PDA

View Full Version : DC v. Palmer (DC Carry) Update


Pages : [1] 2

hoffmang
07-19-2011, 12:39 AM
A long time ago, in a land far, far away, Alan Gura, Tom Palmer, SAF and friends filed a complaint against DC about their complete ban on carrying a firearm. Specifically they filed on August 6, 2009, which is only a couple of months after we all filed the Sykes, now Richards complaint with them. Cross motions for summary judgement were filed in September of 2009 and oral argument on those motions in front of Judge Henry Kennedy took place in January of 2010.

18 months later... This morning the Chief Justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Roberts) of the US Supreme Court reassigned (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.20.0.pdf) Palmer v. DC (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.docket.html) to Senior Judge Frederick Scullin who is sitting in DC by designation from the 2nd Circuit District Court in New York. The next step is a chambers hearing July 22. Also today, Palmer et. al. filed a notice of supplemental authority (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.21.0.pdf) based on Ezell.

-Gene

safewaysecurity
07-19-2011, 12:45 AM
wait.... John Roberts got to personally pick a judge to make a decision on Palmer? YES!!!! lol. Also the supplemental authority ezell thing only helps even more :)

wildhawker
07-19-2011, 12:50 AM
<reserving this post until kcbrown gets here>

-Brandon

Paladin
07-19-2011, 12:52 AM
Now I can go to sleep w/a BIG :D on my face!

safewaysecurity
07-19-2011, 12:59 AM
Oh also how long is it going to take now? Are we going to have to go through oral arguments and the whole shebang again for the new judge or what?

bulgron
07-19-2011, 1:00 AM
So is that a slap in the face when the Chief Justice takes a case away from you, or is it instead a non-judgemental reflection of the workload of an over-burdened judge?

VegasND
07-19-2011, 1:01 AM
Can we become anxious to see a ruling or will this turn into another thread of 'two weeks' jokes?

wildhawker
07-19-2011, 1:05 AM
Can we become anxious to see a ruling or will this turn into another thread of 'two weeks' jokes?

Two what?

2009_gunner
07-19-2011, 1:24 AM
Amazing that it took the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS to do this. Ordinarily wouldn't this be handled by the Chief of the District Court?

So happy that Roberts is paying personal attention.

kcbrown
07-19-2011, 1:33 AM
It's about time!

Looks like my skepticism about the judicial system as regards the possibility of judges just sitting on cases indefinitely may have been misplaced by at least a bit. So to whatever degree the system works better than I expected, I have to eat crow. :D

Maybe this gives us some indication as to an upper bound on how long a given case can languish in front of a stubborn anti-gun judge (18 months! :eek:).


What I wonder, now, is where this particular case fits into the rest of the strategy, given the fact that it sat for much longer than we anticipated it would.


Note, too, that since it's been assigned to a new judge, I would think there's the possibility of additional oral arguments, since the new judge wasn't there during the original arguments and thus didn't get a chance to ask the questions he would have asked or make comments he would have made.

nicki
07-19-2011, 3:56 AM
Just from what Gene wrote, it would appear that the US Supreme court is looking at the lower courts and how they are proceeding with 2nd amendment cases.

The fact that the Chief Justice stepped in and pulled a case that had been in "limbo" for 18 months shows that maybe Justice Roberts believes that "justice delayed" is "justice denied".

The issue is how long will the new judge drag things out. Hopefully the new judge will realize he got the case because the prior judge took way too long to rule on the Palmer Case.

Hopefully this is going to send a message through the whole federal judicary about playing stalling games on 2nd amendment cases.

Perhaps this is a preview to the lower courts that the right to "bear arms" is on the SCOTUS radar.

Nicki

yellowfin
07-19-2011, 4:54 AM
It's about time!

Looks like my skepticism about the judicial system as regards the possibility of judges just sitting on cases indefinitely may have been misplaced by at least a bit. On the contrary, I'd say it means Justice Roberts agrees with your skepticism, so much so he did something about it.

Mulay El Raisuli
07-19-2011, 5:03 AM
Happy, happy. Joy, joy.


The Raisuli

HowardW56
07-19-2011, 5:21 AM
A long time ago, in a land far, far away, Alan Gura, Tom Palmer, SAF and friends filed a complaint against DC about their complete ban on carrying a firearm. Specifically they filed on August 6, 2009, which is only a couple of months after we all filed the Sykes, now Richards complaint with them. Cross motions for summary judgement were filed in September of 2009 and oral argument on those motions in front of Judge Henry Kennedy took place in January of 2010.

18 months later... This morning the Chief Justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Roberts) of the US Supreme Court reassigned (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.20.0.pdf) Palmer v. DC (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.docket.html) to Senior Judge Frederick Scullin who is sitting in DC by designation from the 2nd Circuit District Court in New York. The next step is a chambers hearing July 22. Also today, Palmer et. al. filed a notice of supplemental authority (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.21.0.pdf) based on Ezell.

-Gene

Wow....

An added note... Judge Scullin was nominated by George H. W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush) and sat on the FISA court....

yellowfin
07-19-2011, 5:26 AM
Wow....

An added note... Judge Scullin was nominated by George H. W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush)Unfortunately so was David Souter. :mad:

OleCuss
07-19-2011, 5:36 AM
I'm not sure how much "pick and choose" there really is in such cases. And for all I know, Kennedy might have rendered a better decision.

But what I really like is that Ezell is being cited as an additional authority. To me that is quite important.

ptoguy2002
07-19-2011, 5:50 AM
Maybe this will light a fire under the judge for Nordyke?

putput
07-19-2011, 6:24 AM
It's Alive!

http://www.kevincharnas.com/uploaded_images/victor-frankenstein-781696.jpg

OleCuss
07-19-2011, 6:26 AM
Maybe this will light a fire under the judge for Nordyke?

Maybe I'm not up-to-date on Nordyke, but I think we're at the stage where we have a Nordyke decision and the Nordykes are asking for a re-hearing by the 3 judge panel or for an en banc hearing.

Once that is decided it may go back to a lower court or have further work at the circuit level. Wouldn't surprise me if the Nordykes dropped their current request and went for a SCOTUS appeal in the very near future using Ezell as one of the authorities.

