PDA

View Full Version : Palmer/DC Carry: DC files a reply


hoffmang
10-06-2009, 12:38 PM
The District of Columbia filed a reply (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/palmer/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.12.0.pdf) to Palmer's reply (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.9.0.pdf).

DC apologizes for being wildly wrong on the prevailing law. Then they go on to claim that the right in Heller isn't fundamental. Finally they support their argument that banning all carry is OK since Illinois does it. I wonder if there is anything important about the Second Amendment in Illinois currently happening?

-Gene

Sgt Raven
10-06-2009, 12:54 PM
The District of Columbia filed a reply (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/palmer/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.12.0.pdf) to Palmer's reply (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.9.0.pdf).

DC apologizes for being wildly wrong on the prevailing law. Then they go on to claim that the right in Heller isn't fundamental. Finally they support their argument that banning all carry is OK since Illinois does it. I wonder if there is anything important about the Second Amendment in Illinois currently happening?

-Gene

:rolleyes:

:kest:

:smilielol5:

:owned:

bwiese
10-06-2009, 12:55 PM
Bwaaah!

DC keeps buying nice red sportscars and tropical vacations for Alan Gura, on the lay-a-way plan.

What part of "I'm with stupid" don't DC's lawyers get?

Fate
10-06-2009, 12:59 PM
Hahahaha...that's it. I'm now convinced that the "opposition" in D.C. is being run by a pro-RKBA mole! :D

KCM222
10-06-2009, 1:00 PM
Hahahaha...that's it. I'm now convinced that the "opposition" in D.C. is being run by a pro-RKBA mole! :D

Loose lips sink ships!

curtisfong
10-06-2009, 1:09 PM
Loose lips sink ships!

The saying I'm thinking of is more along the lines of "deck chairs" and "Titanic".

Legasat
10-06-2009, 1:12 PM
LOL! They will never stop trying!!!

Glock22Fan
10-06-2009, 1:34 PM
I don't understand their math on the number of Americans who can carry concealed.

It looks to me as if they have taken all the people who live in half the states (that, according to them, don't freely issue), added all the people who live in non-open carry states, then all the people who live in Illinois and likewise states, and then . . .

Aren't they counting some of these Americans twice and three times over?

Whether or not this is the case, it is very badly explained.

yellowfin
10-06-2009, 1:36 PM
I can't wait to see Bloomberg's face when the court slaps them down. "No you idiots, no! Not the red button! Don't push the red button! Noooo!"

HowardW56
10-06-2009, 1:40 PM
Bwaaah!

DC keeps buying nice red sportscars and tropical vacations for Alan Gura, on the lay-a-way plan.

What part of "I'm with stupid" don't DC's lawyers get?

It's obvious that DC's lawyers feel "For Every Fee, There is a Remedy"....

MAYBE.....

:eek:

CalNRA
10-06-2009, 1:59 PM
from the file:

For all their sloganeering, plaintiffs barely discuss Heller

Damn fine legal writing.

Kharn
10-06-2009, 2:37 PM
I think we're going to see DC's lawyers on A&E's Intervention sometime in the near future. I'm not sure if it will be for huffing glue or for practicing law with a mental disability but I'd put money on it.

bwiese
10-06-2009, 2:39 PM
I think we're going to see DC's lawyers on A&E's Intervention sometime in the near future. I'm not sure if it will be for huffing glue or for practicing law with a mental disability but I'd put money on it.


One of the reasons for the low quality of law DC practices in these matters may be that, to some extent, "they really don't care" -- and they just go thru the motions to keep the local polity happy (as in. "we're doing something about guns, we're fighting those NRA goons so you can be safe on the streets of DC").

HowardW56
10-06-2009, 2:46 PM
One of the reasons for the low quality of law DC practices in these matters may be that, to some extent, "they really don't care" -- and they just go thru the motions to keep the local polity happy (as in. "we're doing something about guns, we're fighting those NRA goons so you can be safe on the streets of DC").

All while collecting their fee....

command_liner
10-06-2009, 2:50 PM
Bwaaah!

DC keeps buying nice red sportscars and tropical vacations for Alan Gura, on the lay-a-way plan.

What part of "I'm with stupid" don't DC's lawyers get?

