the home. He further pointed out that the law has been applied against each plaintiff because the city denied plaintiffs registration of handguns on the basis that carrying in public was not a lawful purpose. He further explained that while protection of foreign dignataries may be important, District residents are entitled by the second amendment to protect themselves as well. DC also argued that Heller is not controling and that plaintiffs have not pointed to any binding precedent to support their position.

On points it is hard not to suggest that Alan won the argument. DC essentially thinks that it is fine to deny the right to bear arms anywhere in the city because DC is a particularly sensitive place. The judge will have to buy that argunment to hold for the District. He may, but I was encouraged that he seems to read Heller as he should to hold that there is a right to bear arms for self defense and that DC's law denies that right everywhere but in ones home. It is hard to read judges, but on balance I think there is a good chance this judge may just rule in favor of the plaintiffs. If not an appeal to the DC Circuit will likely draw a panel more favorable to the second amendment, especially if there is a favorable decision from the Supreme Court in the McDonald case.

N6ATF
01-23-2010, 6:03 PM
Wait! Is that an option? :43:

7x57

No more than all the guilty government employees going the way of Heaven's Gate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven%27s_Gate_(religious_group)).

If only the government's death cult would kill themselves instead of spending every waking moment trying to get US killed.

press1280
01-24-2010, 4:59 AM
What would a "win" here mean? DC would be ordered to allow LOC or shall-issue CC or something else? I'm sure it'll get appealed in any case and thus delay the inevitable, but I'm curious what would happen if DC decides they're just going to give up and stop fighting.

Maestro Pistolero
01-24-2010, 10:13 AM
How many times will the lower court wish to submit itself to humiliation by the Supreme Court? I guess it's not possible to embarrass the shameless. And when did the 'government' begin to view itself as the opponent of the constitution? It is all so backward. We are paying these government attorneys to oppose us, and our rights.

hoffmang
01-24-2010, 10:37 AM
What would a "win" here mean? DC would be ordered to allow LOC or shall-issue CC or something else? I'm sure it'll get appealed in any case and thus delay the inevitable, but I'm curious what would happen if DC decides they're just going to give up and stop fighting.

Most of us think DC is too dumb to give up, but here is how it would work.

1. When we win, for a very short time, DC may become Vermont carry.

2. We all expect DC will quickly move to implement a CCW system and ban open carry. The funny part is that the license needed to simply possess a handgun at home in DC is equivalent to a CCW license in most states.

-Gene

Aegis
01-24-2010, 12:46 PM
Most of us think DC is too dumb to give up, but here is how it would work.

1. When we win, for a very short time, DC may become Vermont carry.

2. We all expect DC will quickly move to implement a CCW system and ban open carry. The funny part is that the license needed to simply possess a handgun at home in DC is equivalent to a CCW license in most states.

-Gene

When we win Palmer and incorporation through McDonald, will Sykes still be necessary to get some sort of loaded carry (open or concealed) in CA or will Palmer be sufficient?

383green
01-24-2010, 12:48 PM
When we win Palmer and incorporation through McDonald, will Sykes still be necessary to get some sort of loaded carry (open or concealed) in CA or will Palmer be sufficient?

A case like Sykes will still be necessary, as I understand things. Incorporation will not immediately change any laws at all; it will just enable further legal offenses and defenses in court.

Kharn
01-24-2010, 12:50 PM
Palmer would have to go to the Circuit Court before it would be considered by other courts as anything more than a "Hm, that's interesting". Its currently at the District Court, one step below.

7x57
01-24-2010, 12:57 PM
Palmer would have to go to the Circuit Court before it would be considered by other courts as anything more than a "Hm, that's interesting". Its currently at the District Court, one step below.

Indeed. However, supposing it does, it's hard for me to see how wins in McDonald and Palmer together do not imply a win in Sykes. I choose not to think how twisted the logic would have to be. It seems that such a combination would imply that DC need only create a California-style may-issue system to satisfy the courts, and that would be a travesty.

And I cannot imagine that the DC police would use their discretion to work less evil than, say, LAPD, which would mean they'd basically get away with "no-issue" under another name.

7x57

nick
01-24-2010, 1:04 PM
I think you're wrong on this.

First, the same court upheld processing fees for gun permits in Heller itself. If fees to exercise the 2A were unconstitutional they would have removed those fees. If a fee is constitutional for "keep" then it's also constitutional for "bear".

Well, there's a disconnect here, for we have two ways to consider this. One is what the Constitution actually says, and the other is how it's interpreted by the Supreme court. Unfortunately, both don't usually conincide.

Unfortunately, the 2nd Amendment is also usually treated far differently from the rest.

Second, plenty of civil rights have fees attached. You need to pay for a parade permit. Churches need to pay various registration fees, both at the local level and probably at the IRS level. I presume that courts use some test to determine when fees can be applied and when they can't. It's intuitively obvious to me that poll taxes are not reasonable, but paying to process a parade application or process a gun permit does make sense.

I'm sure the fees are not a problem.

Provided there actually is a proven compelling government interest in having a permit to begin with. Not an easy thing to prove with concealed carry permits, if one's intellectually honest. It's easier to prove with parade permits.

As for the churches, they have registration fees when it comes to getting a tax-free status. It doesn't have much to do with practicing religion.

wildhawker
01-24-2010, 1:10 PM
Indeed. However, supposing it does, it's hard for me to see how wins in McDonald and Palmer together do not imply a win in Sykes. I choose not to think how twisted the logic would have to be. It seems that such a combination would imply that DC need only create a California-style may-issue system to satisfy the courts, and that would be a travesty.

And I cannot imagine that the DC police would use their discretion to work less evil than, say, LAPD, which would mean they'd basically get away with "no-issue" under another name.

7x57

A win in Palmer at district is not binding but persuasive, and Palmer's outcome at the appeals court level will be similarly persuasive when Sykes goes to CA9. A Palmer win in D.C. district was not predicted but appears possible.