Crom
07-19-2011, 6:50 AM
It will be great to finally get this case moving.

Andy Taylor
07-19-2011, 7:02 AM
Glad to see some movement. :D

Purple K
07-19-2011, 7:13 AM
Cheers!

Liberty1
07-19-2011, 7:16 AM
:gura::gunsmilie::red_indian::cowboy::26::party:

Patrick-2
07-19-2011, 7:27 AM
Great news. Thanks for the info, Gene.

Were other gun cases also reassigned? Kachalsky?

EDIT:

Answer: No. The cases reassigned to the judge are from all over the map of the eastern USA. This is apparently the only 2A-related case.

"Senior Judge" means "retired judge who takes on cases from time to time", though ten cases is pretty deep for a part-time job. Having him pick up cases from multiple circuits is unusual and must speak to the backlog in the federal court system.

Maestro Pistolero
07-19-2011, 7:38 AM
So to whatever degree the system works better than I expected, I have to eat crow.
At least we know there's a remedy for chronic procrastination.

Pat Riot
07-19-2011, 7:44 AM
Any chance SCOTUS did this because of Williams, for some tactical reason?

Connor P Price
07-19-2011, 7:49 AM
Its just a matter of time now.

Liberty1
07-19-2011, 7:50 AM
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Scullin

Judge Scullin, Colonel US Army Reserve, Ret. http://www.nynd.uscourts.gov/bios/fjs.htm

http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/nGetInfo?jid=2133&cid=999&ctype=na&instate=na

yellowfin
07-19-2011, 7:51 AM
I wonder if Justice Roberts and/or his staff read this site or MDShooters or NYShooters.

Paladin
07-19-2011, 8:00 AM
This morning the Chief Justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Roberts) of the US Supreme Court reassigned (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.20.0.pdf) Palmer v. DC (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.docket.html) to Senior Judge Frederick Scullin who is sitting in DC by designation from the 2nd Circuit District Court in New York. The next step is a chambers hearing July 22. Also today, Palmer et. al. filed a notice of supplemental authority (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.21.0.pdf) based on Ezell.Am I correct in assuming the holding in Ezell should persuade Scullin that Palmer should go to "the top of the pile" of the 10 cases he has been assigned and be "fast tracked"? I assume this will be discussed during the chamber conference this Friday.

When will any "results" of the chamber conference be public?

Untamed1972
07-19-2011, 8:05 AM
Maybe with the flood of 2A/carry cases being filed and SCOTUS knowing they're gonna be looking for cert.....some having already applied, they wanted to get that case moving since it was the or one of the first to be filed.....not to mention....perhaps like Heller, with DC being a federal enclave it makes the case easier to decide and then apply to the states the via McDonald.

Patrick-2
07-19-2011, 8:10 AM
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Scullin

Judge Scullin, Colonel US Army Reserve, Ret. http://www.nynd.uscourts.gov/bios/fjs.htm

http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/nGetInfo?jid=2133&cid=999&ctype=na&instate=na

Army Ranger.

As for schedule, Gura all but threatened to file a Preliminary Injunction in the last paragraph of his Ezell Supplemental Authority Brief:

Plaintiffs here have not filed for a preliminary injunction, in part because the lack of factual disputes, and the discrete nature of the legal issues, rendered this case especially suitable for resolution by cross-dispositive motions. Indeed, the parties, and the Court, have proceeded on that basis. Nonetheless, the Seventh Circuit’s decision underscores the urgency of granting Plaintiffs relief.

I guess we'll know more about schedule after Friday. But I say go for the PI. Enough already.

Southwest Chuck
07-19-2011, 8:22 AM
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Scullin

Judge Scullin, Colonel US Army Reserve, Ret. http://www.nynd.uscourts.gov/bios/fjs.htm

http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/nGetInfo?jid=2133&cid=999&ctype=na&instate=na

I like this quote from your second link....

Judge Scullin supervised numerous investigations and prosecutions in drug trafficking, organized crime, and -- most notably-- public corruption.

:D

Liberty1
07-19-2011, 8:23 AM
Army Ranger...

Take Liberty Hill, Ranger, and hold her until relieved! :gnorsi:

yellowfin
07-19-2011, 8:23 AM
As for schedule, Gura all but threatened to file a Preliminary Injunction in the last paragraph of his Ezell Supplemental Authority Brief:
I guess we'll know more about schedule after Friday. But I say go for the PI. Enough already.In that case, the PI if granted would (as it should) instantly change a DC handgun purchase and home possession license into a DC carry license with no further process required, correct?

Southwest Chuck
07-19-2011, 8:46 AM
I'm wondering if this was done due to Ezell in part, i.e. to forestall a PI motion from Gura and have the case decided on it's merits?

bulgron
07-19-2011, 8:51 AM
The guy has been handed 10 cases to do. If he doesn't like the 2A, he could easily decide that Palmer will be the 10th case that he works on.

On the one hand, he was an Army Ranger and ex-military are often pro-gun. On the other hand, he was an officer, and officers sometimes think "the grunts" shouldn't be running around with guns outside of combat zones. He was also a prosecutor, and those guys have a way of painting the entire population in the same negative light as the criminals they pursue.

I'm am guardedly optimistic, but I'm not getting excited until I see forward progress on this case, as well as some evidence that this judge is actually on our side. I'd like to HOPE for him to be at least 2A neutral, but I'm discovering the federal judiciary tends not to be 2A neutral....

Maestro Pistolero
07-19-2011, 8:55 AM
The guy has been handed 10 cases to do. If he doesn't like the 2A, he could easily decide that Palmer will be the 10th case that he works on.

On the one hand, he was an Army Ranger and ex-military are often pro-gun. On the other hand, he was an officer, and officers sometimes think "the grunts" shouldn't be running around with guns outside of combat zones. He was also a prosecutor, and those guys have a way of painting the entire population in the same negative light as the criminals they pursue.

I'm am guardedly optimistic, but I'm not getting excited until I see forward progress on this case, as well as some evidence that this judge is actually on our side. I'd like to HOPE for him to be at least 2A neutral, but I'm discovering the federal judiciary tends not to be 2A neutral....
Just remember who it was that decided to re-assign this case to Judge Scullin. Roberts is on our side.

tiki
07-19-2011, 9:14 AM
The guy has been handed 10 cases to do. If he doesn't like the 2A, he could easily decide that Palmer will be the 10th case that he works on.

