PDA

View Full Version : Palmer v. District of Columbia?


Peaceful John
08-02-2010, 10:52 AM
At this point what could the judge possibly be waiting on?

M198
08-02-2010, 10:58 AM
Retirement?

POLICESTATE
08-02-2010, 11:21 AM
His latte and scone?

yellowfin
08-02-2010, 11:24 AM
A planetary alignment.

Hippo
08-02-2010, 11:25 AM
A high quality BM.

2009_gunner
08-02-2010, 11:44 AM
The ten year anniversary of McDonald v Chicago.

Nick Justice
08-02-2010, 11:49 AM
A constitutional convention?

bulgron
08-02-2010, 12:11 PM
His magic 8 ball to give him the answer he wants?

Joe
08-02-2010, 12:14 PM
Hahaha great responses. How long has the wait been going?

Window_Seat
08-02-2010, 12:16 PM
Good responses. :D

Seriously, is there any specific motion that the counsel could file that asks the judge to get with the program?

Erik.

yellowfin
08-02-2010, 12:33 PM
^ Were that available, I'm sure neither side wants the judge annoyed at them.

kcbrown
08-02-2010, 1:52 PM
How long can he wait before he has some incentive to issue a ruling, and what exactly is that incentive?

press1280
08-02-2010, 1:55 PM
Hahaha great responses. How long has the wait been going?

It's been a year since the case was filed, over 6 months from oral arguments, over a month and a half from McDonald. Not sure what the hangup is.

N6ATF
08-02-2010, 2:50 PM
Waiting on the Heller and McDonald 5 to die, and be replaced with traitors for a 9-0 traitor count, so he can safely commit treason, rule in favor of the treasonous government, and let it be appealed to SCOTUS so the government can get a rubber stamp of approval there too.

HunterJim
08-02-2010, 3:06 PM
Federal Judge Mariana Pfaelzer held back issuing her written opinion striking down Prop 187 so that Pete Wilson could not appeal it. After Gray Davis was in office and declared he would not enforce 187, she issued her ruling.

I asked my then Congressman (Republican) to introduce a bill of impeachment against her, and he was horrified. I had given him a maximum election contribution so I used my silver bullet -- to no effect as it tukrned out.

She had an agenda, and the Palmer judge has one too.

jim

TempleKnight
08-02-2010, 3:12 PM
two weeks???

safewaysecurity
08-02-2010, 3:13 PM
A planetary alignment.

lol

yellowfin
08-02-2010, 5:07 PM
Federal Judge Mariana Pfaelzer held back issuing her written opinion striking down Prop 187 so that Pete Wilson could not appeal it. After Gray Davis was in office and declared he would not enforce 187, she issued her ruling.

I asked my then Congressman (Republican) to introduce a bill of impeachment against her, and he was horrified. I had given him a maximum election contribution so I used my silver bullet -- to no effect as it tukrned out.

She had an agenda, and the Palmer judge has one too.

jim
How long was the span of time that she held that decision? And why was he horrified? If a judge deserves being kicked out, kick them out. What's the problem? I know we're supposed to keep the judiciary ostensibly independent, but that's conditional upon them holding up their end of the bargain.

VAReact
08-02-2010, 5:16 PM
He needs two more weeks...:rolleyes:

NightOwl
08-02-2010, 5:50 PM
How long was the span of time that she held that decision? And why was he horrified? If a judge deserves being kicked out, kick them out. What's the problem? I know we're supposed to keep the judiciary ostensibly independent, but that's conditional upon them holding up their end of the bargain.

From Wikipedia:

The constitutionality of Proposition 187 was challenged by several lawsuits. On November 11, 1994, three days after the bill's passage, Federal Judge Matthew Byrne issued a temporary restraining order against institution of the measure, which was filed by Attorney General Dan Lungren.[20] After Judge Mariana Pfaelzer issued a permanent injunction of Proposition 187 in December 1994 - blocking all provisions except those dealing with higher education and false documents - multiple cases were consolidated and brought before the federal court. In November 1997, Pfaelzer found the law to be unconstitutional on the basis that it infringed the federal government's exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to immigration, similar to the Supreme Court ruling in Plyler v. Doe.[21]Pfaelzer also explained that Proposition 187's effect on the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, the Congressional overhaul of the American welfare system, proved that the bill was a "scheme" to regulate immigration:

"California is powerless to enact its own legislative scheme to regulate immigration. It is likewise powerless to enact its own legislative scheme to regulate alien access to public benefits."

Governor Wilson appealed the ruling, which brought the case to the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. However, in 1999, newly elected Democratic Governor Gray Davis had the case brought before mediation,[22] and then dropped the appeals process before the courts in July 1999, effectively killing the law.[23]


Looks like she sat on that one for years.

hoffmang
08-02-2010, 7:41 PM
From Wikipedia:



Looks like she sat on that one for years.

The TRO was a finding on the facts which allowed for the longer delay. The simple issue is that the Palmer judge probably knows we are right and doesn't like it.

-Gene

safewaysecurity
08-02-2010, 11:13 PM
The TRO was a finding on the facts which allowed for the longer delay. The simple issue is that the Palmer judge probably knows we are right and doesn't like it.

-Gene

So when can we expect **** to happen? lol

dantodd
08-02-2010, 11:19 PM
The TRO was a finding on the facts which allowed for the longer delay. The simple issue is that the Palmer judge probably knows we are right and doesn't like it.

-Gene

Does this mean you believe that the issue will be driven by other cases such as Sykes and Peruta while the judge just sits on his thumbs in this case?

Kharn
08-03-2010, 1:58 AM
Does this mean you believe that the issue will be driven by other cases such as Sykes and Peruta while the judge just sits on his thumbs in this case?If there is one thing people almost universally hate, it is being considered lazy by their coworkers. If Peruta, Sykes, MD, NC and NY cases all move forward with Palmer not being released the judge is going to look like a gigantic slacker to the other judges in his district. Eventually...

bulgron
08-03-2010, 6:57 AM
If there is one thing people almost universally hate, it is being considered lazy by their coworkers. If Peruta, Sykes, MD, NC and NY cases all move forward with Palmer not being released the judge is going to look like a gigantic slacker to the other judges in his district. Eventually...

Unless all those other judges also decided to sit on their cases.

How much does the federal bench hate the 2A, anyway?

Rascal
08-03-2010, 12:57 PM
The TRO was a finding on the facts which allowed for the longer delay. The simple issue is that the Palmer judge probably knows we are right and doesn't like it.

-Gene

So can the judge just sit on this indefinitely?

Window_Seat
08-03-2010, 1:02 PM
So can the judge just sit on this indefinitely?

As far as I know, yes, he can sit on it even after the sun expands and we hop on over to Pluto.

Erik.

hoffmang
08-03-2010, 1:31 PM
My understanding is that each district's chief judge keeps an eye on overdue rulings. However, different federal district courts have different local rules. I'll peek at DC's local rules (http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/dcd/rules_forms) soon.

-Gene

Gray Peterson
08-03-2010, 1:53 PM
Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royce_C._Lamberth)

yellowfin
08-03-2010, 2:11 PM
Based on that I'd say it looks like Judge Lamberth is a good guy, but does that necessarily translate into him being on our side on this particular issue?

bulgron
08-03-2010, 2:49 PM
Based on that I'd say it looks like Judge Lamberth is a good guy, but does that necessarily translate into him being on our side on this particular issue?