Bill,

I know you were there with me post Nordyke, but you might not
have heard of Gura's plan when he discussed it. IIRC Wash was listening.

The Plan is WAY BETTER than cars and vacations. But it cannot be
discussed here. If Gura manages to pull it off, it will be worth the wait.
If he can extend The Plan to Bloomberg, well then I will run out of
superlatives for compliments and thanks.

dantodd
10-06-2009, 3:04 PM
first we had a gun ban that wasn't a ban because you could have a gun that was rendered useless in your home if you could get a license that isn't issued.

then we had a suggestion that you could hold gun shows without guns.

And now..... The latest from the anti-gun litigators..... A right to bear, but only in your home.....

To the extent Heller even implicated “bearing,” it was only to note that a complete prohibition on bearing would be unconstitutional. But there is no such complete ban here, as the District allows the bearing of weapons in the home

Kharn
10-06-2009, 3:24 PM
DC:
Plaintiffs make no attempt to distinguish the Circuit’s finding in Parker v. District of
Columbia, 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007), citing that decision only once. “The protections of the
Second Amendment are subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been
recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment.” Id. at 399 (emphasis added) (citing
Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989)). “Reasonableness” has been the
standard in federal and local decisions for decades.4 Nothing in Heller changed this analysis.
Indeed, the Heller Court made clear it was not deciding the standard of review.
Heller:
27JUSTICE BREYER correctly notes that this law, like almost all laws, would pass rational-basis scrutiny. Post, at 8. But rational-basis scrutiny is a mode of analysis we have used when evaluating lawsunder constitutional commands that are themselves prohibitions onirrational laws. See, e.g., Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agriculture, 553
U. S. ___, ___ (2008) (slip op., at 9–10). In those cases, “rational basis” is not just the standard of scrutiny, but the very substance of theconstitutional guarantee. Obviously, the same test could not be used toevaluate the extent to which a legislature may regulate a specific,enumerated right, be it the freedom of speech, the guarantee against double jeopardy, the right to counsel, or the right to keep and bear arms. See United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U. S. 144, 152,
n. 4 (1938) (“There may be narrower scope for operation of the presumption of constitutionality [i.e., narrower than that provided byrational-basis review] when legislation appears on its face to be withina specific prohibition of the Constitution, such as those of the first ten amendments. . .”). If all that was required to overcome the right tokeep and bear arms was a rational basis, the Second Amendment wouldbe redundant with the separate constitutional prohibitions on irrational laws, and would have no effect.
You would think their law firm would pay people enough to read the footnotes and realize that Heller supersedes Parker...

Fjold
10-06-2009, 3:38 PM
It's always good to start your legal argument with 'I'm sorry, we're stupid'.

woodsman
10-06-2009, 4:05 PM
Bwaaah!


What part of "I'm with stupid" don't DC's lawyers get?

Adds credence to the argument that liberalism is a disease.

7x57
10-06-2009, 11:22 PM
DC apologizes for being wildly wrong on the prevailing law.


That doesn't seem to have prevented them from continuing to equate bans on one mode of carry with bans of all. :willy_nilly:


Then they go on to claim that the right in Heller isn't fundamental.


That part sort of passes understanding, except as a "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" shotgun strategy.

I wouldn't think defense-in-depth of the "I didn't do it, the witnesses are lying about how I did it, I promise never to do it again, and anyway the pope absolved me of that sin last Tuesday" style would impress a judge all that much.


Finally they support their argument that banning all carry is OK since Illinois does it. I wonder if there is anything important about the Second Amendment in Illinois currently happening?


One might also wonder if doing the same thing Illinois was doing ever failed them before. :D

I'm reading their brief now, finally, and I must say I'm enchanted by many novel rhetorical manoeuvres:

* "Bearing" apparently means "bearing in the home," nothing more. Nice way to collapse the meaning so as to add nothing to the right to "keep" arms. Nice if you could persuade anyone that it's not barking mad, anyway.