On the one hand, he was an Army Ranger and ex-military are often pro-gun. On the other hand, he was an officer, and officers sometimes think "the grunts" shouldn't be running around with guns outside of combat zones. He was also a prosecutor, and those guys have a way of painting the entire population in the same negative light as the criminals they pursue.

I'm am guardedly optimistic, but I'm not getting excited until I see forward progress on this case, as well as some evidence that this judge is actually on our side. I'd like to HOPE for him to be at least 2A neutral, but I'm discovering the federal judiciary tends not to be 2A neutral....

And he's from New York.

Big Ben
07-19-2011, 9:31 AM
Great news.

And to the first 10 or 12 folks that posted ... don't you ever sleep?

wildhawker
07-19-2011, 9:37 AM
Great news.

And to the first 10 or 12 folks that posted ... don't you ever sleep?

Rarely.

Patrick-2
07-19-2011, 9:40 AM
On the one hand, he was an Army Ranger and ex-military are often pro-gun. On the other hand, he was an officer, and officers sometimes think "the grunts" shouldn't be running around with guns outside of combat zones. ...

You forgot rule #1 of the NCO corps: Never give a junior lieutenant a gun. Ever.

Or a map.

OleCuss
07-19-2011, 9:47 AM
You forgot rule #1 of the NCO corps: Never give a junior lieutenant a gun. Ever.

Or a map.

:D

Made me laugh.

glbtrottr
07-19-2011, 9:53 AM
"Frazier sued the Oneida Nation in February 2002, claiming the tribe used his picture without permission to promote a boxing match at its Turning Stone Casino between his daughter, Jacqui Frazier-Lyde, and the daughter of Muhammad Ali."

"Onondaga County sheriff’s deputies violated a Cicero woman’s civil rights seven years ago when they kicked in her front door and arrested her on a misdemeanor charge, a federal judge has ruled."

In March, U.S. District Judge Frederick Scullin concluded that the upstate New York Indian tribe was immune from the lawsuit because of its sovereign status."

"Judge Scullin dismissed a lawsuit against the Carousel Center of Syracuse. JCPenney sued the Syracuse Area mall for breach of contract over a planned expansion of the mall. The judge found that the consent provision in their lease to allow for expansions does not indicate the illegal use of eminent domain that the retailer alleged. "

"About 65 Native Americans can proceed with their brutality and free-speech lawsuit against state troopers over the officers' breaking up of a protest along Interstate 81 eight years ago, a federal judge has ruled.

U.S. District Judge Frederick Scullin said in a decision this week there were enough questions of fact for a jury to decide the protesters' claims that the troopers used excessive force and violated the protesters' First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and assembly.

Scullin dismissed claims against the Onondaga County Sheriff's Office. The protesters said in the lawsuit that sheriff's deputies conspired with troopers to violate the protesters' civil rights.

In their lawsuit against 116 state police officials, the protesters say the force police used to break up the demonstration in May 1997 in the Onondaga Nation was excessive. About a dozen of the protesters say the police used excessive force. The other plaintiffs contend the officers violated their right to free speech and assembly."

"The Alexander firm is cross-appealing another part of the decision by U.S. District Judge Frederick Scullin, who upheld a restriction in the new rules that puts a moratorium on solicitations of accident victims for 30 days following the accident."

"The lawsuit filed against President Clinton, the Department of Defense and Congress for their part in the bombing of Yugoslavia was thrown out of northern New York State's U.S. District Court after Judge Frederick Scullin decided the plaintiffs lacked standing."

"A federal judge dismissed a race discrimination lawsuit brought by nine Chinese and African Americans who claimed they were thrown out of a Dennys restaurant and beaten by white customers while security guards
watched. U.S. District Judge Frederick Scullin said the former students failed to show they were denied seating or security services in dismissing the 1997 lawsuit."

Mute
07-19-2011, 10:21 AM
Good to hear. My faith in the courts have been slightly renewed.

ALSystems
07-19-2011, 10:41 AM
Good to hear. My faith in the courts have been slightly renewed.
Mine too. I previously guessed that this case would forever be in limbo and never be decided.

BlindRacer
07-19-2011, 12:06 PM
I don't think it matters all that much which judge this case went to. Ultimately, it, or a similar case, will end up at the SCOTUS, so it doesn't really matter which way it's decided right now. Obviously it would be better to go our way initially, and make DC fight harder, but in the end, it will probably end up at the same place. It just needed to get moving again to get there.

nick
07-19-2011, 1:04 PM
You forgot rule #1 of the NCO corps: Never give a junior lieutenant a gun. Ever.

Or a map.

Or a good idea :p

GaryV
07-19-2011, 2:22 PM
I don't think it matters all that much which judge this case went to. Ultimately, it, or a similar case, will end up at the SCOTUS, so it doesn't really matter which way it's decided right now. Obviously it would be better to go our way initially, and make DC fight harder, but in the end, it will probably end up at the same place. It just needed to get moving again to get there.

I think it does matter to some extent. Even though it will go to SCOTUS, ideally they would receive it as an appeal against a very strong and well-reasoned decision in our favor, or as an appeal against a very poorly reasoned and weak decision in DC's favor. So we either want it decided by a very eloquent and insightful pro-2A judge, or an anti-2A judge who hasn't bothered to do their homework very well and makes a decision based on poor legal reasoning. Even though SCOTUS gets to use their own logic, it helps if the court below sets it up for them.

Rivers
07-19-2011, 3:57 PM
It could be appealed to SCOTUS but that doesn't mean SCOTUS has to hear it. It depends upon why the decision is appealed. If the reasons aren't compelling, SCOTUS could simply decline to hear it and let the lower court's ruling stand.

BlindRacer
07-19-2011, 4:33 PM
It could be appealed to SCOTUS but that doesn't mean SCOTUS has to hear it. It depends upon why the decision is appealed. If the reasons aren't compelling, SCOTUS could simply decline to hear it and let the lower court's ruling stand.