He doesn't have to be "on our side." He just has to make sure his court is doing their job and not sitting on a decision indefinitely.

Lamberth is from Texas. Here's hoping that Texas does the right thing and makes sure this case moves along.

Purple K
08-06-2010, 7:11 PM
Judge Urbina is quite the procrastinator!!!

Window_Seat
08-06-2010, 8:58 PM
http://www.stus.com/images/products/cla41b.gif

http://www.marriedtothesea.com/100309/judge-bored-is-presiding.gif

http://www.stus.com/images/products/cla37b2.gif

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/tob/lowres/tobn71l.jpg

I haven't been able to find anything more relevant.:(

Erik.

Window_Seat
08-06-2010, 9:32 PM
My understanding is that each district's chief judge keeps an eye on overdue rulings. However, different federal district courts have different local rules. I'll peek at DC's local rules (http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/dcd/rules_forms) soon.

-Gene

The best I was able to find on page 133-134 of the local rules (http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/dcd/sites/dcd/files/2010_MARCH_LOCAL_RULES.pdf):

JUDGES' DUTIES TO LAWYERS:

38. While endeavoring to resolve disputes efficiently, we will be considerate of the time constraints and pressures imposed on lawyers by the exigencies of litigation practice. We will make all reasonable efforts promptly to decide matters presented to us for decision.

Erik.

2009_gunner
08-06-2010, 9:45 PM
It certainly seems like the recent Perry/Prop8 case was more complicated than Palmer. Perry had a trial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_v._Schwarzenegger#Trial)that lasted from January 11-June 16 and yet the judge was able to deliver a 138 page decision within 2 months of the end of the trial.

Here we are 6.5 months after one day oral arguments (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Palmer_v._District_of_Columbia#Status), and we have nothing.

How much longer until the DC court can be said to be neglecting responsibility?

Gray Peterson
08-07-2010, 6:48 AM
It certainly seems like the recent Perry/Prop8 case was more complicated than Palmer. Perry had a trial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_v._Schwarzenegger#Trial)that lasted from January 11-June 16 and yet the judge was able to deliver a 138 page decision within 2 months of the end of the trial.

Here we are 6.5 months after one day oral arguments (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Palmer_v._District_of_Columbia#Status), and we have nothing.

How much longer until the DC court can be said to be neglecting responsibility?

I realize the concept of justice delayed is justice denied. It sounds like this judge is waiting for other cases to occur. From a purely legal strategy perspective, I'd rather we have one case win before he rules before the other way around.

Maestro Pistolero
08-07-2010, 6:56 AM
It sounds like this judge is waiting for other cases to occur.

If true, what a sheep. But I'm sure, in the judge's jurisdiction, he has plenty of liberal friends to answer to. We might get a better ruling if he can lay it at the feet of another court.

bulgron
08-07-2010, 1:03 PM
If true, what a sheep. But I'm sure, in the judge's jurisdiction, he has plenty of liberal friends to answer to. We might get a better ruling if he can lay it at the feet of another court.

Let him make his bad ruling, then, and save face. That way, we can get on with the appeals process. True, he'll look like a dumb*ss, but with this inexcusable delay he's looking like that anyway.

Meplat
08-07-2010, 1:59 PM
He doesn't seem like a guy with the kind of history you would expect a raving anti to have, maybe there is some hope.
Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royce_C._Lamberth)

Meplat
08-07-2010, 2:56 PM
Judge Urbina is quite the procrastinator!!!

Is this Urbina not the same Georgetown big government elitist judge that dismissed Heller, thereby sending it to SCOTUS?

Once burned twice shy.:43:

joedogboy
08-07-2010, 3:24 PM
Unless all those other judges also decided to sit on their cases.

How much does the federal bench hate the 2A, anyway?


Elites always hate anything that gives power to the common people.

krucam
08-07-2010, 5:38 PM
The latest on this is from 3 weeks ago when Gura reminded the judge of a certain SCOTUS decision on June 28th...

http://ia311008.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.19.0.pdf

hoffmang
08-07-2010, 5:59 PM
Is this Urbina not the same Georgetown big government elitist judge that dismissed Heller, thereby sending it to SCOTUS?


No. The Judge that ruled against Parker/Heller was Emmet Sullivan.

-Gene

Purple K
08-15-2010, 2:59 PM
:gene::gene::gene:

hoffmang
08-15-2010, 3:27 PM
There are some more plausible explanations of the delay here. The judge in this case may have wanted to see McDonald which is quite reasonable. That came out less than 60 days ago. Add in Federal Judge vacation season and it would be perfectly reasonable to see a decision issued in September or October based on the McDonald wait hypothesis.

-Gene

Gray Peterson
08-15-2010, 4:33 PM
There are some more plausible explanations of the delay here. The judge in this case may have wanted to see McDonald which is quite reasonable. That came out less than 60 days ago. Add in Federal Judge vacation season and it would be perfectly reasonable to see a decision issued in September or October based on the McDonald wait hypothesis.

-Gene

Let's hope we see some 28(j)'s on district court cases in other jurisdictions soon sent to this guy's attention. He may be waiting for numerous cases.

Purple K
08-15-2010, 5:47 PM
The wait is almost painful

safewaysecurity
08-22-2010, 6:21 PM
Hate to bring it up ( not really ) but any news since last week?

hoffmang
08-22-2010, 9:10 PM
If there is news on this case it will be national news. You will not miss it.

-Gene

press1280
08-23-2010, 2:12 AM
I just glanced at the DC district court calendar, and it looks like Kennedy does not have any oral arguments until 9-7-10. So I guess he'll be on vacation for 2 weeks, so I guess no decision till at least then.

Purple K
09-13-2010, 12:04 PM
:confused:

POLICESTATE
09-13-2010, 12:30 PM
Elites always hate anything that gives power to the common people.

Here's a good picture of elitists and how they relate to us common folk

wOVKx8XN39g

hoffmang
09-13-2010, 7:38 PM
Yep. This case's ruling is wildly overdue. It already starts to look bad and, well, this judge will end up getting some embarrassing surprises...

Bending the rules can have negative repercussions...

-Gene

hill billy
09-13-2010, 7:49 PM
Yep. This case's ruling is wildly overdue. It already starts to look bad and, well, this judge will end up getting some embarrassing surprises...

Bending the rules can have negative repercussions...

-Gene

Cool.:chris:

kcbrown
09-13-2010, 7:59 PM
Yep. This case's ruling is wildly overdue. It already starts to look bad and, well, this judge will end up getting some embarrassing surprises...

Bending the rules can have negative repercussions...


Negative repercussions for a judge?

I can't wait to see this!

:43:

N6ATF
09-13-2010, 8:49 PM
Those pigs are working very hard at achieving flight capabilities.

Kharn
09-14-2010, 1:56 AM
Yep. This case's ruling is wildly overdue. It already starts to look bad and, well, this judge will end up getting some embarrassing surprises...

Bending the rules can have negative repercussions...