7x57
01-24-2010, 1:22 PM
A win in Palmer at district is not binding but persuasive, and Palmer's outcome at the appeals court level will be similarly persuasive when Sykes goes to CA9. A Palmer win in D.C. district was not predicted but appears possible.

Indeed, but in replying to someone discussing the necessity of a circuit court ruling to make precedent I was assuming a Palmer win at that level. But even more I was really thinking of the logic, because of course the 9th can ignore the DC circuit if it really wants to be difficult. My point is that if the 2nd binds the states as a McDonald win implies, and if DC's total ban violates the 2nd, then CA would have to hit a pretty narrow window to win Sykes and still be consistent with the other two. It's hard to see how California can argue that discriminatory issue can possibly respect a right that DC could not take away completely, since they'd have to not simply hit the narrow window between forbidding and corrupt discretionary permitting a right but also have to thread the needle past the 14th prohibition of discrimination before the law. Seems like an impossibly tough shot to make.

7x57

yellowfin
01-24-2010, 1:32 PM
I wonder if DC will have to honor Virginia licenses, otherwise they'll have to issue non resident ones.

hoffmang
01-24-2010, 1:45 PM
I wonder if DC will have to honor Virginia licenses, otherwise they'll have to issue non resident ones.

:43:

-Gene

CCWFacts
01-24-2010, 1:51 PM
I wonder if DC will have to honor Virginia licenses, otherwise they'll have to issue non resident ones.

Actually I really hope that DC isn't forced to issue non-res CCWs. The problem with that would be they could say "non-res CCWs give us compliance with the 2A", and then they can make the non-res preocess a royal pain. What if training must be done in-state, such as NV's non-res system? That would be a major inconvenience for travelers, to have to go for a couple of days of training and a day of running around the issuing office to get a permit. I travel to NV occasionally and I haven't bothered to get their non-res CCW because of the hassle. When I'm traveling I don't want to take a couple days out of my schedule to deal with it. And on top of it, I'm sure DC's CCW process will cost several hundred dollars.

I hope they don't create a non-res system, but rather are forced to honor other states' permits.

dantodd
01-24-2010, 2:46 PM
non-res preocess a royal pain. What if training must be done in-state, such as NV's non-res system?

If and when 2A is a protected right and if/when bear is properly defined "a royal pain" becomes an infringement.

You can be pretty sure that if we get out of McDonald and Palmer all that we hope to, CCW permits will essentially be like Driver's licenses and will be subject to full faith and credit. As long as we get a proper definition of bearing through Palmer and Sykes this will be more than adequate.

yellowfin
01-24-2010, 3:32 PM
If I had to guess, they might choose $200 as the cap on CCW costs.

N6ATF
01-24-2010, 4:20 PM
If I had to guess, they might choose $200 as the cap on CCW costs.

Good, then the right (assuming CCW stands alone with LOC banned) will only apply to the middle class and above, the rest won't be able to afford to sue, and high-crime cities will continue to be high-crime cities. Exactly what the victim disarmers want. :mad:

dantodd
01-24-2010, 4:55 PM
Good, then the right (assuming CCW stands alone with LOC banned) will only apply to the middle class and above, the rest won't be able to afford to sue, and high-crime cities will continue to be high-crime cities. Exactly what the victim disarmers want. :mad:

Perhaps "poor" people will have to choose between their $800 TV and the ability to protect their families. Also, $200 is less than most handguns.

I suspect that $200 will be too high a cost and will be determined to infringe the rights of citizens to bear arms but it certainly doesn't put it merely into the realm of "middle class and above" you can make the argument that $200 is excessive without resorting to a fallacious argument.

What do "poor" people in America own? From heritage.org (http://www.heritage.org/Research/welfare/bg2064.cfm)
43% own their own homes.
Nearly 75% own a car
31% own two or more cars.
97% have a color television
Over 50% own two or more color televisions.
78% own a VCR or DVD player
62% have cable or satellite TV reception.
89% own microwave ovens

yellowfin
01-24-2010, 5:04 PM
The reason I said $200 is that's what the NFA tax is. Either that's reasonable under the law or it isn't and it's the one federally set gun fee we know of. If that is deemed excessive, then it'll get struck too. If it's said to be reasonable, then it might be considered the standard.

hoffmang
01-24-2010, 5:32 PM
Good, then the right (assuming CCW stands alone with LOC banned) will only apply to the middle class and above, the rest won't be able to afford to sue, and high-crime cities will continue to be high-crime cities. Exactly what the victim disarmers want. :mad:

If you're actually poor they're going to have to have exceptions to the fees.

-Gene

sholling
01-24-2010, 5:44 PM
If I had to guess, they might choose $200 as the cap on CCW costs.
Perhaps if that includes the cost of training etc. Otherwise I can't see the court allowing the cost of a shall-issue permit itself to exceed $50. Not much more than Florida and Utah charge. The fee only has to be high enough to cover the cost of finger printing and a NICS check. It's may issue states that have an excuse to charge more. They have labor intensive interview and assessment costs to recover. Under shall issue you are either eligible or ineligible per NICS - period.

yellowfin
01-24-2010, 7:17 PM
NYS' process is complicated compared to most. 4 references sign and notorize a sheet and the application then are interviewed extensively in person (or on the phone occasionally if conditions dictate). Then you have to do two sets of fingerprints, interview, a safety course or two, pay no less than $105
In fees, and usually see a judge...then wait up to 10 months. And that's in the gun friendly counties. Not so nice ones throw in a psych test and other stuff.

dantodd
01-24-2010, 8:20 PM
The reason I said $200 is that's what the NFA tax is. Either that's reasonable under the law or it isn't and it's the one federally set gun fee we know of. If that is deemed excessive, then it'll get struck too. If it's said to be reasonable, then it might be considered the standard.

the NFA tax will fall. There is no way the government can justify taxing an enumerated right. That $200 number is irrelevant. They MAY be able to outright ban or legally regulate FA/SBS/SBR etc. but to specifically tax them will never stand.

N6ATF
01-24-2010, 11:32 PM
If you're actually poor they're going to have to have exceptions to the fees.