True, but seeing as how there are so many carry cases around the country looking for guidance, at least one of them has got to make it, or there's going to be contradicting decisions everywhere. And with Palmer getting a push start by the SCOTUS, it makes it more likely that this may be the case. My 2 cents anyways.

dantodd
07-19-2011, 4:34 PM
It could be appealed to SCOTUS but that doesn't mean SCOTUS has to hear it. It depends upon why the decision is appealed. If the reasons aren't compelling, SCOTUS could simply decline to hear it and let the lower court's ruling stand.

But a circuit court ruling is only binding on the circuit in question. I think the court can (though rarely does) grant cert and affirm the decision all at once essentially accepting the lower courts opinion. (the opposite of a "Grant, Vacate, Remand" order.)

mdimeo
07-19-2011, 4:43 PM
True, but seeing as how there are so many carry cases around the country looking for guidance, at least one of them has got to make it, or there's going to be contradicting decisions everywhere.

It's entirely possible that no circuit court holds for a right to carry in public, and SCOTUS doesn't have to take any case it doesn't want to (for the most part). SCOTUS sat on a individual-vs.-collective-right 2A split for decades.

Not what I think will happen, but it's quite possible.

hoffmang
07-19-2011, 9:04 PM
I wonder if Justice Roberts and/or his staff read this site or MDShooters or NYShooters.
No. The only way procedurally for this to happen is for the Chief of the DC District Court to ask their SCOTUS court head to assign in a judge from a different district. This should be read as the DC Circuit chief seeing that there are a bunch of cases not moving that should have been moved from a document management point of view.
Am I correct in assuming the holding in Ezell should persuade Scullin that Palmer should go to "the top of the pile" of the 10 cases he has been assigned and be "fast tracked"? I assume this will be discussed during the chamber conference this Friday.
The Ezell holding that a violation of the 2A is irreparable harm should generally underscore that time is of the essence.
Just remember who it was that decided to re-assign this case to Judge Scullin. Roberts is on our side.
Purely a functional role. You can't read much into that part. More can be read that the DC Circuit felt that it was unfair that these 10 cases were languishing. This is the remedy that many had been asking about for cases like this.
It's entirely possible that no circuit court holds for a right to carry in public, and SCOTUS doesn't have to take any case it doesn't want to (for the most part). SCOTUS sat on a individual-vs.-collective-right 2A split for decades.

Possible but improbable.

-Gene

kcbrown
07-19-2011, 9:12 PM
Purely a functional role. You can't read much into that part. More can be read that the DC Circuit felt that it was unfair that these 10 cases were languishing. This is the remedy that many had been asking about for cases like this.


And if the DC circuit hadn't felt that cases languishing like that was unfair? What then?

Connor P Price
07-19-2011, 9:14 PM
It's entirely possible that no circuit court holds for a right to carry in public, and SCOTUS doesn't have to take any case it doesn't want to (for the most part). SCOTUS sat on a individual-vs.-collective-right 2A split for decades.

Not what I think will happen, but it's quite possible.

This issue is much hotter now than before. I don't believe they are nearly as likely to delay this now as they were in the past.

Gray Peterson
07-19-2011, 9:31 PM
And if the DC circuit hadn't felt that cases languishing like that was unfair? What then?

Then we go around them with the numerous carry cases nationwide in the other rocket dockets, like the 4th and the 10th Circuits.

Connor P Price
07-19-2011, 9:36 PM
Then we go around them with the numerous carry cases nationwide in the other rocket dockets, like the 4th and the 10th Circuits.

But what do you know about that? :p

Anchors
07-19-2011, 9:40 PM
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Scullin

Judge Scullin, Colonel US Army Reserve, Ret. http://www.nynd.uscourts.gov/bios/fjs.htm

http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/nGetInfo?jid=2133&cid=999&ctype=na&instate=na

Not only that. He served active duty with the 173rd Airborne in Vietnam.
He was on the ground fighting...

I know that isn't a solid gold indication, but if he respects the Second Amendment and he fought in Vietnam, he will no doubt respect the power of an armed populace (some speculate that part of the difficulty we had in Vietnam was a large and unexpected armed citizenry loyal to the North).

Connor P Price
07-19-2011, 9:47 PM
Not only that. He served active duty with the 173rd Airborne in Vietnam.
He was on the ground fighting...

I know that isn't a solid gold indication, but if he respects the Second Amendment and he fought in Vietnam, he will no doubt respect the power of an armed populace (some speculate that part of the difficulty we had in Vietnam was a large and unexpected armed citizenry loyal to the North).

Interesting perspective. I know a few Vietnam vets, all of whom are incredibly liberal on everything I've ever spoken with them about, but all with the same exception. They all seem to respect the 2A.

kcbrown
07-19-2011, 9:56 PM
Then we go around them with the numerous carry cases nationwide in the other rocket dockets, like the 4th and the 10th Circuits.

My point is that the remedy Gene mentioned is contingent upon the court in question behaving properly.

But a properly behaving court is not the type of court that needs any sort of remedy except in overload situations (or situations involving a rogue judge).

nick
07-19-2011, 10:07 PM
Not only that. He served active duty with the 173rd Airborne in Vietnam.
He was on the ground fighting...

I know that isn't a solid gold indication, but if he respects the Second Amendment and he fought in Vietnam, he will no doubt respect the power of an armed populace (some speculate that part of the difficulty we had in Vietnam was a large and unexpected armed citizenry loyal to the North).

John Kerry was on the ground in Vietnam. Doesn't mean squat, he's still a douche.

hoffmang
07-19-2011, 10:39 PM
My point is that the remedy Gene mentioned is contingent upon the court in question behaving properly.

But a properly behaving court is not the type of court that needs any sort of remedy except in overload situations (or situations involving a rogue judge).

Yet they actually behaved properly, so your question is the purest conjecture.

-Gene

Maestro Pistolero
07-19-2011, 10:57 PM
General Petraeus has seen as much action as anybody, yet he thinks we should re-instate the AWB. Just saying.

kcbrown
07-19-2011, 11:07 PM
Yet they actually behaved properly, so your question is the purest conjecture.


Indeed it is, but fortunately there are remedies even in the event the scenario that was in my mind played out (namely, the Chief Justice of SCOTUS can deal with the issue directly in the event the lower courts refuse to, petitions can be made to bring the issue to his attention, etc.).

hoffmang
07-19-2011, 11:11 PM
Indeed it is, but fortunately there are remedies even in the event the scenario that was in my mind played out (namely, the Chief Justice of SCOTUS can deal with the issue directly in the event the lower courts refuse to, petitions can be made to bring the issue to his attention, etc.).