-GeneMaybe he's waiting for Nordyke to be resolved. :p

press1280
09-14-2010, 2:05 AM
Yep. This case's ruling is wildly overdue. It already starts to look bad and, well, this judge will end up getting some embarrassing surprises...

Bending the rules can have negative repercussions...

-Gene

Will he be censured or something?

I'm thinking he's waiting for a decision in another CCW case and will simply "attach" to that decision, as it seems he doesn't want to go out on a limb either way.

E Pluribus Unum
09-14-2010, 2:11 AM
Will he be censured or something?

I'm thinking he's waiting for a decision in another CCW case and will simply "attach" to that decision, as it seems he doesn't want to go out on a limb either way.

I think it is more likely that he knows in his mind what he must say to be right, but he feels what he WANTS to say...because of his liberal tendancy... and is having to reconsile the difference.

He is struggling to find the words in order to say what he must, without giving the pro-gunner's too much power. He is trying to find a way to colorfully cut out a specific reason why in this isolated case, previous case law doesn't apply.

Mulay El Raisuli
09-14-2010, 7:24 AM
I think it is more likely that he knows in his mind what he must say to be right, but he feels what he WANTS to say...because of his liberal tendancy... and is having to reconsile the difference.

He is struggling to find the words in order to say what he must, without giving the pro-gunner's too much power. He is trying to find a way to colorfully cut out a specific reason why in this isolated case, previous case law doesn't apply.


Or, he's very carefully crafting a Ruling that takes full account of precedent. A Ruling that's going to give the embattled people of DC a restored 2A & they'll be able to buy whatever they want & Open Carry w/o a license just about anywhere in the city!

Gee, & to think I can drink like this so early in the morning! :)


The Raisuli

yellowfin
09-14-2010, 8:05 AM
Originally Posted by hoffmang
Yep. This case's ruling is wildly overdue. It already starts to look bad and, well, this judge will end up getting some embarrassing surprises...

Bending the rules can have negative repercussions...

-GeneI sincerely hope so. This kind of stalling purely for the sake of stalling simply can't be allowed to go without some form of rectifying measures. There has to be some accountability somewhere.

HunterJim
09-14-2010, 8:26 AM
California federal judge Mariana Pfaelzer with held her written ruling declaring Prop 187 unconstitutional until Gray Davis was elected Governor, and he promptly disavowed defending it and the peoples' vote. I didn't notice any consequence for her, perhaps there was a double secret consequence. ;)

jim

Paladin
09-15-2010, 7:54 AM
I sincerely hope so. This kind of stalling purely for the sake of stalling simply can't be allowed to go without some form of rectifying measures. There has to be some accountability somewhere.
The plaintiff's attorney could hold a press conference on the courthouse steps to draw attention to the case. Probably not the best thing to do, they'd want to stay on the court's good side.

Perhaps a better idea is to form some citizens' group supporting the right to armed self-defense and for them to hold a protest (invite the media) on the courthouse steps decrying their rights and justice being denied. The plaintiff's attorney can disavow having anything to do with the protesters, so this could insulate them from negative consequences.

Just brainstorming.

Paladin
09-15-2010, 8:31 AM
Insulate
LOL! ;)

Fixed.

Window_Seat
09-15-2010, 9:04 AM
"Insultate... INSULTATION, DISCUSTATING., The systematic symptom of the sickness... HOW DARE YOU!!"
-J.C. Webster, III"

:p:p

Erik.

yellowfin
09-17-2010, 11:04 AM
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

Maestro Pistolero
09-17-2010, 11:23 AM
This is really bennoying. Time to expidate the precedings.

press1280
09-17-2010, 11:30 AM
This is really bennoying. Time to expidate the precedings.

I wonder if it's time for the chief justice of the DC District court to pull him aside and say,"What the hell is taking so long??????"

bulgron
09-17-2010, 12:29 PM
I wonder if it's time for the chief justice of the DC District court to pull him aside and say,"What the hell is taking so long??????"

What makes you think he hasn't already?

BlindRacer
09-17-2010, 1:19 PM
Sorry if this has already been clarified, but since Palmer is a Federal case, and the 2A applies to the states, wouldn't that make all the other carry cases unnecessary? Or would Palmer not apply to us here in CA for some reason?

Gray Peterson
09-17-2010, 1:23 PM
Sorry if this has already been clarified, but since Palmer is a Federal case, and the 2A applies to the states, wouldn't that make all the other carry cases unnecessary? Or would Palmer not apply to us here in CA for some reason?

No. Persuasive authority but not binding.

kcbrown
09-17-2010, 1:30 PM
No. Persuasive authority but not binding.

Interesting. How does that work, exactly? What are the possible reasons that a decision that is binding against the federal government via an enumerated right would not also be binding against the states when the enumerated right in question has already been incorporated against the states?

Gray Peterson
09-17-2010, 1:48 PM
Interesting. How does that work, exactly? What are the possible reasons that a decision that is binding against the federal government via an enumerated right would not also be binding against the states when the enumerated right in question has already been incorporated against the states?

As applied challenges are limited to geographical region, regardless of who the defendants are. Facial challenges (like Palmer) are suits against a particular defendant to all potential applications of law.

Take the Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America litigation which recently was decided. The federal judge, who is based on the California Central District, strike down 10USC654 and prohibited it's enforcement. As it's a facial challenge against the United States Government law, it has nationwide (and in fact, worldwide) effect wherever the US flag touches. If it was as-applied, or against a state, it would have limited effect geographically until SCOTUS rules on it.

On the other hand, there's D'Cruz v. BATFE (18-21 handgun purchasing from FFL) and D'Cruz v. McCraw (acquirement of a CHL from a state, specifically Texas), both of which was filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The BATFE case is I believe is a facial challenge. If it wins in the district court, it would have nationwide effect against the BATFE 4473 unless stayed and appealed. However, it would have no effect on the state laws (which there is no laws in Texas preventing a Texan from buying a gun from a dealer between 18-21) until it starts going up to the 5th circuit. If D'Cruz v BATFE plaintiff win is upheld on the merits in the 5th Circuit, any laws in the states of Texas, Arkansas, and Lousiana which prohibits 18-21 year olds from acquiring a handgun will fall either automatically by a failure to enforce, or an easy TRO request in the district courts. It goes to SCOTUS and we win, it fixes all states automatically or will require TRO's in district court.

If the D'Cruz wins his McCraw case and acquires a Texas CHL, it will only directly affect the laws of the State of Texas. If it gets appealed up to the 5th Circuit and D'Cruz wins, it strikes down the 21 age ban in Lousiana and Arkansas too. If it gets to SCOTUS and we win, all age 21 restrictions on carry will fall, or at the very least, any state which bans all forms of carry for 18-21 year olds (Washington State is a great example of this) will also fall.

yellowfin
09-17-2010, 1:55 PM
^ Which they very well may if it goes that high. What's the projection on DC fighting this one all the way up if it comes to that?

yellowfin
09-17-2010, 1:57 PM
What makes you think he hasn't already?Because the sound of shoe hitting tailbone that hard should be sufficiently audible to be heard from far away enough for us to know about it.

bulgron
09-17-2010, 2:10 PM
Because the sound of shoe hitting tailbone that hard should be sufficiently audible to be heard from far away enough for us to know about it.