-Gene

And those exceptions will definitely be written and subsequently granted by recalcitrant victim disarmers without requiring lawsuits. :rolleyes:

Kharn
01-25-2010, 1:54 AM
Perhaps if that includes the cost of training etc. Otherwise I can't see the court allowing the cost of a shall-issue permit itself to exceed $50. Not much more than Florida and Utah charge. The fee only has to be high enough to cover the cost of finger printing and a NICS check. It's may issue states that have an excuse to charge more. They have labor intensive interview and assessment costs to recover. Under shall issue you are either eligible or ineligible per NICS - period.Florida is $120 for five years IIRC. Now PA is $20 for five years and they do not even do finger prints, the sheriff runs your name through NCIC and you get your permit in the mail a few days later from what I've heard.
the NFA tax will fall. There is no way the government can justify taxing an enumerated right. That $200 number is irrelevant. They MAY be able to outright ban or legally regulate FA/SBS/SBR etc. but to specifically tax them will never stand.The reason there is a tax instead of a ban was because the 1934 Congress knew it was beyond their power to ban guns.

sholling
01-25-2010, 6:42 AM
Florida is $120 for five years IIRC. Now PA is $20 for five years and they do not even do finger prints, the sheriff runs your name through NCIC and you get your permit in the mail a few days later from what I've heard.
The reason there is a tax instead of a ban was because the 1934 Congress knew it was beyond their power to ban guns.
I paid less than $50 for my Florida CCW less than a year ago plus $10 to have local LEOs print me. The training class was $120 but covered both Florida and Utah.

Kharn
01-25-2010, 8:03 AM
FL's website says $117 (for the $42 fingerprint fee and $75 license fee) for new applicants, $65 for in-state holders to renew, $107 for out-of-state holders to renew due to fingerprint fee. I renewed my license 4 months ago, the fees haven't changed significantly since I first received it.

Mulay El Raisuli
01-25-2010, 9:16 AM
If and when 2A is a protected right and if/when bear is properly defined "a royal pain" becomes an infringement.

You can be pretty sure that if we get out of McDonald and Palmer all that we hope to, CCW permits will essentially be like Driver's licenses and will be subject to full faith and credit. As long as we get a proper definition of bearing through Palmer and Sykes this will be more than adequate.


From what Gene says, we're not likely to get what *I* consider a "proper" definition of bearing, but aside from that, I suspect that 'full faith & credit' will bring us reciprocity on CCWs as well.


The Raisuli

wildhawker
01-25-2010, 10:13 AM
From what Gene says, we're not likely to get what *I* consider a "proper" definition of bearing, but aside from that, I suspect that 'full faith & credit' will bring us reciprocity on CCWs as well.


The Raisuli

We'll probably get CCW reciprocity from Scott Brown.

Baby steps.

hoffmang
01-25-2010, 11:11 AM
And those exceptions will definitely be written and subsequently granted by recalcitrant victim disarmers without requiring lawsuits. :rolleyes:

And I see you ponying up to bring that suit, right?

-Gene

yellowfin
01-25-2010, 11:16 AM
We'll probably get CCW reciprocity from Scott Brown.

Baby steps.We'd like that, certainly. I'm more inclined to wait and see as Massachusetts Republicans don't usually impress me much. They're usually way watered down to be acceptable to the...I don't have a nice way to put it...the voters of Massachusetts.

hoffmang
01-25-2010, 11:21 AM
We'd like that, certainly. I'm more inclined to wait and see as Massachusetts Republicans don't usually impress me much. They're usually way watered down to be acceptable to the...I don't have a nice way to put it...the voters of Massachusetts.

He's NRA A rated but we'll see.

-Gene

yellowfin
01-25-2010, 11:26 AM
He's NRA A rated but we'll see.
So was Gillibrand, who is now Schumer's left hand.

CaliforniaCarry
01-25-2010, 11:49 AM
Any word on a transcript or audio of the Palmer arguments? It feels like we're in the middle of a dry spell as far as fresh reading material goes...

7x57
01-25-2010, 12:09 PM
He's NRA A rated but we'll see.


When I looked into it a bit I decided there was a disconnect between his NRA rating and his stated policies, at least if the NRA ratings mean what they ought to. I presume that may be because the NRA rating is based on actual votes and nothing problematic had actually come up. That makes me concerned in the abstract that the NRA rating is not a trustworthy indicator of future performance depending on what issues were to come before congress.

But that is only in the abstract. The near future of gun control in congress really depends on what happens in 2010, and at this point it appears nothing will happen to change the unwillingness of the rank-and-file to stick one foot in pool of brine and the other on the electrified rail. The main offensive to get everyone on the dependency plantation seems to have run into some unexpected resistance. :thumbsup:

7x57

wildhawker
01-25-2010, 12:18 PM
That makes me concerned in the abstract that the NRA rating is not a trustworthy indicator of future performance depending on what issues were to come before congress.

Fixed it for ya.

The near future of gun control in congress really depends on what happens in 2010...

7x57

Which is why NRA's other actions are so confounding.

N6ATF
01-25-2010, 11:21 PM
Good, then the right (assuming CCW stands alone with LOC banned) will only apply to the middle class and above, the rest won't be able to afford to sue, and high-crime cities will continue to be high-crime cities. Exactly what the victim disarmers want. :mad:

Bolded for personal emphasis.

If you're actually poor they're going to have to have exceptions to the fees.

-Gene

And those exceptions will definitely be written and subsequently granted by recalcitrant victim disarmers without requiring lawsuits. :rolleyes:

And I see you ponying up to bring that suit, right?

-Gene

You have this uncanny knack of proving my points in a fashion that makes it look like you were responding to someone else.

Victim disarmers>no exceptions, no matter what
No exceptions, no matter what>lawsuits required
Lawsuits required>lawsuits unaffordable
Lawsuits unaffordable>lawsuits not brought
Lawsuits not brought>no rights

Precisely where they want, and have, the poor.

hoffmang
01-26-2010, 11:01 PM
You have this uncanny knack of proving my points in a fashion that makes it look like you were responding to someone else.