And what if Newton's Second Law is incorrect?

-Gene

resident-shooter
07-19-2011, 11:19 PM
THIS NICE !!!!

kcbrown
07-19-2011, 11:37 PM
And what if Newton's Second Law is incorrect?


Laws of man are quite a bit more arbitrary than the laws of physics. But strictly speaking, certain formulations of Newton's Second Law are incorrect. They just happen to be good approximations of reality in most situations we deal with.

As for the system "working" here, remember that it took a year and a half for this to be dealt with. A year and a half is quite a long time for justice to be delayed, and certainly qualifies as denial of justice by any reasonable metric. If this is an example of the system "working" then methinks it can work better.

Nevertheless, I'll take what I can get. :D

hoffmang
07-20-2011, 12:25 AM
If this is an example of the system "working" then methinks it can work better.

Nevertheless, I'll take what I can get. :D

And Einstein didn't like quantum. I'm subtly attempting to point out to you the edges of the system and how we tend to not end up there. Beyond... lies dragons - to steal an old and appropriate line.

-Gene

kcbrown
07-20-2011, 1:39 AM
And Einstein didn't like quantum. I'm subtly attempting to point out to you the edges of the system and how we tend to not end up there. Beyond... lies dragons - to steal an old and appropriate line.


No doubt. But this system is nothing like the system we know as the "universe". This system we're talking about here is, in comparison, utterly frail and unreliable.

This system functions only because its participants want it to. We tend to not end up at its edges only when those whose responsibilities are to keep us from those edges do what the system intends of them. And in that role, those people exercise choice. And choice means uncertainty.

The system we know as the United States is just as unreliable. What we have today before us is nothing like what that system's creators intended or envisioned. We wouldn't even be here, fighting this fight, if that weren't the case. The creators of the system put in safeguards and checks, but many of those have failed entirely. The abuse of the Commerce Clause is but one striking example of that.



We are very fortunate that Justice Roberts is on our side on this.

Patrick-2
07-20-2011, 5:20 AM
I would not say the Chief Justice picked sides on this. He reassigned some cases to a part-time retired judge because the a Federal District was slammed. It's just his job.

Did he 'pick' a judge to go a certain way? I doubt it. More likely this judge was the one most available and willing to temporarily end his retirement and ruin his summer of golf. The judge lives in Syracuse. I know Syracuse. I told the joke elsewhere - the four season up there are Winter, June, July and August. This judge is throwing the two best 'seasons' right out the door by going back to work full-time. Selecting a judge from another district is somewhat unusual, but again I think this speaks more to schedule than politics. The federal system has been slammed for years, and Justice Roberts has been actively lobbying Congress for more judges.

I am glad the case will start moving again.

I don't put much stock in his military background influencing his opinions. I won't retell other jokes. But veteran's status is a poor indicator of political leanings on anything but military matters. And even then, it is not the strongest indicator.

We could go reading more of his opinions in depth. But right now, it is not even the primary case to watch. It ranks maybe #5-6 on the list. At least that is up from #10.

OleCuss
07-20-2011, 5:48 AM
I'm with Patrick-2 on this.

I'd actually consider it a slam on Roberts if he were assigning cases to judges because he thought he'd get a specific ruling. Assigning because a judge is competent and fair would be a good reason for assigning the case to him. Assigning a case because the judge is considered biased toward one outcome would seem to me to be unethical.

But I'd go back to what might be the real reason for the reassignment of the case. It would not surprise me if Ezell somehow figured into the decision to reassign a case which suddenly had a new authority to cite. So by reassigning the case you reduce the burden on Kennedy and get the re-hearing which will allow the proper consideration of the decision in Ezell insofar as it relates to Palmer.

I consider this reassignment to be a very smart administrative move which furthers justice by relieving the burden of one judge and allowing the consideration of all relevant authorities.

But a quick comment on philosophical leanings in the military? In the combat arms by far the majority of the military is unrepentantly conservative/libertarian. Not quite that conservative amongst the REMFs.

yellowfin
07-20-2011, 6:31 AM
Unfortunately in today's judiciary, choosing a judge based on whether they're fair and competent IS a determination at least somewhat of what side the ruling will go. With 2nd Amendment issues there has clearly been demonstrated one side ruling one way because they're honest and the opposite because they're not. You simply cannot say that ruling against what is plainly obvious and just is done in an unbiased, honest, and ethical manner indicative of such of the character and disposition of the judge. "Restraint" and "deference" is a convenient cop out when faced with plain truth that doesn't require convoluted doublespeak, dodging issues, twisting and distorting truth, playing dumb, and outright lying to reach--"two honest people can disagree" doesn't apply when one of the two isn't being facially or intellectually honest.

kcbrown
07-20-2011, 12:08 PM
I would not say the Chief Justice picked sides on this. He reassigned some cases to a part-time retired judge because the a Federal District was slammed. It's just his job.


Yes. And that is why we are fortunate. As yellowfin pointed out, being fair, honest, and impartial is being on our side.

But more to the point, do you think someone like Sotomayor, whose integrity is clearly lacking, would have done their job? Only if it suited their purpose.

Southwest Chuck
07-20-2011, 1:23 PM
Yes. And that is why we are fortunate. As yellowfin pointed out, being fair, honest, and impartial is being on our side.

But more to the point, do you think someone like Sotomayor, whose integrity is clearly lacking, would have done their job? Only if it suited their purpose.

Now THAT is a really good question. Would an ideologically opposed Justice intercede, as Chief Justice Roberts did, in the same instant case were they in the same position?

It's off topic here, and I don't want to derail the thread, but it IS something we all need to think about and is why it is so important in considering future SC nominees and thus, the President that nominates them.

Nice catch, KCB. :thumbsup:

Patrick-2
07-20-2011, 1:34 PM
This was not an intercession by the Chief Justice. This is his job. When the chief of a district cries "Uncle" and says they are overloaded, someone steps in. When it bridges multiple circuits, the Chief Justice is the person to do it.