I know that you're joking, but I still have to say that if a chief judge was leaning on someone in his circuit, I doubt very much that the public would ever know about it.

I'm still wondering how long a judge can sit on a case like this without repercussions. And now I'm wondering what those repercussions could possibly be. Something tells me he could sit on this until he drops dead and there's nothing anyone can do about it. I hope I'm wrong about that.

press1280
09-17-2010, 2:12 PM
What makes you think he hasn't already?

I don't think we'll ever know.

Gray Peterson
09-17-2010, 2:18 PM
^ Which they very well may if it goes that high. What's the projection on DC fighting this one all the way up if it comes to that?

Very high. You can't fix stupid.

kcbrown
09-17-2010, 2:22 PM
I'm still wondering how long a judge can sit on a case like this without repercussions. And now I'm wondering what those repercussions could possibly be. Something tells me he could sit on this until he drops dead and there's nothing anyone can do about it. I hope I'm wrong about that.

This is precisely what I'd been consistently arguing in the past: that there is no significant incentive for judges to rule in any other way than how they want to or to otherwise treat any given case however they want to. Of course, that's not strictly true for judges that are "upwardly mobile", but for judges that are happy where they are, what possible incentive could they have for ruling against their own preferences?

Others (Gene, if I recall right) have suggested that judges would rule against their own preferences in order to maintain or augment their status within their own social circles and other such things. I honestly can't say how much of an impact such things would really have, and suspect that it is highly variable and highly dependent on the individual.

But regardless, all of those things, including the incentives for those judges who are "upwardly mobile", carry nowhere near the weight that the threat of the loss of one's job or the threat of force of law would have. Which is to say, it seems to me that the incentives that control the behavior of judges as regards their rulings are nowhere near as powerful as the incentives that control the behavior of the rest of us, for the rest of us face termination of our employment and, in some cases, incarceration, for failing to do our jobs the way others want us to.

What possible incentives could any of these judges have that are even close to being comparable to that? That's not a rhetorical question. I really do want to know the answer to it, whatever that answer may be.

press1280
09-17-2010, 2:26 PM
Very high. You can't fix stupid.

A few months ago I would have said this case's timeline would put it first to get to SCOTUS, but man this delay is taking the cake. Does anyone know if there's a drop dead date for this decision, or something that'll happen if the judge keeps stalling?

bulgron
09-17-2010, 2:50 PM
A few months ago I would have said this case's timeline would put it first to get to SCOTUS, but man this delay is taking the cake. Does anyone know if there's a drop dead date for this decision, or something that'll happen if the judge keeps stalling?

In post #53 of this thread, Gene suggests there can be repercussions and nasty surprises, but (as is normal for him) he doesn't really say what those repercussions or surprises could possibly be. Let's just hope someone somewhere has the right 2x4 with which to lever this judge into issuing a decision -- any decision.

N6ATF
09-17-2010, 2:52 PM
Very high. You can't fix stupid.

Or evil. It's not like anyone but the DC non-government-employed residents will personally, terribly, suffer for the crimes the DC government is perpetrating. Prolonging it as long is possible is the right thing to do... for the cause of protecting criminals through victim disarmament. It doesn't matter that they'll lose at SCOTUS... as many murders, rapes, maimings, and lesser assaults committed in the meantime are all they want.

2009_gunner
09-17-2010, 4:00 PM
I'm still wondering how long a judge can sit on a case like this without repercussions.

I am starting to think he wants to take another 6 months to a year before releasing an opinion. That could be around the time the other carry cases get decided.

I don't think the judge wants to give us an advantage of progressing this case ahead of others. He's probably upset that the Incorporation non-issue allowed it to get ahead, and now is eating our time.

kcbrown
09-17-2010, 4:33 PM
What would be our recourse if a couple of anti-gun judges in different circuits withhold their rulings under the claim that they're waiting on the other circuit for guidance or some such thing?

Rossi357
09-17-2010, 4:38 PM
I suspect they are all having a discussion on who goes first and what scrutiny will be used.

safewaysecurity
09-17-2010, 4:44 PM
I'm predicting a December decision

Gray Peterson
09-17-2010, 4:48 PM
What would be our recourse if a couple of anti-gun judges in different circuits withhold their rulings under the claim that they're waiting on the other circuit for guidance or some such thing?

As there's no Courts of Appeals or SCOTUS cases on the subject of carry up (all of the carry cases, save the GeorgiaCarry.org case in the 11th Circuit, is in district). SAF/Gura can file a complaint with the Chief Judge of the District. The local rules state that the judges owe the parties timely resolution. 9 months for an MSJ motion is ridiculous.

I suspect they are all having a discussion on who goes first and what scrutiny will be used.

Unlikely.

bulgron
09-17-2010, 4:56 PM
As there's no Courts of Appeals or SCOTUS cases on the subject of carry up (all of the carry cases, save the GeorgiaCarry.org case in the 11th Circuit, is in district). SAF/Gura can file a complaint with the Chief Judge of the District.

Can the Chief Judge force a decision? Or can he just take the case away from the guy who can't do his job?

kcbrown
09-17-2010, 5:14 PM
As there's no Courts of Appeals or SCOTUS cases on the subject of carry up (all of the carry cases, save the GeorgiaCarry.org case in the 11th Circuit, is in district). SAF/Gura can file a complaint with the Chief Judge of the District. The local rules state that the judges owe the parties timely resolution. 9 months for an MSJ motion is ridiculous.


That just puts the resolution of the problem at the whim of the Chief Judge. In this case, I seem to recall that he's a reasonable person with respect to 2A issues so is not likely to be happy about the current delay.

However, if he really isn't very happy about the delay, one has to wonder why nothing's happened by now (i.e., why the Chief Judge has let the case linger for this amount of time)...

That's assuming, of course, that the Chief Judge has any real power in this matter. I'm trying to understand what could possibly keep a recalcitrant judge from simply sitting on a case forever, and so far I've seen very little to suggest that there really is anything truly compelling.

You can see where this could go, absent some sort of compelling motivation to the contrary: all 2A cases in anti-2A jurisdictions get stalled by the anti-2A judges indefinitely while they wait for the Supreme Court makeup to shift to an anti-2A stance, and then they issue their rulings. The pro-2A courts would already have ruled in favor of 2A, so those areas of the country would be free for at least a while, but as long as the antis aren't stupid enough to try to raise those defeats (for them) to the Supreme Court, the end result is that the 2A situation remains unchanged in the areas with anti-2A courts and the country remains at least as fractured as it already is in that regard, until the Supreme Court makeup changes, at which point we wouldn't be dumb enough to appeal those cases to the Supreme Court.

What prevents the above scenario?

Gray Peterson
09-17-2010, 6:08 PM
Can the Chief Judge force a decision? Or can he just take the case away from the guy who can't do his job?

The Chief judge can re-assign a case to a different judge, or assign it to himself. Personally, Chief Judge Lambeth seems pretty good on the issue.

Kharn
09-17-2010, 6:30 PM
...

What prevents the above scenario?Threat of impeachment by Congress.

kcbrown
09-17-2010, 6:47 PM
Threat of impeachment by Congress.