* Mathematical precision is now to be wrung out of English prose. If one is forced to accept the proposition that "a complete ban is Unconstitutional," one simply chooses something infinitesimally short, but arbitrarily close, to that forbidden mathematical point. Bearing your weapon from bedroom to your bathroom isn't an absolute ban, you see, and therefore has no legal disability. One assumes that this too could be banned, so long as bearing arms was still permitted while suspended upside-down from a flagpole between two and three AM on February 29th. 'Cuz mathematically speaking that isn't a *total* ban, and our legal friend here loves precision.

* A right that gets an entire amendment to itself in the Bill of Rights (beating such perennial favorites as Free Speech, which has to share) is a fungible quantity that can be traded off at the DC city council's whim. What sorts of restrictions must they believe legal for, say, speech, as long as they "sort of thought it might be a good idea"?

* "Here, there can be no question that the Council plainly acted to limit gun violence while respecting the core right recognized in Heller." There can't be? Cuz I am pretty sure I'm questioning their respect right now...I guess I must be wrong. Dee Cee says so.

* Oooh, more math. Gotta love math. Here is an interesting theorem in the theory of the real numbers. It turns out that, because any standard of review will permit a finite range of policy, and ranges have extremes, it follows that no matter what DC's policy is it is permissible as the extreme end of the range. Follow that, kiddies? Let's state it more mathematically (cuz everybody loves math, especially DeeCeeLawyerGuy here):

Let I be some interval of policy permitted by the Second Amendment, for example zero to one. It must have some maximum x (for example 1.0). (Actually it needn't, but this is not the place to discuss suprema, nor does it help save the "new DC math" one bit.) Now suppose DC's actually policy p is found to be greater than any known element of I--for example, suppose DC's policy is 42.0. Therefore, according to the "DC Gun Rights theorem," 42.0 must be the upper bound of the interval! Yep--[0,1] contains 42.0.

Just for fun, kids, if we start with 1 = 42 what can we prove? Yes, that's right--anything at all! Isn't that cool? Only rigid, unimaginative, hidebound slaves of the Man would object to something that fun. *All propositions are true*! Free beer and sausages for everyone! Economics and gravity are hereby repealed as "not fun," and therefore nugatory!

* Technically, the above is a slight exaggeration of DeeCee's position. They nuance the above with the sincere belief that all infringements are Constitutional, so long as two governments do them at the same time! (It would probably be best at this point not to ask them what they believe about the saucer people.) That solves many thorny issues in legislation. Suppose the local paper catches you, the dignified governor of an *important* state, frolicking with your underage girlfriend, and publishes the pictures. They must be shut down, of course, but there is that pesky first amendment. What to do--that's it! DC has shown the way! Call up a buddy who has a similar problem--maybe a senator in a neighbouring state being unjustly harassed about some innocent investment deals--and coordinate your shutdown of those miserable papers. It adds some fun cloak-and-dagger atmosphere to some routine press-smashing, and best of all It's all legal! DeeCee says so.

* Dee Cee is special. Very, very special. How special? They don't answer to anyone or have any rules! That's very special.

* "In any event, the right defined by plaintiffs cannot be broader than that already found by the Supreme Court, 'the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.'” Um, what?

You heard it here, folks--Heller isn't the beginning, it's the end. If it ain't in Heller, it just ain't so.

* "Moreover, they purposefully and erroneously [[purposefully--as opposed to accidentally invoking an argument while randomly banging at the keyboard, perhaps?]] suggest that be invoking the “sensitive places” doctrine, the District is attempting to argue its way around being bound by the Second Amendment. [[How can they say such things? Make them stop, mommy!]] This is not the case; the District does not argue [[yet]] that the Second Amendment is not applicable to it and recognizes, according to currently binding law, it must allow handguns in homes."

Isn't the "according to currently binding law" bit sort of letting the cat out of the bag? Does that indicate concrete plans, or just a vague hope of somehow escaping the express train roaring down on your evil? Are you sure you want to tell the judge you think Heller is going down someday?

* All of DC is a "sensitive place." Cuz DeeCee is *just that special."

* Enumerated Rights are as ephemeral as trademarks. If an infringement is "long standing," the right vanishes!