If there were enough judges in the DC system, Palmer would have probably been assigned to another DC judge by the chief of the District because he is landlord of the DC district. But they do not have enough in DC, so they needed the landlord of the nation to find someone.

And the way this normally works, it is the DC District chief who picks the cases that are languishing. Kennedy has a reputation for taking his time, even when he doesn't have the issues he has last year with DoJ.

Could Roberts have selected this case? Sure. But I doubt it. He just found a judge willing to take on the load passed up to him, and then dumped them all on that judge.

Don't read too much into this, other than "we're moving again."

Southwest Chuck
07-20-2011, 2:07 PM
This was not an intercession by the Chief Justice. This is his job. When the chief of a district cries "Uncle" and says they are overloaded, someone steps in. When it bridges multiple circuits, the Chief Justice is the person to do it.

If there were enough judges in the DC system, Palmer would have probably been assigned to another DC judge by the chief of the District because he is landlord of the DC district. But they do not have enough in DC, so they needed the landlord of the nation to find someone.

And the way this normally works, it is the DC District chief who picks the cases that are languishing. Kennedy has a reputation for taking his time, even when he doesn't have the issues he has last year with DoJ.

Could Roberts have selected this case? Sure. But I doubt it. He just found a judge willing to take on the load passed up to him, and then dumped them all on that judge.

Don't read too much into this, other than "we're moving again."

OK, keep in mind my intials haven't changed to KCB, :p ,

But again, the question begs, would/could and ideologically opposed Justice (who's job it is), stall? (i.e. "still" looking for an "appropriate" judicial candidate, to help with the caseload?) ; and, do it without looking like they are stalling? I know it's outside possibility :TFH:, but a possibility, still, especially given the subject matter (even though other cases elsewhere would still move along....).

My point is, even though it (the request for help from the DC to SCOTUS)) has been acted upon by Roberts, I'm wondering "when" the Chief Judge of the District "ask for relief? If was recent, it tells me he may have sat on it a good while before it became necessary for him to act (make a request) before the responsibility (blame) landed on his shoulders.

Maybe I need to adjust my tin hat today....it might be getting a little tight..:p

krucam
07-20-2011, 3:14 PM
Today, defendants (DC) filed their RESPONSE (http://ia700408.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.23.0.pdf)to the Ezell Supplemental Authority filing of Monday.

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY

Defendants the District of Columbia and Chief Cathy Lanier (collectively “the District”), by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully submit this brief Response to Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Authority, filed July 18, 2011, regarding a recent decision by the Seventh Circuit, Ezell v. Chicago, ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 2623511 (7th Cir. July 6, 2011).1

The District is unsure why plaintiffs alert the Court to Ezell, as that decision is only marginally relevant here, if at all. Indeed, most of the topics on the list provided by plaintiffs here are simply irrelevant in this current litigation...

Sounds like they were a little annoyed. Probably had to do with filing something for the first time in 18 months...probably explains the 3 page brevity as well.

EDIT: Doesn't it feel great talking about Palmer again?

Southwest Chuck
07-20-2011, 4:01 PM
"It's not true, your Honor, Ezell doesn't have anything to do with this case. Just trust us on this, OK?":sweatdrop:


:rofl2:

yellowfin
07-20-2011, 4:56 PM
Doesn't it feel great talking about Palmer again?We've been talking about it the whole time, just the last year being a lot of repetitive "WTF is the problem?!" , "Be patient, <insert excuse here>" , "Wheels of justice turn slow <or other lame platitude>", "We're waiting on <insert other case>" ... Ad nauseum.

It feels good not having to hate the solution almost as much as the problem and having the creeping suspicion that the fix is in already.

press1280
07-20-2011, 5:46 PM
More "only in the home" nonsense. At least we're moving again.

navyinrwanda
07-20-2011, 7:03 PM
This was not an intercession by the Chief Justice. This is his job. When the chief of a district cries "Uncle" and says they are overloaded, someone steps in. When it bridges multiple circuits, the Chief Justice is the person to do it.

If there were enough judges in the DC system, Palmer would have probably been assigned to another DC judge by the chief of the District because he is landlord of the DC district. But they do not have enough in DC, so they needed the landlord of the nation to find someone.

And the way this normally works, it is the DC District chief who picks the cases that are languishing. Kennedy has a reputation for taking his time, even when he doesn't have the issues he has last year with DoJ.

Could Roberts have selected this case? Sure. But I doubt it. He just found a judge willing to take on the load passed up to him, and then dumped them all on that judge.

Don't read too much into this, other than "we're moving again."
More to this point, the Chief Judge of the D.C. circuit, David Sentelle, was responsible for initiating this reassignment and for selecting these cases (see the reassignment (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.20.0.pdf) order, which begins "The Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit has certified that there is a necessity for the designation and assignment of a judge from another circuit or another court to perform judicial activities..."). Also, less than half of the ten cases reassigned were taken from Judge Kennedy.

28 U.S.C. 294(d) vests final authority to make these reassignments with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. But his involvement is essentially pro forma (other than recruiting judges from outside of a circuit).

hoffmang
07-20-2011, 9:41 PM
Don't read too much into this, other than "we're moving again."

I want to echo the statement above and Patrick's general admonitions here. I do only wish to add to make it clear - "we're moving again, and this is what happens when things take too long, the Chief Judge of the District surveys the dockets and moves along the late cases."

-Gene

Anchors
07-20-2011, 11:22 PM
John Kerry was on the ground in Vietnam. Doesn't mean squat, he's still a douche.

Good point. He was technically on the water, but in Vietnam's tight waterways with swift boats that might as well be on the ground lol.

Mulay El Raisuli
07-21-2011, 6:33 AM
This was not an intercession by the Chief Justice. This is his job. When the chief of a district cries "Uncle" and says they are overloaded, someone steps in. When it bridges multiple circuits, the Chief Justice is the person to do it.

If there were enough judges in the DC system, Palmer would have probably been assigned to another DC judge by the chief of the District because he is landlord of the DC district. But they do not have enough in DC, so they needed the landlord of the nation to find someone.

And the way this normally works, it is the DC District chief who picks the cases that are languishing. Kennedy has a reputation for taking his time, even when he doesn't have the issues he has last year with DoJ.