Aha. So their jobs are on the line, if we happen to have a sufficiently pro-2A Congress. :43:

So it's really just a question of whether or not we'll manage to get such a Congress this round. If not, then we could easily be waiting another 2 years or more...

yellowfin
09-17-2010, 7:34 PM
Has that happened? Threat of something extremely unlikely doesn't seem too much of an effective threat.

bulgron
09-17-2010, 7:50 PM
Has that happened? Threat of something extremely unlikely doesn't seem too much of an effective threat.

If the Chief Judge can take the case away, then all will be well. Then again, I'm going based on what people are saying here about the Chief Judge being relatively level headed about gun issues.

kcbrown
09-17-2010, 7:54 PM
Has that happened? Threat of something extremely unlikely doesn't seem too much of an effective threat.

It's relatively rare, but it does happen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States#Federal_officials _impeached


However, it is rare enough that I suspect it's not really that much of a threat, unless we get a great deal of support in the Congress. Of course, if we get that much support, then a lot of these issues could presumably be dealt with directly via Congressional legislation...

HowardW56
10-01-2010, 4:36 PM
If the Chief Judge can take the case away, then all will be well. Then again, I'm going based on what people are saying here about the Chief Judge being relatively level headed about gun issues.

The Chief Judge cannot take a case from another district court judge. He could ask the judge to send it back to the court clerk for random reassignment, but then much of the case would start over.

The Circuit Court of Appeals could order the case reassigned, but until there is a final ruling, there isn't an appealable order. It would be an extraordinary appeal, unlikely to be granted.

yellowfin
10-01-2010, 7:30 PM
...So all this ado and still nothing. Geez, I get results faster than this from secretaries that don't even answer my calls. That judge needs to be fired and if ruling the wrong way fined his year's salary then fired.

Paul S
10-01-2010, 8:17 PM
.....You can see where this could go, absent some sort of compelling motivation to the contrary: all 2A cases in anti-2A jurisdictions get stalled by the anti-2A judges indefinitely while they wait for the Supreme Court makeup to shift to an anti-2A stance, and then they issue their rulings. The pro-2A courts would already have ruled in favor of 2A, so those areas of the country would be free for at least a while, but as long as the antis aren't stupid enough to try to raise those defeats (for them) to the Supreme Court, the end result is that the 2A situation remains unchanged in the areas with anti-2A courts and the country remains at least as fractured as it already is in that regard, until the Supreme Court makeup changes, at which point we wouldn't be dumb enough to appeal those cases to the Supreme Court.


Opinion...like noses..we all have one...but I believe there is more truth than poetry in this scenario. I think His Honor is delaying a ruling for as long as possible because in his black little legal heart he is a solidly anti-2A jurist. :(

Takes this along with a buck fifty and you can buy a cup of coffee. But that's how I see it.

Rossi357
10-01-2010, 8:41 PM
I think they are waiting for one of the Calif. cases to see what scrutiny is used.

Purple K
10-01-2010, 8:59 PM
I think they are waiting for one of the Calif. cases to see what scrutiny is used.

And just what if one or more of the California judges are waiting on the Palmer decision? A proverbial "catch 22".

QQQ
10-01-2010, 9:56 PM
Is this Urbina not the same Georgetown big government elitist judge that dismissed Heller, thereby sending it to SCOTUS?

Once burned twice shy.:43:

1) Being a Georgetown alum, I resent that. :p

2) Although the Palmer case regarding legal carry of handguns may have relevance to potential litigation here in CA, there are, in my humble opinion, much more pressing issues regarding the second amendment that need to be addressed in the District.
Here's my post on the subject. (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=5055932#post5055932)

Rossi357
10-01-2010, 10:11 PM
And just what if one or more of the California judges are waiting on the Palmer decision? A proverbial "catch 22".

Maybe they have a "federal court" forum like this and all go there to discuss what's happenin. Everyone there is saying....."No, you go first"...."I"m not gonna be first."...."No way, make him go first." :rolleyes: Seriously, I'm sure they are all in commnunication with each other.

Blackhawk556
10-02-2010, 2:16 AM
Well we just have to wait and see This sucks I bet 1yr from now we will still be waiting

Mulay El Raisuli
10-02-2010, 6:03 AM
There is one way to prevent judges from playing this game. Its a bit risky though.

The judges are only 'allowed' to play this game because they're dealing with civil cases. This isn't even remotely permissible in a criminal case. Simply because someone is sitting in jail/prison & they're not allowed to let them sit while a Constitutional issue needs deciding.

The solution then is to find someone convicted of carrying illegally & defend him. The drawback is that it will almost certainly not be the 'good defendant' we'd like to have as the face of the 2A. I.E., it won't be Otis McDonald. But, if the choice is to wait forever or to have a 'bad' defendant, then we should take the 'bad' defendant. Live are being lost each & every day these 'justices' play their games. We should not go along with this any longer than we have to.


The Raisuli

Gray Peterson
10-02-2010, 7:13 AM
There is one way to prevent judges from playing this game. Its a bit risky though.

The judges are only 'allowed' to play this game because they're dealing with civil cases. This isn't even remotely permissible in a criminal case. Simply because someone is sitting in jail/prison & they're not allowed to let them sit while a Constitutional issue needs deciding.

The solution then is to find someone convicted of carrying illegally & defend him. The drawback is that it will almost certainly not be the 'good defendant' we'd like to have as the face of the 2A. I.E., it won't be Otis McDonald. But, if the choice is to wait forever or to have a 'bad' defendant, then we should take the 'bad' defendant. Live are being lost each & every day these 'justices' play their games. We should not go along with this any longer than we have to.


The Raisuli

Absolutely not. There is no circumstance, none whatsoever, where using a criminal defense situation is better than a civil injunction suit to regaining our 2A rights. For example, we had a situation where someone pro-se appealed their conviction for possession of an NFA weapon in the 6th Circuit, and we're lucky the court there minimized the damage. The 8th Circuit with the Hollis Wayne Fincher case foreclosed any challenges to the 922(o) NFA registration situation.

Palmer will not be held forever, and we've on the cusp of quite a few victories happening soon with Sykes, Peruta, and Peterson. All we can do at this point is get these cases heard quickly and help it to where the dominoes start rolling.

yellowfin
10-02-2010, 8:49 AM
The 8th Circuit with the Hollis Wayne Fincher case foreclosed any challenges to the 922(o) NFA registration situation.Criminally, but not civilly. Civil won't be hard once we get a little more precedent built up. The '86 ban has virtually zero ground to stand on.

Gray Peterson
10-02-2010, 9:07 AM
Criminally, but not civilly. Civil won't be hard once we get a little more precedent built up. The '86 ban has virtually zero ground to stand on.

Agreed. We, however, need carry first, interstate gun buying, all vestiges of AWB's, and sporting purposes tossed before we attack that. We attack 922(o) civilly without the AW bans being tossed out, we'll lose for certain.

hoffmang
10-02-2010, 9:24 AM
The judges are only 'allowed' to play this game because they're dealing with civil cases. This isn't even remotely permissible in a criminal case. Simply because someone is sitting in jail/prison & they're not allowed to let them sit while a Constitutional issue needs deciding.