Good show, DeeCee! :sarcasm:

7x57

Kharn
10-07-2009, 1:57 AM
I couldnt stop laughing when I hit the "all of DC is a sensitive place" part. Are there any cities (other than NYC) that ban carry by licensed CCWs from the rest of the state?

yellowfin
10-07-2009, 4:28 AM
Another possibility may be that they know they're going to lose so they don't want to play all their trump card arguments and have them defeated on paper and thus taken out of the deck for them.

trashman
10-07-2009, 5:17 AM
Well, having lived there and having experienced firsthand the precision with which the local government operates, it really is no surprise to me that their legal team is just going through the motions while collecting fee for their effort.

The only thing that would be surprising would be to wake up one day and discover that someone on DC's legal team was embezzling money from the city. (and actually, that wouldn't be that surprising (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/07/AR2007110702514.html)).

--Neill

ilbob
10-07-2009, 6:13 AM
How would you like to be the council for DC on this matter, knowing you are almost certainly going to lose, and lose big time?

As council you have to put up some kind of defense, but its a lot like putting up a defense for a guy accused of a crime that not only confessed but there are 100 witnesses and a videotape of his crime. You take your best shot, but you know it is unlikely to be effective.

socal2310
10-07-2009, 6:33 AM
Thank you D.C. for forcing SCOTUS to clarify "sensitive places" the Nordykes will be forever in your debt!

Ryan

B Strong
10-07-2009, 6:36 AM
What's the difference between the Boy Scouts and DC's legal team?

The Boy Scouts have adult leadership.

Mulay El Raisuli
10-07-2009, 6:40 AM
From Gura's Brief:

"Defendants also spend a great deal of energy discussing the laws of Wisconsin, the only other state that completely bans the concealed carrying of guns, although Defendants fail to mention that Wisconsin permits the unlicensed open carrying of guns, an outcome that would
satisfy Plaintiffs’ prayer for relief in this case.4"

And, footnote 4:

"4 Although Plaintiffs stressed this point in the Complaint and in their moving papers, perhaps it still bears repetition: this is not a “concealed carry” case. It is a case about carrying, period. If Defendants really wish to imitate Wisconsin’s approach to this issue, they can consent to such a judgment and allow unlicensed open carrying."



Yeah, that would do it for me also. DC folding in such a manner would give a big time impetus for LOC nationwide.

Wouldn't that be just great?

In addition, since the dicta in Heller was that restrictions would be allowable for concealed carry (but, by implication, NOT for open carry), there's a chance that the court could actually order such a result.

Which I think would also be great.

The Raisuli

7x57
10-07-2009, 6:43 AM
As council you have to put up some kind of defense, but its a lot like putting up a defense for a guy accused of a crime that not only confessed but there are 100 witnesses and a videotape of his crime. You take your best shot, but you know it is unlikely to be effective.

Indeed. I guess I should be fair and say if that's really all the material they have, he did a decent job of defending the indefensible. At least at some points he managed to make fairly lunatic positions sound plausible on a surface reading. That's why I did a near-MST3k treatment--I wanted to have fun with what he was actually saying and presupposing underneath the thin (sometimes amazingly thin) layer of whitewash.

I can manage to have some emotional sympathy for anti-gunners whose position is an irrational and unreal response to real tragedy in their lives. I suppose, after several drinks, I could even attempt to have sympathy for Diane Feinstein--um, OK, no, that's going to far. But anyway, I have *no* sympathy for the DeeCee council types. They have no excuse for holding victims' hands behind their back and even joining in the assault if the victim resists in any way. I have even less (as in negative sympathy, I guess) for people like Richard II, King of Chicago or Michael Bloomberg, who are too rich and powerful for normal people's tragedy to touch their lives--it's pure torturing of the peasants (in all honesty I suspect that's no less true of the DC councilcritters, but as I don't know their circumstances and don't think they're even worth checking on I am choosing to give them the benefit of the doubt).

Is this a good place to cry "to the PAIN"?

7x57

tiki
10-07-2009, 6:43 AM
Let I be some interval of policy permitted by the Second Amendment, for example zero to one. It must have some maximum x (for example 1.0). (Actually it needn't, but this is not the place to discuss suprema, nor does it help save the "new DC math" one bit.) Now suppose DC's actually policy p is found to be greater than any known element of I--for example, suppose DC's policy is 42.0. Therefore, according to the "DC Gun Rights theorem," 42.0 must be the upper bound of the interval! Yep--[0,1] contains 42.0.