Could Roberts have selected this case? Sure. But I doubt it. He just found a judge willing to take on the load passed up to him, and then dumped them all on that judge.

Don't read too much into this, other than "we're moving again."


Still, just "moving again" would be cause enough for happy, happy & joy, joy to rule the day.

But, since Roberts added the bit about Ezell, I think he's doing just a touch more than just kick-starting things. DC is being deliberately obtuse. The point in Ezell is that the legal landscape has changed. The 2nd really applies. I guess Lanier et al want their heads handed to them again. I think Roberts is subtly suggesting that he (Roberts) is OK with that & maybe even expecting it.


The Raisuli

Maestro Pistolero
07-21-2011, 9:21 AM
When DC gets 'carry', I would like to see a massive education/training program offered that goes beyond a day-long CCW course. Those who haven't grown up practicing safe gun habits have some serious catching up to do.

This is a PR opportunity as well for the gun rights community. Appleseed, the NRA, and others ought to be all over this. We have a PR stake in there not being one stupid accident in DC.

wash
07-21-2011, 9:51 AM
I would like the training requirements to be reasonable and affordable.

Extra training is fine but it shouldn't be so extensive that people won't have the time or money to complete it.

Making several good trainers available to handle the initial rush of permit seekers would be a good idea.

Liberty1
07-21-2011, 10:01 AM
Training should be encouraged by tax breaks, free range training at LEAs by their staff, non profits, etc... but should not be mandatory as that will be used as another barrier by antis ( and already has) to the exercise of 2A.

Glock22Fan
07-21-2011, 10:08 AM
I would like the training requirements to be reasonable and affordable.

Extra training is fine but it shouldn't be so extensive that people won't have the time or money to complete it.

Making several good trainers available to handle the initial rush of permit seekers would be a good idea.

I agree to some extent, with the proviso that anyone that can demonstrate existing expertise/prior training or whatever should be able to opt out.

However, let's be aware that there's no reason to assume a gun buyer in, say, Vermont or Alaska is sufficiently skilled without extra training. After all, he or she might be a recent transplant from D.C. So, let's make all first time buyers in every state take all this training too.

See where it leads when you start calling for "Common sense regulations?"

ripcurlksm
07-21-2011, 10:18 AM
CCW Training:

Q: Do you know the four rules?

wash
07-21-2011, 10:38 AM
Really training should be about 15% technique so you don't have accidents and 85% legal so that you know when you can use deadly force without going to jail and also how to interact with police officers when armed.

That's for concealed, open carry needs more training so that you will know how to keep your gun secure while it is out in the open.

I would like to see the cost under $50, preferably closer to $20. I think that could pay for the training time if done in group classes and not too much of a financial burden.

I know I would want to know the legal side very well, I can figure out the nuts and bolts of how to do the actual carrying on my computer.

In a perfect world, that class would be taught in junior year highschool at no cost and constitutional carry would be the standard. Since that doesn't happen, requiring some training seems like a hood idea but that requirement should not be abused to make it difficult to obtain a permit.

Maestro Pistolero
07-21-2011, 11:02 AM
I am assuming there will be mandatory training. My suggestion is about fun, free, community-building, family-freindly training that could serve also as public relations program to reduce the demonization of gun owners and gun organizations.

Example: Use Otis McDonald in a public service announcement to publicize a a gun safety fair at a local park or recreation center. Serve up free Hot dogs and sodas.

Ok, sorry to have caused thread-drift here. It was meant as an sidebar. Perhaps this should be new thread.

choprzrul
07-21-2011, 11:29 AM
Training should be encouraged by tax breaks, free range training at LEAs by their staff, non profits, etc... but should not be mandatory as that will be used as another barrier by antis ( and already has) to the exercise of 2A.

^^THIS^^

Awesome opportunity for the NRA to make a huge PR splash in the nation's capital. Offer a 'Fundamentals of Gun Safety' course for like $30 with the balance of the actual costs being picked up by the NRA. A Friday night, Saturday, and Sunday 3 day course offered every weekend for 2 months.

There is a lot of potential in this idea I believe.

Kudos to Liberty.

.

Glock22Fan
07-21-2011, 11:36 AM
I am assuming there will be mandatory training. My suggestion is about fun, free, community-building, family-freindly training that could serve also as public relations program to reduce the demonization of gun owners and gun organizations.

Example: Use Otis McDonald in a public service announcement to publicize a a gun safety fair at a local park or recreation center. Serve up free Hot dogs and sodas.

Ok, sorry to have caused thread-drift here. It was meant as an sidebar. Perhaps this should be new thread.


It's been a separate thread on more than one occasion (and a poll). Suprisingly (to me at least) something like 48% of the users of this forum are in favor of infringing the Second by insisting on mandatory training. I'd expect 100% of the sheeple to feel that way, but the number of people on this board who say "I'm sensible enough to know I needed to get training, and so I did, but I don't trust the rest of you" is, to me, amazing.

choprzrul
07-21-2011, 11:58 AM
^^THIS^^

Awesome opportunity for the NRA to make a huge PR splash in the nation's capital. Offer a 'Fundamentals of Gun Safety' course for like $30 with the balance of the actual costs being picked up by the NRA. A Friday night, Saturday, and Sunday 3 day course offered every weekend for 2 months.

There is a lot of potential in this idea I believe.

Kudos to Liberty.

.

Let me clarify just to be completely and totally clear: I am not advocating 'mandatory' training. I am suggesting a voluntary community outreach program by the NRA for the purpose of promoting gun safety and training for law abiding citizens who wish to exercise their 2A civil rights in a manner that they individually see as appropriate.

.

Maestro Pistolero
07-21-2011, 12:27 PM
I was not in any way advocating mandatory training, but I fail to see the unconstitutionality of it. Well-regulated means, among other things, well-trained in the vernacular of the day.

Now, if that training is mandatory, then I don't think it can be required in any way that is burdensome or cost prohibitive.

This is my last post on the subject in this thread, I have contributed to it drifting enough.

dantodd
07-21-2011, 12:44 PM
I was not in any way advocating mandatory training, but I fail to see the unconstitutionality of it. Well-regulated means, among other things, well-trained in the vernacular of the day.

Now, if that training is mandatory, then I don't think it can be required in any way that is burdensome or cost prohibitive.