Victim disarmers>no exceptions, no matter what
No exceptions, no matter what>lawsuits required
Lawsuits required>lawsuits unaffordable
Lawsuits unaffordable>lawsuits not brought
Lawsuits not brought>no rights

Precisely where they want, and have, the poor.

Actually you prove my point. I think I've made it clear that CGF stands ready to bring suits to make sure that those who can't afford a permit should have exceptions to the fees.

All I see you do is complain. I was asking you, basically, when you'd stop complaining about not winning fast enough and instead be part of the effort to win.

-Gene

N6ATF
01-26-2010, 11:26 PM
Actually you prove my point. I think I've made it clear that CGF stands ready to bring suits to make sure that those who can't afford a permit should have exceptions to the fees.

So, CGF can afford to sue every last victim disarmer it has standing (within CA) to sue? And every other gun rights organization nationwide can afford to sue every last victim disarmer they have standing (within their representative area) to sue?

Great.

dantodd
01-27-2010, 12:04 AM
So, CGF can afford to sue every last victim disarmer it has standing (within CA) to sue? And every other gun rights organization nationwide can afford to sue every last victim disarmer they have standing (within their representative area) to sue?

Great.

It would not require suing "every last victim disarmer" in order to memorialize the need to have a hardship exception to the CCW fee. Being won in one case would be adequate as other issuing authorities would be bound. However; reality is likely to be very different. In all probability CCW issuance will become a centralized state duty rather than distributed to the counties. The fact that it is distributed is so it can be leveraged for political gain, no gain, no bottleneck and the sheriffs will be throwing it back at the state.

Kharn
01-27-2010, 1:59 AM
Any word on a transcript or audio of the Palmer arguments? It feels like we're in the middle of a dry spell as far as fresh reading material goes...McDonald's reply brief is due Friday, go read Citizens United if you're bored. :p

M. D. Van Norman
01-27-2010, 7:34 AM
The main offensive to get everyone on the dependency plantation seems to have run into some unexpected resistance.

Now, thatís a classic!

2009_gunner
02-04-2010, 8:49 PM
There was an update to the Palmer docket today.
http://ia311009.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.docket.html

http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.13.1.pdf
The 13th item was submitted by Alan Gura. It look like he wanted to use the favorable recent ruling by Judge Gonzalez in the Peruta San Diego case as an Exhibit.

http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.14.0.pdf
The 14th item is DC's response to the Peruta case, and also several pages on what it means to "Bear Arms." They claim bearing arms is strictly limited to the home, and that if it mean anything else, then the Heller decision would have said it meant more than just the home... wasn't Heller only about the right to purchase a gun, so I'm not sure if their argument holds any water?

They also mention that McDonald will be an opportunity for the SCOTUS to expound upon what it means to bear arms/carry. Carry is not really part of the McDonald case, from what I can tell. Maybe this will be an excuse for the SCOTUS to give us a freebie?

hoffmang
02-04-2010, 9:03 PM
DC is out of order. They don't get to make post oral argument further briefs.

-Gene

dantodd
02-04-2010, 9:09 PM
They also mention that McDonald will be an opportunity for the SCOTUS to expound upon what it means to bear arms/carry. Carry is not really part of the McDonald case, from what I can tell. Maybe this will be an excuse for the SCOTUS to give us a freebie?

McDonald is not the right case to address the definition of "bear." I suspect that D.C. sees the writing on the wall and would like to save a few dollars in legal fees by having SCOTUS tack on "bear" to McDonald.

I'm also confident SCOTUS is neither ignorant of or impressed by D.C.'s continued attempts to make handgun permits as difficult as possible to get in the District. I'm pretty sure there are a number of justices who are happy to see Palmer working its way up so they can give D.C. a little reminder, and Gura a little paycheck.

Maestro Pistolero
02-04-2010, 11:17 PM
They claim bearing arms is strictly limited to the home, and that if it mean anything else, then the Heller decision would have said it meant more than just the home...They are merely pretending to be confused. The home is the scope of the Heller case by design; the home not the scope of the right. The court will not bite on this. An enumerate, fundamental right does not end at one's doorstep.

Kharn
02-05-2010, 2:02 AM
Maybe DC used the DOJ's hiring strategy, thus the legal blunders? DOJ seeks mentally retarded lawyers (http://volokh.com/2010/02/03/seeking-qualified-mentally-retarded-lawyers/)

Mulay El Raisuli
02-05-2010, 4:51 AM
Maybe DC used the DOJ's hiring strategy, thus the legal blunders? DOJ seeks mentally retarded lawyers (http://volokh.com/2010/02/03/seeking-qualified-mentally-retarded-lawyers/)


It would explain much!


The Raisuli

N6ATF
02-07-2010, 9:51 AM
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.15.0.pdf

15th item: Gura female-dog-slaps D.C. and their Unauthorized Supplemental Brief.

7x57
02-07-2010, 11:11 AM
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.15.0.pdf

15th item: Gura female-dog-slaps D.C. and their Unauthorized Supplemental Brief.

Wow. That's gonna leave an ugly mark. :43:

7x57

Electricboy
02-07-2010, 11:31 PM
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.15.0.pdf

15th item: Gura female-dog-slaps D.C. and their Unauthorized Supplemental Brief.

I can never open these. Works never opens it. What do i need to do?:(

Hopi
02-07-2010, 11:37 PM
I can never open these. Works never opens it. What do i need to do?:(

http://get.adobe.com/reader/

ke6guj
02-07-2010, 11:40 PM
I can never open these. Works never opens it. What do i need to do?:(its a PDF file, you need a PDF viewer to open it, http://get.adobe.com/reader/

Electricboy
02-08-2010, 12:11 AM
This sucks.... didnt work

firefox let me do it. internet explorer wouldnt.... thanks

kcbrown
02-08-2010, 1:33 AM
Wow. That's gonna leave an ugly mark. :43:


And they do the slapping right out of the gate, too, starting with the introductory paragraph (emphasis mine):


COME NOW the Plaintiffs, Tom G. Palmer, George Lyon, Edward Raymond, Amy McVey, and the Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., by and through undersigned counsel, and submit their Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Response to Defendantsí Unauthorized Supplemental Brief of January 29, 2010.