Every single criminal federal case since Heller and McDonald that raises the 2A has been a loss for the criminal. The only "win" on the criminal side is one magistrate judge who said that someone on bail pre-trial for a kiddie porn charge couldn't be summarily disarmed absent facts that showed he was violent. We're talking 30+ cases - all losses.

If you keep having this opinion you're going to have to read up on all the criminal losses.

-Gene

Gray Peterson
10-02-2010, 9:28 AM
Every single criminal federal case since Heller and McDonald that raises the 2A has been a loss for the criminal. The only "win" on the criminal side is one magistrate judge who said that someone on bail pre-trial for a kiddie porn charge couldn't be summarily disarmed absent facts that showed he was violent. We're talking 30+ cases - all losses.

If you keep having this opinion you're going to have to read up on all the criminal losses.

-Gene

QFT

Glock22Fan
10-02-2010, 9:49 AM
Maybe they have a "federal court" forum like this and all go there to discuss what's happenin. Everyone there is saying....."No, you go first"...."I"m not gonna be first."...."No way, make him go first." :rolleyes: Seriously, I'm sure they are all in commnunication with each other.

Probably informally through their clerks. Then they have a measure of deniability.

N6ATF
10-02-2010, 9:54 AM
Victim disarmament judges don't need to communicate, if they learned in law school that they can stall until hell freezes over, the poles reverse, cats and dogs are living together, and they will never suffer the way the populace does as a result of their inaction.

hoffmang
10-02-2010, 10:27 AM
and they will never suffer the way the populace does as a result of their inaction.

But their rulings will get overturned and it will get harder and harder for them to rule against valid 2A claims.

-Gene

bulgron
10-02-2010, 10:33 AM
But their rulings will get overturned and it will get harder and harder for them to rule against valid 2A claims.

-Gene

But if they never make a ruling, then it can never be overturned. I have heard hints that there's ways to pressure a judge into doing his job, but I don't know the specifics. Maybe someone can enlighten me.

First, what is the name of the judge who is sitting on this case?

Second, what can be done to force this guy to issue a ruling, any ruling?

HowardW56
10-02-2010, 10:53 AM
Maybe they have a "federal court" forum like this and all go there to discuss what's happenin. Everyone there is saying....."No, you go first"...."I"m not gonna be first."...."No way, make him go first." :rolleyes: Seriously, I'm sure they are all in commnunication with each other.

I'm sure there are discussions over lunch in the judges dining room...

There is nothing saying that judges cannot seek "advice" from each other..

Rossi357
10-02-2010, 11:48 AM
They will prolly hand down all the pending decisions on the same day so I can stay up till 4 am reading them all.
"Put on some more coffee, Myrtle"!!!

Gray Peterson
10-02-2010, 12:12 PM
But if they never make a ruling, then it can never be overturned. I have heard hints that there's ways to pressure a judge into doing his job, but I don't know the specifics. Maybe someone can enlighten me.

First, what is the name of the judge who is sitting on this case?

Second, what can be done to force this guy to issue a ruling, any ruling?

I believe there is a complaint process for this sort of thing. You essentially file a complaint with the chief judge, but it cannot be ex-parte. Only the parties or the attorney can file a complaint.

N6ATF
10-02-2010, 12:39 PM
Maybe the judge is trying for a quasi-repeat of Miller (plaintiff dies before case decided).

Gray Peterson
10-02-2010, 12:42 PM
Maybe the judge is trying for a quasi-repeat of Miller (plaintiff dies before case decided).

Except someone murdered Miller and they were criminals. I believe there are 4 or 5 plaintiffs plus SAF, so having a Miller happen is impossible.

bulgron
10-02-2010, 2:06 PM
Maybe the judge is planning on retiring, and doesn't want to hand down this ruling before he does? Again, who is the judge in question?

HowardW56
10-02-2010, 2:12 PM
Maybe the judge is planning on retiring, and doesn't want to hand down this ruling before he does? Again, who is the judge in question?

That could really screw things up... The case would go back to the clerk of the court for random reassignment...

spgripside
10-02-2010, 2:25 PM
Maybe the judge is planning on retiring, and doesn't want to hand down this ruling before he does? Again, who is the judge in question?

I believe it is Judge Henry H. Kennedy.

kcbrown
10-02-2010, 2:51 PM
Palmer will not be held forever, and we've on the cusp of quite a few victories happening soon with Sykes, Peruta, and Peterson. All we can do at this point is get these cases heard quickly and help it to where the dominoes start rolling.

Gray, for this case to not be held forever, there has to be some compelling incentive for the judge to issue a ruling. If he's strongly anti-2A, then that incentive has to be enough to overcome his motivation for sitting on the case.

And so, again, we're back to the pivotal question: what incentive does the judge have to issue a ruling when he would prefer not to?

You needn't answer that question, but I think we would all appreciate an answer to this one: is there any incentive that can be brought against the judge to force him to issue a ruling despite his desire not to?

If the answer to the second question is "no" then the scenario I outlined previously is sure to come to pass (well, okay, almost sure to come to pass. I can think of some situations in which it wouldn't, but I'll not describe those for fear of tipping off the enemy).

Gray Peterson
10-02-2010, 2:53 PM
Gray, for this case to not be held forever, there has to be some compelling incentive for the judge to issue a ruling. If he's strongly anti-2A, then that incentive has to be enough to overcome his motivation for sitting on the case.

And so, again, we're back to the pivotal question: what incentive does the judge have to issue a ruling when he would prefer not to?

You needn't answer that question, but I think we would all appreciate an answer to this one: is there any incentive that can be brought against the judge to force him to issue a ruling despite his desire not to?

If the answer to the second question is "no" then the scenario I outlined previously is sure to come to pass.

Loss of prestige among his peers in the federal judicial court system, and the case can be sent through the assignment pool. Remember, the arguments transcripts are available to any of the judges, along with all of the filings. Judicial re-assignment doesn't reset everything back to day 1.

bulgron
10-02-2010, 6:02 PM
Loss of prestige among his peers in the federal judicial court system,

Assuming the federal bench is as divided on this issue as in other areas of our society, might it be possible that the judge's peers -- the one's he cares about, anyway -- are quietly applauding and encouraging his decision to not issue a ruling? If so, then there would be no loss of prestige among those people on the bench whose opinion matters to him.

I hate thinking things like this, but it's been TOO DAMN LONG. There's something rotten going on here. It's as if the normal rules of judicial etiquette have been thrown out the window for this particular case.

N6ATF
10-02-2010, 8:00 PM
The wolf is guarding the sheep pen. Ta ta, sheep.

hoffmang
10-02-2010, 8:13 PM
We sound like impatient children here folks and it reflects more on us than the federal judiciary.

By my count there are now 5 publicly announced carry cases beyond Palmer in federal courts around the nation. What's funny here is that, by stalling, anti gun judges are letting the fair or pro-gun judges go first. I think that may be a brier patch I want to be thrown into...

Please think that through.

-Gene

HowardW56
10-02-2010, 8:26 PM
We sound like impatient children here folks and it reflects more on us than the federal judiciary.

By my count there are now 5 publicly announced carry cases beyond Palmer in federal courts around the nation. What's funny here is that, by stalling, anti gun judges are letting the fair or pro-gun judges go first. I think that may be a brier patch I want to be thrown into...