Yes, and following the logic of the D.C. "mathematicians", they would argue that although the 2nd Amendment clearly states I to be an interval of policy, the author mistakenly put brackets around the interval, since parenthesis weren't in common use at the time. And, since the author of the Amendment would have used parenthesis had he written it today, he clearly meant that the interval I should be interpreted as coordinates on a cartesian plane. And, by examining the point about (0,1), one would find the value 42. So, depending on what graph you want to use, Chicago's, New Yorks, or China's, then the value at that point..., well, you know. ;)

tiki
10-07-2009, 6:52 AM
I couldnt stop laughing when I hit the "all of DC is a sensitive place" part.

Of course! Schools zones are now 125 miles. Draw that on a map with your compass.

bodger
10-07-2009, 7:09 AM
Indeed. I guess I should be fair and say if that's really all the material they have, he did a decent job of defending the indefensible. At least at some points he managed to make fairly lunatic positions sound plausible on a surface reading. That's why I did a near-MST3k treatment--I wanted to have fun with what he was actually saying and presupposing underneath the thin (sometimes amazingly thin) layer of whitewash.

I can manage to have some emotional sympathy for anti-gunners whose position is an irrational and unreal response to real tragedy in their lives. I suppose, after several drinks, I could even attempt to have sympathy for Diane Feinstein--um, OK, no, that's going to far. But anyway, I have *no* sympathy for the DeeCee council types. They have no excuse for holding victims' hands behind their back and even joining in the assault if the victim resists in any way. I have even less (as in negative sympathy, I guess) for people like Richard II, King of Chicago or Michael Bloomberg, who are too rich and powerful for normal people's tragedy to touch their lives--it's pure torturing of the peasants (in all honesty I suspect that's no less true of the DC councilcritters, but as I don't know their circumstances and don't think they're even worth checking on I am choosing to give them the benefit of the doubt).

Is this a good place to cry "to the PAIN"?

7x57


LOL!

I'll bet you could drink enough Tequila to float a battleship and that still wouldn't be enough to make you feel sympathy for Feinstein. :D

bulgron
10-07-2009, 7:12 AM
Yes, and following the logic of the D.C. "mathematicians", they would argue that although the 2nd Amendment clearly states I to be an interval of policy, the author mistakenly put brackets around the interval, since parenthesis weren't in common use at the time. And, since the author of the Amendment would have used parenthesis had he written it today, he clearly meant that the interval I should be interpreted as coordinates on a cartesian plane. And, by examining the point about (0,1), one would find the value 42. So, depending on what graph you want to use, Chicago's, New Yorks, or China's, then the value at that point..., well, you know. ;)

My head hurts. Remind me not to read CalGuns first thing in the morning after I've been up to the wee hours of the morning trying to understand XML FO.

I understand the snark, and it even makes me smile. But DC is a place that elected a convicted participant of the illegal drug economy to be their mayor, and even to this day he remains an elected representative on the DC city council. You need look no further than that to understand that the normal rules of logic, good sense, and responsible society do not apply to the DC city government.

In other words, when you read DC's legal briefs, imagine a group of people sitting in a dark, smoky room whilst they attempt to pen their arguments in a euphoric, drug-induced haze, and I think you'll be closer to the reality of the situation than not.

press1280
10-07-2009, 3:46 PM
I see DC believes as long as you have 1 location(the home) where you can "bear" arms, then its not a total ban and is "reasonable". Would they try to do that with the Freedom of Speech, tell you that you're allowed to say what you want in your home, but nowhere else? And, they believe the founding fathers were intending on arms bearing to be only in the home when they wrote the Second Amendment?
And this "reasonable standard," didn't Heller pretty much address this as not applicable?
DC issued permits before(not many,but some), so why is the city all of a sudden a "sensitive place" when you issued permits to non-LEOs before?

Their brief won't cut it IMO

dantodd
10-07-2009, 4:00 PM
I see DC believes as long as you have 1 location(the home) where you can "bear" arms, then its not a total ban and is "reasonable". Would they try to do that with the Freedom of Speech, tell you that you're allowed to say what you want in your home, but nowhere else?

Would it apply to the government too? Maybe we can make a deal.