:43:

press1280
02-08-2010, 2:40 AM
Gura caught DC red handed here. Called them on the "Heller said bear arms means only in the home" nonsense, also the Kentucky case that DC cited omitted a statement that said(when referring to carry outside the home being restricted in ancient England) "that was never the law in this country..."

Just downright amateur on DC's part. Is there any way in hell a judge would rule for them after this display????????????????

yellowfin
02-08-2010, 10:52 AM
How soon might we see a ruling on this? I know it's going to be appealed either way, but I suppose the ruling will have some bearing on how further argument will proceed in the matter and it'll be useful to have some rough idea of a time frame to help people get a clearer picture of when it'll be wrapped up and (if all goes well) ready for use by us.

7x57
02-08-2010, 10:55 AM
It's nice when in addition to showing the argument has no merit, you can say, in effect, "as the attorney in X and Y, I should know the case." :D

7x57

yellowfin
02-08-2010, 8:17 PM
DC is out of order. They don't get to make post oral argument further briefs.

-Gene

So what's the scoop now, Gene? What's the crystal ball saying?

ke6guj
02-08-2010, 8:20 PM
So what's the scoop now, Gene? What's the crystal ball saying?

Gura smacked them with this on Friday.

http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.15.0.pdf

15th item: Gura female-dog-slaps D.C. and their Unauthorized Supplemental Brief.

hoffmang
02-08-2010, 9:01 PM
DC District Court usually runs about 45-90 days on the decision. I'd expect to hear something around tax time, but that's pure speculation.

-Gene

dantodd
02-08-2010, 9:08 PM
DC District Court usually runs about 45-90 days on the decision. I'd expect to hear something around tax time, but that's pure speculation.

-Gene

They won't comment on whether they will include D.C.'s reply to the submission of the Peruta case in their decision process?

hoffmang
02-08-2010, 9:26 PM
They won't comment on whether they will include D.C.'s reply to the submission of the Peruta case in their decision process?

Gura's submission of related authority is legit and within the rules. DC's filing and Gura's subsequent are outside the rules. The court may enter a minute order denying both, or may ignore them both and just rule on the underlying MSJ.. No real guide posts here.

-Gene

CalNRA
02-09-2010, 1:40 AM
Now PA is $20 for five years and they do not even do finger prints, the sheriff runs your name through NCIC and you get your permit in the mail a few days later from what I've heard.

PA is doing it right. If you can legally buy a gun from a dealer then it should be legal to carry the same gun.

Short of Alaska and Vermont Carry, the PA system sounds ideal.

Mulay El Raisuli
02-09-2010, 5:01 AM
Originally Posted by Kharn
Now PA is $20 for five years and they do not even do finger prints, the sheriff runs your name through NCIC and you get your permit in the mail a few days later from what I've heard.



PA is doing it right. If you can legally buy a gun from a dealer then it should be legal to carry the same gun.

Short of Alaska and Vermont Carry, the PA system sounds ideal.


Even though I be a complete freak for unrestricted LOC, if a CCW scheme like this is in the works, I could be talked into changing my mind.


The Raisuli

yellowfin
02-09-2010, 10:11 AM
PA is also unlicensed OC as well. $26 to conceal and $0 to OC except in Philly where you need the $26 license (and not too many if any OC in Philly). And there is no such thing as UOC outside of CA. I OC in PA about half the time.

hirundo82
02-16-2010, 7:06 PM
The reason I said $200 is that's what the NFA tax is. Either that's reasonable under the law or it isn't and it's the one federally set gun fee we know of. If that is deemed excessive, then it'll get struck too. If it's said to be reasonable, then it might be considered the standard.The problem with citing the NFA tax as presumptively reasonable is that it was set at that level to make it out of reach for the common person. Remember, the National Firearms Act was enacted in 1934; $200 in 1934 dollars corrected for inflation (http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl) is $3,202.04 today.

KylaGWolf
02-16-2010, 11:03 PM
Yet another beautiful piece of legal writing.

yellowfin
02-17-2010, 5:21 AM
Can we expect the same sort of time frame, more or less a year, for the DC circuit? Also, if we have McDonald do you think NJ/NY/MD might intervene on Fenty, specifically instructing him DO NOT appeal?

Mulay El Raisuli
02-17-2010, 6:47 AM
Can we expect the same sort of time frame, more or less a year, for the DC circuit? Also, if we have McDonald do you think NJ/NY/MD might intervene on Fenty, specifically instructing him DO NOT appeal?


They told him that after Parker/Heller. Didn't work then. I doubt it'll work now.


The Raisuli

Southwest Chuck
02-17-2010, 8:15 AM
Whats the current status of this case? The wiki seems to be out of date. I know D.C. filed an unauthorized brief and Gura responded to it but ..... did this take place? (from the wiki) :Next hearing will be January 22, 2010 for oral arguments on the motion for summary judgment and the motion to dismiss.
If so, the out come? or was it postponed / delayed? :confused:

Thanks all


.

Kharn
02-17-2010, 8:22 AM
Typically 45-90 days between oral arguements and the court's ruling.

Southwest Chuck
02-17-2010, 8:27 AM
Typically 45-90 days between oral arguements and the court's ruling.

So the oral arguments did take place then. Does there happen to be a recording or transcript available to read? Would be interesting. ;)


.

hoffmang
02-17-2010, 3:31 PM
As stated above in the thread, there is no transcript or audio from the District court. Ruling could come as soon as 30 days and as long as 90 days from now (usually.)

-Gene

Smity
05-01-2010, 1:44 PM
Welp, it's 90 days.

angi1vwUkQc

yellowfin
05-02-2010, 4:03 AM
No kidding, this waiting in the dark is beyond irritating. I HATE clouded silence.