Please think that through.

-Gene

;)

The next year or so should be very interesting....

ojisan
10-02-2010, 9:49 PM
Rant deleted.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/smilies/redface.gif

kcbrown
10-02-2010, 10:53 PM
We sound like impatient children here folks and it reflects more on us than the federal judiciary.

By my count there are now 5 publicly announced carry cases beyond Palmer in federal courts around the nation. What's funny here is that, by stalling, anti gun judges are letting the fair or pro-gun judges go first. I think that may be a brier patch I want to be thrown into...

Please think that through.

-Gene

And with this, I think I see a way around the issue of anti-RKBA judges indefinitely stalling their decisions. :43:

curtisfong
10-03-2010, 1:37 AM
What's funny here is that, by stalling, anti gun judges are letting the fair or pro-gun judges go first.

:eek: jaw -> dropped

Gene, once again, let me just say for the record: I am glad you are one of the good guys.

I hadn't even begun to think about the issue in those terms.

RKV
10-03-2010, 5:57 AM
for any reasonable judge. BUT we have some very unreasonable judges out there. It's going to take 2-3 more trips to SCOTUS to get things straightened out (well for the most part any way). I've read all the documents for Sykes, Ezell, Pena, Dearth, Kachalsky, Petersen, Bateman, Nordyke and others. There are three points to our opponents strategy. 1) Delay - this is not unusual in other legal contests, what we want to avoid is what happened in Miller, where the plaintiff died - think Nordyke, think Jarndyce v. Jarndyce. 2) Denial - no 2nd Amendment plaintiff seems to have standing, no 2nd Amendment attorney can seem to find the right governmental nexus to sue. Again this is not surprising and persistence is needed to overcome this. 3) Ignorance - the attempt will be made to define our "fundamental right" (per McDonald) into something much less fundamental. Fundamental rights is a term of art (see the Heller 2 denial of summary judgment as typical) which SHOULD invoke strict scrutiny. What is going to happen, and why we need 2-3 more cases is that judges will attempt to define strict scrutiny in such a manner as it will not be worthy of the name. Our job will be to focus the Supes attention (on appeal) to other fundamental rights jurisprudence (see the 1st Amendment) and beat the crap out of the lower courts misdirected opinions. For instance, one can compare licensing a printing press to licensing guns and so on - the former would not be tolerated by a long line of court cases, neither should the later. Further there is a gaping hole in Heller which we've GOT to close. Judge Alito's "common use" test is what I'm referring to. We've GOT to get common use defined as "the same as our employees use." GOT TO. Otherwise, we can be legislated into a 2nd Amendment that is in fact a nullity. We're going to need a Griffin v. County School Board yet, which will compel states like NY and CA to dismantle their gun laws. Grudging compliance and non-compliance is what we've gotten so far from DC and Chicago. They need to lose big again and actually lose money damages or they won't get the message. Better would be a term in prison for some legislators and sr. gov employees under 18 USC 241.

press1280
10-03-2010, 8:10 AM
Does anyone have an inkling when Gura would file some kind of a motion to speed things up? I'm assuming DC will not utter a word, as they'll have no problem with Kennedy dragging this out as long as possible.

hoffmang
10-03-2010, 8:21 AM
There are no motions in ordinary course to speed cross motions for summary judgment up.

When the only arguments the other side make are standing, venue, and ripeness, it means you're right on the law. It looks awkward (and stalling is the only other option) but it means we're going to win in the end.

California's 12050 license dates to 1911 or 1923 depending on how you count and D.C's has a similar history. It's been in effect for 87 years. Having patience for 87 months is going to be unnecessarily large as it's not going to take 7 years to finish proving that bear arms means effective carry for self defense.

-Gene

Gray Peterson
10-03-2010, 1:33 PM
There are no motions in ordinary course to speed cross motions for summary judgment up.

When the only arguments the other side make are standing, venue, and ripeness, it means you're right on the law. It looks awkward (and stalling is the only other option) but it means we're going to win in the end.



In my case, they really aren't making those arguments, either. Procedural deficiencies, all the while having some major deficiencies in of itself.

Mulay El Raisuli
10-04-2010, 5:37 AM
Absolutely not. There is no circumstance, none whatsoever, where using a criminal defense situation is better than a civil injunction suit to regaining our 2A rights. For example, we had a situation where someone pro-se appealed their conviction for possession of an NFA weapon in the 6th Circuit, and we're lucky the court there minimized the damage. The 8th Circuit with the Hollis Wayne Fincher case foreclosed any challenges to the 922(o) NFA registration situation.

Palmer will not be held forever, and we've on the cusp of quite a few victories happening soon with Sykes, Peruta, and Peterson. All we can do at this point is get these cases heard quickly and help it to where the dominoes start rolling.


Yes, I know pro se is a bad approach. That's why I didn't suggest it.


Every single criminal federal case since Heller and McDonald that raises the 2A has been a loss for the criminal. The only "win" on the criminal side is one magistrate judge who said that someone on bail pre-trial for a kiddie porn charge couldn't be summarily disarmed absent facts that showed he was violent. We're talking 30+ cases - all losses.

If you keep having this opinion you're going to have to read up on all the criminal losses.

-Gene


Yes, I've been reading these as they come. I am aware that CGF hasn't been a part of any of them.


We sound like impatient children here folks and it reflects more on us than the federal judiciary.

By my count there are now 5 publicly announced carry cases beyond Palmer in federal courts around the nation. What's funny here is that, by stalling, anti gun judges are letting the fair or pro-gun judges go first. I think that may be a brier patch I want to be thrown into...

Please think that through.

-Gene


THIS is the one that puts me back in my place. I presume that in the other cases the judges are actually going to make Rulings. Which would put judge Kennedy behind the curve (and in his place).


The Raisuli

hoffmang
10-04-2010, 5:02 PM
THIS is the one that puts me back in my place. I presume that in the other cases the judges are actually going to make Rulings. Which would put judge Kennedy behind the curve (and in his place).


Ding! Ding! Ding! :D

-Gene

hoffmang
10-08-2010, 7:45 PM
Interestingly, Judge Kennedy has been a little busy dealing (http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202473118039&src=EMC-Email&et=editorial&bu=National%20Law%20Journal&pt=NLJ.com%20-Legal%20Times%20Afternoon%20Update&cn=20101008lt&kw=In%20Gitmo%20Opinion%2C%20Two%20Versions%20of%2 0Reality) with some issues in a detainee case. He may honestly have been delayed by the mess.

-Gene

HowardW56
10-08-2010, 8:01 PM
Interestingly, Judge Kennedy has been a little busy dealing (http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202473118039&src=EMC-Email&et=editorial&bu=National%20Law%20Journal&pt=NLJ.com%20-Legal%20Times%20Afternoon%20Update&cn=20101008lt&kw=In%20Gitmo%20Opinion%2C%20Two%20Versions%20of%2 0Reality) with some issues in a detainee case. He may honestly have been delayed by the mess.

-Gene

I just read the article... I am amazed...

Who or how did someone get a District Court Judge to pull back an opinion and replace it...

Maybe District Court Judges aren't untouchable...