N6ATF
05-02-2010, 8:47 AM
Should be posted here: http://ia311009.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.docket.html

As soon as someone RECAPs it.

Window_Seat
05-02-2010, 9:27 AM
If an opinion is to be released, it would be tomorrow (Monday 05/03), no?

Erik.

hoffmang
05-02-2010, 11:22 AM
90 days was an estimate - not a rule. It could be tomorrow, it could take another 90 days...

-Gene

bulgron
05-02-2010, 11:32 AM
90 days was an estimate - not a rule. It could be tomorrow, it could take another 90 days...

-Gene

I suspect that they're waiting on McDonald, just like everything else.

2009_gunner
05-02-2010, 12:25 PM
I suspect that they're waiting on McDonald, just like everything else.

I'm curious. Why would they wait on McDonald?

Palmer was filed in the US District court for DC (a federal enclave), so it's decision will only affect that circuit. How could they justify waiting for incorporation? The 2nd Amendment already applies to DC, and McDonald won't alter that.

bulgron
05-02-2010, 12:36 PM
I'm curious. Why would they wait on McDonald?

Palmer was filed in the US District court for DC (a federal enclave), so it's decision will only affect that circuit. How could they justify waiting for incorporation? The 2nd Amendment already applies to DC, and McDonald won't alter that.

I have no answers for you.

All I can say is that where gun cases are concerned, it seems like the entire legal profession is holding its collective breath, waiting to see what happens with McDonald.

Maybe the judge in Palmer is waiting to see if McDonald gives some guidance on scrutiny. Who knows.

One thing's for certain, the federal judiciary seems determined to take the absolute longest time possible to decide any gun case that goes to defining the actual scope and meaning of the 2A.

N6ATF
05-02-2010, 12:50 PM
One thing's for certain, the federal judiciary seems determined to take the absolute longest time possible to decide any gun case that goes to defining the actual scope and meaning of the 2A.

As they play "Let The Bodies Hit The Floor" in the background...

Gray Peterson
05-02-2010, 12:50 PM
I'm curious. Why would they wait on McDonald?

Palmer was filed in the US District court for DC (a federal enclave), so it's decision will only affect that circuit. How could they justify waiting for incorporation? The 2nd Amendment already applies to DC, and McDonald won't alter that.

McDonald may not have a direct influence on federal enclaves, but there could be scrutiny questions or clarifications of Heller perhaps in regards to what Justice Scalia was taking about when he was discussing Justice Ginsburg's dissenting opinion in the Muscellero case. Some anti-gun federal judges and the anti-gunners are trying to claim that the right to keep arms is not a fundamental right. If they use substantive due process provisions of the 14th amendment, the right would have to be fundamental.

hoffmang
05-02-2010, 5:57 PM
McDonald is going to reiterate that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right. That little extra may very well be what the court in Palmer is waiting on - that or hoping that there is some narrowing language that gets that District court out of the "bear" problem.

-Gene

Smity
05-02-2010, 6:34 PM
McDonald is going to reiterate that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right. That little extra may very well be what the court in Palmer is waiting on - that or hoping that there is some narrowing language that gets that District court out of the "bear" problem.

-Gene

They may be waiting for SCOTUS to determine which level of scrutiny is to be used. Urbina recently used intermediate in Heller II in order to uphold Registration, AWB and Magazine Capacity restrictions. Strict scrutiny will make it much more difficult for activist Judges to behave that way. Keep your fingers crossed.

kcbrown
05-02-2010, 6:42 PM
90 days was an estimate - not a rule. It could be tomorrow, it could take another 90 days...


Is the amount of time in question entirely arbitrary?

If so, what prevents an anti-2A court from simply not issuing a ruling on a given landmark case (e.g., Sykes) for, say, decades (which is to say, as long as the anti-2A judges still preside over the court in question)?

hoffmang
05-02-2010, 7:26 PM
Is the amount of time in question entirely arbitrary?

If so, what prevents an anti-2A court from simply not issuing a ruling on a given landmark case (e.g., Sykes) for, say, decades (which is to say, as long as the anti-2A judges still preside over the court in question)?

The rest of the bench starts asking questions if things take more than a year give or take. Longest outstanding rulings are tracked internally from what I hear.

-Gene

Gray Peterson
05-02-2010, 8:40 PM
The rest of the bench starts asking questions if things take more than a year give or take. Longest outstanding rulings are tracked internally from what I hear.

-Gene

Right. The Chief Judge starts asking the judge who's "holding up" the ruling to come into their chambers and explain themselves. GeorgiaCarry.org v. Toomer had a similar problem in the USDC for the Northern District of Georgia. That case was the case filed to force the counties in Georgia to issue Georgia Firearms Licenses to non-residents of the state of Georgia.

kcbrown
05-02-2010, 8:53 PM
Right. The Chief Judge starts asking the judge who's "holding up" the ruling to come into their chambers and explain themselves. GeorgiaCarry.org v. Toomer had a similar problem in the USDC for the Northern District of Georgia. That case was the case filed to force the counties in Georgia to issue Georgia Firearms Licenses to non-residents of the state of Georgia.

But the Chief Judge has the option of not doing so, right?

So if the Chief Judge of, say, the 9th Circuit, is anti-2A, then he can decide to simply not bother asking the others why they haven't ruled on a given 2A case when the anti-2A law being challenged remains in effect until the ruling is issued, right?

Gray Peterson
05-02-2010, 9:39 PM
But the Chief Judge has the option of not doing so, right?

So if the Chief Judge of, say, the 9th Circuit, is anti-2A, then he can decide to simply not bother asking the others why they haven't ruled on a given 2A case when the anti-2A law being challenged remains in effect until the ruling is issued, right?

Luckily for both of us, the Chief Judge of the 9th Circuit is quite pro-2A. At the court of appeals, a judge cannot act alone to "stall" a case, they would need the consent of at least one other on the panel. If it gets stalled out for too long without explanation, the attorneys for each side can ask the clerk if there's something wrong.

Maestro Pistolero
05-02-2010, 11:01 PM
Originally Posted by hoffmang
McDonald is going to reiterate that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right.
I hope you are right. But a couple of questions:

1. You use the word reiterate, but didn't Heller stop just short of calling it a fundamental right, at least in those terms?

2. If it IS found to be a fundamental right, wouldn't precedent for fundamental rights indicate strict scrutiny should be used?

bulgron
05-03-2010, 12:04 AM
I hope you are right. But a couple of questions:

1. You use the word reiterate, but didn't Heller stop just short of calling it a fundamental right, at least in those terms?

2. If it IS found to be a fundamental right, wouldn't precedent for fundamental rights indicate strict scrutiny should be used?

Yeah, but I'll bet they're going to dance around the whole strict scrutiny thing because they don't want ex-cons to have weapons.

Frankly, I'll be shocked if there's any words in McDonald about standards of scrutiny. The courts aren't going to go there until we hold their feet to the fire and MAKE them go there.

Kharn
05-03-2010, 1:55 AM
Yeah, but I'll bet they're going to dance around the whole strict scrutiny thing because they don't want ex-cons to have weapons.

Frankly, I'll be shocked if there's any words in McDonald about standards of scrutiny. The courts aren't going to go there until we hold their feet to the fire and MAKE them go there.In Heller they said: 1. Ex-con prohibitions were acceptable and 2. the standard is not 'reasonable regulation.' McDonald could say it is strict scrutiny but ex-con prohibitions pass their application of that standard.

elenius
05-03-2010, 7:26 AM
Should be posted here: http://ia311009.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.docket.html

As soon as someone RECAPs it.

Nothing there yet..

HowardW56
05-03-2010, 7:40 AM
There were additionaly filed documents in March....

http://i624.photobucket.com/albums/tt321/HowardW56/351355357508909-_Page_1.jpg
http://i624.photobucket.com/albums/tt321/HowardW56/351355357508909-_Page_2.jpg
http://i624.photobucket.com/albums/tt321/HowardW56/351355357508909-_Page_3.jpg
http://i624.photobucket.com/albums/tt321/HowardW56/351355357508909-_Page_4.jpg

Window_Seat
05-03-2010, 7:57 AM
If anything is going to be released, it will likely happen in the evening hours. The last 5-6 opinions have a document average created time of between 15:00 & 20:00.

Erik.

Window_Seat
05-03-2010, 9:01 AM
Will Palmer (if ruled in our favor) bind Indian Reservations to begin recognizing RKBA? Should Heller have already done that? IRs are within the FE, are they not?

Erik.

HowardW56
05-03-2010, 9:28 AM
Will Palmer (if ruled in our favor) bind Indian Reservations to begin recognizing RKBA? Should Heller have already done that? IRs are within the FE, are they not?

Erik.

Indian Reservations are a tough question, are the federal or sovgern? There is an odd dual status on Indian Reservations, murder would be prosicuted in the federal courts... Tribal courts have jurisdiction over minor issues...

What applies to Indian Reservations is hard to guess....

loather
05-03-2010, 9:48 AM
Indian Reservations are a tough question, are the federal or sovgern? There is an odd dual status on Indian Reservations, murder would be prosicuted in the federal courts... Tribal courts have jurisdiction over minor issues...

What applies to Indian Reservations is hard to guess....

Indian reservations are supposed to be sovereign nations of their own, pass their own rules and laws, and such. They're, for all intents and purposes, their own little nations in and of themselves. I wouldn't expect it to extend to Indian lands.

The fact they use federal resources is notwithstanding.

press1280
05-03-2010, 11:15 AM
Looks like DC's trying to draw a similiarity between Palmer(bear arms) and Heller 2(registration requirements, AWB, hi-cap mags), according to what was filed in late March. Hopefully the judge doesn't fall for it.

HowardW56
05-03-2010, 12:02 PM
Looks like DC's trying to draw a similiarity between Palmer(bear arms) and Heller 2(registration requirements, AWB, hi-cap mags), according to what was filed in late March. Hopefully the judge doesn't fall for it.

Isn't it nice how they file documents, after arguement & without permission from the court to do so...

press1280
05-03-2010, 12:19 PM
Gene may be able to answer that. I suspect this filing may be legal since Gura filed one referencing the Peruta case after oral arguments. Their conclusion on the filing,though, is way off IMO.

nicki
05-03-2010, 4:39 PM
I believe the original "Heller ruling" was written specifically to encourage follow up lawsuits on specific issues.

Justice Scalia is a razor sharp intellectual, I have a gut feeling the ruling was designed to bait the lower courts and flush out anti 2A rulings.

The behavior of DC was to be expected and I expect that if the cases get appealed to the SCOTUS, that the SCOTUS will perform a SMACKDOWN.

I think the SCOTUS did not directly deal with the "Scrunity Issue" because they want to get other cases first.

I don't believe the court will recognize a pure 2A right and that is because of Justice Kennedy. He is the swing vote.

We will have to chip away at stupid gun laws, piece by piece for the next 5 to 10 years.

Ultimately we probably will wind up with law regulating use of guns, criminal penalties for misuse of guns, shall issue on CCWs, open carry as a right, limitatons on so called "sensitive zones".

I don't see the NFA 1934 and the GCA 1968 being repealed, but I do see them being modified.

I could see machinegun registry being opened up again only because few want a head on case. Right now there are probably more illegal full autos in this country than legal ones.

I would bet that if a machinegun amnesty was offered for those who would register what they have or would like to have right now, the number of applicants would probably be in excess of 1 million guns.

Nicki

1911su16b870
05-03-2010, 5:24 PM
...I would bet that if a machinegun amnesty was offered for those who would register what they have or would like to have right now, the number of applicants would probably be in excess of 1 million guns...Nicki

And every one with an AR/AK etc. could register and then procure the FA stuff and have a legal FA firearm!

N6ATF
05-03-2010, 9:15 PM
I would bet that if a machinegun amnesty was offered for those who would register what they have or would like to have right now, the number of applicants would probably be in excess of 1 million guns.

The only amnesties I trust the government to give out reward lawbreakers.