Roccobro
10-08-2010, 8:16 PM
Big brother. That's who.

Amazing read. Crap like out of a "1985" style novel. But real.

Justin

N6ATF
10-08-2010, 9:39 PM
If I were Kennedy, I'd hold whomever was delaying me from deciding other cases, in contempt.

Kharn
10-09-2010, 2:49 AM
I just read the article... I am amazed...
Who or how did someone get a District Court Judge to pull back an opinion and replace it...
Maybe District Court Judges aren't untouchable...Even a federal judge is not immune from the laws against distributing classified material.

Mulay El Raisuli
10-09-2010, 5:46 AM
Interestingly, Judge Kennedy has been a little busy dealing (http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202473118039&src=EMC-Email&et=editorial&bu=National%20Law%20Journal&pt=NLJ.com%20-Legal%20Times%20Afternoon%20Update&cn=20101008lt&kw=In%20Gitmo%20Opinion%2C%20Two%20Versions%20of%2 0Reality) with some issues in a detainee case. He may honestly have been delayed by the mess.

-Gene


WOW!


The Raisuli

Paladin
11-26-2010, 8:46 PM
:gene:

:banghead:

Liberty1
11-26-2010, 9:22 PM
Let Peruta be first out of the gate. That is fine with me.

hoffmang
11-26-2010, 10:04 PM
Let Peruta be first out of the gate. That is fine with me.

I think "stall" is going to back fire on those in the judiciary who are not our friends.

-Gene

yellowfin
11-27-2010, 2:19 AM
Once other decisions are rendered does that in any way compel them not to continue stalling indefinitely?

press1280
11-27-2010, 3:08 AM
I'm thinking he may drag out until Heller II is decided by the DC Circuit, possibly if a level of scrutiny will be decided. But the way it looks, he won't have much to go on if Heller wins because DC exceeded its authority under the Home Rule Act. I don't believe Palmer briefed about getting the carry law overturned because of the HRA.

yellowfin
11-27-2010, 3:36 AM
They may or may not do so upon appeal.

hoffmang
11-27-2010, 9:51 AM
Once other decisions are rendered does that in any way compel them not to continue stalling indefinitely?

No.

-Gene

dantodd
07-05-2011, 9:13 PM
Almost a year since last movement on this case. I sure hope Tom gets relief soon.

hoffmang
07-05-2011, 9:31 PM
It's gone beyond ludicrous. Likely means the judge knows Gura is right but refuses to be complicit in enforcing the Constitution...

-Gene

kcbrown
07-05-2011, 9:33 PM
It's gone beyond ludicrous. Likely means the judge knows Gura is right but refuses to be complicit in enforcing the Constitution...


Ahem.

I told you so.

:D


As with the internet, we'll just have to route around the damage...

hoffmang
07-05-2011, 9:36 PM
Heller II is also late - which is an at least plausible excuse in Palmer...

-Gene

kcbrown
07-05-2011, 9:42 PM
Heller II is also late - which is an at least plausible excuse in Palmer...


Plausible deniability is so overused in government these days! :D

krucam
09-14-2011, 2:24 PM
Last week, at least 4 of our cases (Palmer, Woollard, Moore, Sheppard) had Defendants filing notices of supplemental authority...that being the flaky NY District decision in Kachalsky. State AG's were tripping over themselves to get these filed.

Today, SAF/Gura appear to be reciprocating, at least in Palmer & Woollard.

http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.25.0.pdf

It is a good early read into what will be the Appeal to the 2nd Circuit. For example:
In Kachalsky, the Southern District of New York offered that the right to bear arms does not extend beyond the home, and rejected the definition of “bear” as meaning to “carry.” Kachalsky, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99837 at *70-*71;
contra District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 584 (2008) (“ [t]o ‘bear arms,’ as used in the Second Amendment, is to ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’”) (citation omitted); see also Heller, 554 U.S. at 604, 626 & 627 (“keep and carry arms.”).....

....Respectfully, this is no way to interpret the Constitution....

Immediately he brings up the NY District's contradiction of Heller. Fun & short read...

BlindRacer
09-14-2011, 3:12 PM
Last week, at least 4 of our cases (Palmer, Woollard, Moore, Sheppard) had Defendants filing notices of supplemental authority...that being the flaky NY District decision in Kachalsky. State AG's were tripping over themselves to get these filed.

Today, SAF/Gura appear to be reciprocating, at least in Palmer & Woollard.

http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.25.0.pdf

It is a good early read into what will be the Appeal to the 2nd Circuit. For example:


Immediately he brings up the NY District's contradiction of Heller. Fun & short read...

Wow. I am always so impressed with the clear and well backed up presentation of facts by Gura. How can you even try to counter that without looking like a complete fool.

Knuckle Dragger
09-14-2011, 3:59 PM
Wow. To call this the legal equivalence of a 'snappy comeback' would be an understatement.

Fyathyrio
09-14-2011, 4:14 PM
One of the better excerpts...
(“‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean --
neither more nor less’”) (quoting Through the Looking Glass, in THE COMPLETE WORKS OF LEWIS
CARROLL 196 (1939)

smn
09-14-2011, 5:41 PM
Worth the read, even if it was only five pages short.

safewaysecurity
09-14-2011, 5:51 PM
I think Gura trolls too much in his briefs and replies and don't think all the judges will appreciate it. Remember when he made the kind of serious/sarcastic comment about how the city of Chicago doesn't respect property rights and the other female judge got kind of mad at him because she took what he said seriously and didn't get it? It does make the reading much more fun and enjoyable.

HowardW56
09-14-2011, 6:45 PM
Wow. To call this the legal equivalence of a 'snappy comeback' would be an understatement.

:iagree:

hoffmang
09-14-2011, 8:44 PM
I think Gura trolls too much in his briefs and replies and don't think all the judges will appreciate it. Remember when he made the kind of serious/sarcastic comment about how the city of Chicago doesn't respect property rights and the other female judge got kind of mad at him because she took what he said seriously and didn't get it? It does make the reading much more fun and enjoyable.

However, his comment got him a paragraph about how Chicago couldn't use that approach to zoning as an alternate basis for a range ban.

-Gene

Mulay El Raisuli
09-15-2011, 5:11 AM
Wow. I am always so impressed with the clear and well backed up presentation of facts by Gura. How can you even try to counter that without looking like a complete fool.


So far, all that have tried have wound up looking like complete fools. :)


The Raisuli

HowardW56
03-07-2012, 8:36 AM
Is this case just dead, Palmer v. District of Columbia?

BlindRacer
03-07-2012, 8:39 AM
You got my hopes up that there was movement.

But yeah, where are we with this? Has anything changed since the last posts?

Crom
03-07-2012, 8:48 AM
We are waiting for the court to issue its opinion which could happen at any time.

For all future updates please use this thread:

(http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=457017&page=6) DC v. Palmer (DC Carry) Update (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=457017&page=6)

m03
03-07-2012, 8:52 AM
We are waiting for the court to issue its opinion which could happen at any time.

For all future updates please use this thread:

(http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=6798371#post6798371) DC v. Palmer (DC Carry) Update (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=6798371#post6798371)

Here's a link to the most recent page of that thread, instead of just a single post:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=457017&page=6