Register the MGs and now the government knows who to come for in the early morning hours: those who can resist tyranny.

elenius
05-04-2010, 6:36 AM
I guess it's another 90 days now then? Wake me up when something happens ;)

Psy Crow
05-04-2010, 8:11 AM
I would bet that if a machinegun amnesty was offered for those who would register what they have or would like to have right now, the number of applicants would probably be in excess of 1 million guns.

Nicki,
I'm curious: How did you arrive at that estimate?

Maestro Pistolero
05-04-2010, 10:55 AM
if a machinegun amnesty was offered for those who would register what they have or would like to have right now, It sounded like a guess to me too, but it's hardly unimaginable, that with hundreds of millions of guns, that given the opportunity, more than a million would step up to have legal select-fire.

dantodd
05-04-2010, 4:07 PM
How many ARs are there out there? I know that Bill keeps saying there are 300K or more in CA alone since the advent of the BB. Now, imagine how many there are in free states. Now imagine that you could pay for an NFA stamp and buy a $15 drop-in to get select fire. The 1,000,000 number seems possible even requiring a stamp and with ARs alone. Now, look at all the Mac and Uzi clones out there. 1,000,000 total might be an underestimation.

nicki
05-04-2010, 6:13 PM
Back in 1986 when the hughes amendment passed, before the law went into effect, close to 100,000 more class 3 weapons were registered.

We are now approaching 25 years and the price of full autos are 10X the cost of semi auto versions of the same gun.

Because of inflation, the 200 dollar tax stamp isn't as big a deal as it was in 1934.

I personally would register at least 2 AR 10 and 2 AR 15 lowers and keep them for future uses. I could see a lot of people doing the same thing.

I would probably also buy at least upper recievers or flats for FALs, AKs and G3s
4k would be enough to secure 10 registered mgs which could be built later.

How many people is the US would do the same.

Many people who own various military semi autos would jump at the chance to modify there guns.

Now let's look at people who have war trophies or made mods they can't undo.
The average number of guns registered would probably average 2 or more guns.

We have 80 million gun owners in the US. If 1 percent opted for the amnesty program, the number of newly registered FAs would be well in excess of 1 million.

383green
05-04-2010, 7:51 PM
Please forgive me if this was already mentioned and I missed it, but I think a federal amnesty could be problematic for people in CA and other CA-like states. Registering an NFA weapon under the amnesty could essentially be admission of a state felony, since the state places its own permitting system on top of the federal one.

If a federal amnesty passed, I'd predict a mad dash by Californians to move every lower, flat, tube and chunk of steel they can get their hands on into one of the neighboring states and establish a second residence there for federal registration purposes. Old car bodies would be diced up into Lightning Links, metal vendors' shelves would be picked bare of every plate, bar or other chunk of steel and aluminum that could possible have a gun receiver carved out of it, Jeeps would have their roll cages stolen to be chopped up into Sten tubes... good times, good times.

:party:

yellowfin
05-04-2010, 8:07 PM
Another thing to consider is the relative percentage of market share of EBR's today compared to 1986. If there had been as many then as now, there would probably be that many more MG's in the registry.

CCWFacts
05-04-2010, 8:42 PM
Another thing to consider is the relative percentage of market share of EBR's today compared to 1986. If there had been as many then as now, there would probably be that many more MG's in the registry.

That's a good observation. Back then, AR-15s were unusual. Today, they are the most commonly sold rifle in the US. I would expect a million people would convert their AR-15s if it were possible to register them now. I know I would.

loather
05-05-2010, 9:04 AM
Wow, this topic sure got derailed. With all the action in this thread, I thought maybe some news had come out about Palmer vs. DC.

yellowfin
05-05-2010, 5:58 PM
Well, if the judges would be so kind/considerate/honest/do their f***ing jobs/prompt we'd have more to write about.

Window_Seat
05-05-2010, 6:04 PM
Are they waiting for the end of June (even though Incorporation is not an issue in D.C.)? Gene? Et all?

Erik.

loather
05-05-2010, 6:20 PM
Are they waiting for the end of June (even though Incorporation is not an issue in D.C.)? Gene? Et all?.

They may be waiting for the outcome of McDonald in order to perhaps gain guidance on scrutiny. Who knows. They're stalling for whatever reason.

Gray Peterson
05-05-2010, 6:26 PM
Are they waiting for the end of June (even though Incorporation is not an issue in D.C.)? Gene? Et all?

Erik.

Federal judges tend to be off in their own little world and do not talk to anyone about their reasons that they are "taking so long", except other federal judges.

I can take a wild stab in the dark here, but I'm willing to bet that he's waiting on McDonald for scrutiny guidance. Judge Ricardo Urbina made a bad ruling on the Heller II because he used intermediate scrutiny in order to be excessively deferential to the City. Perhaps this particular judge is trying to, oh I dunno, see what SCOTUS says about scrutiny?

hoffmang
05-05-2010, 6:54 PM
There were additionaly filed documents in March....


The RECAP docket (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.docket.html) looks current to me.

-Gene

Purple K
07-17-2010, 9:54 PM
Any news on this case?

hoffmang
07-17-2010, 10:00 PM
Any news on this case?

It's under submission to the court. The district court could rule Monday morning or it could rule sometime in the next 9 months...

-Gene

dantodd
07-17-2010, 10:12 PM
I thought Urbine granted defendant's MSJ request.

Window_Seat
07-17-2010, 10:14 PM
It's under submission to the court. The district court could rule Monday morning or it could rule sometime in the next 9 months...



-Gene

Or they could rule in... OH nevermind...:D

Gray Peterson
07-18-2010, 2:11 AM
I thought Urbine granted defendant's MSJ request.

I had to correct the Palmer wiki article for that one. That was Heller II, not Palmer.

dantodd
07-18-2010, 5:50 AM
I had to correct the Palmer wiki article for that one. That was Heller II, not Palmer.

Thanks, I am not accustomed to reading docket recap stuff. Having now read the rest of the documents it looks like the decision was submitted by D.C. as relevant.