This is my last post on the subject in this thread, I have contributed to it drifting enough.

So, you believe that mandatory training in politics and writing before exercising your right to free speech wouldn't be unconstitutional? Or a test on the issues before voting?

wash
07-21-2011, 12:56 PM
I think mandatory gun training is a good idea for everyone, not just permit holders but it should be provided by the government for "free" at public schools.

You can't get a driver's license without jumping through some hoops. I hope CCW permits are the same except less expensive (costs do make a driver's license prohibitively expensive for some people).

People just need to know the difference between carrying and brandishing, sentence enhancements for crimes committed with a gun and stuff like that. It will make gun owners and permit holders more responsible and if someone can't sit through 4-8 hours of that, maybe they are too high-strung to carry.

Saying that mandatory gun education is wrong is a knee jerk reaction, it can be a good thing if done properly.

dantodd
07-21-2011, 1:03 PM
People just need to know the difference between carrying and brandishing, sentence enhancements for crimes committed with a gun and stuff like that. It will make gun owners and permit holders more responsible and if someone can't sit through 4-8 hours of that, maybe they are too high-strung to carry.

Saying that mandatory gun education is wrong is a knee jerk reaction, it can be a good thing if done properly.

So, outside of the Right to Keep and Bear arms what other fundamental rights do you feel can be "revoked" by non-judicial procedure for people who have committed no crime?

wash
07-21-2011, 1:06 PM
So, you believe that mandatory training in politics and writing before exercising your right to free speech wouldn't be unconstitutional? Or a test on the issues before voting?
It would be nice if people learned to talk before exercising their right to free speech. I know that babies ignore that rule, I'm just saying...

The right to vote is not granted until a person reaches 18 years old and theoretically has gone through at least two years of highschool. They get plenty of time to study the political system and civics classes in school if they don't drop out.

I would love to see mandatory gun safety classes in third or fourth grade with optional marksmanship classes in 11'th and 12'th grades and low cost adult education classes for immigrants and refresher courses.

That's the way it should be.

Maestro Pistolero
07-21-2011, 1:09 PM
I suppose it would be reasonable to assume, that this new judge at least has the ability to begin processing these cases promptly, as that IS the point of the move.

Anybody have an educated guess as to when the next action is likely to take place? (those who respond with 'two weeks' will get a shaving cream pie in their face.)

jdberger
07-21-2011, 1:11 PM
I think mandatory gun training is a good idea for everyone, not just permit holders but it should be provided by the government for "free" at public schools.

You can't get a driver's license without jumping through some hoops. I hope CCW permits are the same except less expensive (costs do make a driver's license prohibitively expensive for some people).

People just need to know the difference between carrying and brandishing, sentence enhancements for crimes committed with a gun and stuff like that. It will make gun owners and permit holders more responsible and if someone can't sit through 4-8 hours of that, maybe they are too high-strung to carry.

Saying that mandatory gun education is wrong is a knee jerk reaction, it can be a good thing if done properly.

Right. Just as we insist on mandatory Civics training for gradeschoolers.

No one (at least that I've seen) has suggested that if a person didn't have the training that they couldn't exercise the right.

Connor P Price
07-21-2011, 1:14 PM
Wash, I see where your coming from, and while I agree that training is a good idea for anyone interested in carrying a firearm, I don't think it will stand up to a constitutional challenge (at least in front of a truly impartial judge.) Exercising a fundamental right can not be dependent on taking a class or passing a test. That issue has already been hashed out with voting rights.

kcbrown
07-21-2011, 1:16 PM
Right. Just as we insist on mandatory Civics training for gradeschoolers.

No one (at least that I've seen) has suggested that if a person didn't have the training that they couldn't exercise the right.

Except that, at least here in California, we're talking about mandatory training as part of the permitting process. That can mean nothing other than that you cannot exercise the right without getting the mandatory training first, for the permit itself would mean nothing were that not the case.

dantodd
07-21-2011, 1:18 PM
The right to vote is not granted until a person reaches 18 years old and theoretically has gone through at least two years of highschool. They get plenty of time to study the political system and civics classes in school if they don't drop out.


But those are not prerequisites for voting, nor should they be. An age restriction I can see but to demand proof of some form of training is an affront to the idea of a fundamental right. Isn't that just one more form of a "nanny state?" What happens if someone fails their civics class or their firearms safety class? Do they still get to exercise their rights to vote or keep and bear arms?

Maestro Pistolero
07-21-2011, 1:24 PM
My apologies again for setting this thread on an off topic course.

wash
07-21-2011, 2:43 PM
But those are not prerequisites for voting, nor should they be. An age restriction I can see but to demand proof of some form of training is an affront to the idea of a fundamental right. Isn't that just one more form of a "nanny state?" What happens if someone fails their civics class or their firearms safety class? Do they still get to exercise their rights to vote or keep and bear arms?
Well I'm not sure how voting illegal aliens works but for naturalized citizens they have to pass a citizenship test with a lot of civics questions on it.

So it is kind of a prerequisite in that case.

Natural born citizens are given a pass. I'm not sure if that is a really good thing for our country and our voting record could be seen as a fairly harsh reflection on our schools.

p.s. sorry for taking this further off course.

Southwest Chuck
07-21-2011, 3:36 PM
Everyone keeps apologizing for taking this thread off topic, but then, continues to do it. Please start another thread about training. And no. I'm not the thread police, but it would be respectful to the thread topic and Gene, the OP. Just saying....

Luieburger
07-21-2011, 8:04 PM
Good things come to those who wait.

Paladin
07-22-2011, 9:47 AM
1) What time (Eastern Standard Time) is the chamber conference today?

2) How long is it likely to take?

3) (a) What decisions/conclusions, if any, will result? (b) When they be made public?

4) What will be the next step in this litigation?

Paladin
07-22-2011, 2:02 PM
1) What time (Eastern Standard Time) is the chamber conference today?

2) How long is it likely to take?

3) (a) What decisions/conclusions, if any, will result? (b) When they be made public?

4) What will be the next step in this litigation?

It is now after 5:00pm Eastern Standard Time. Any news???

navyinrwanda
07-22-2011, 2:29 PM
It is now after 5:00pm Eastern Standard Time. Any news???

The next conference will be the so-called Long Conference in late September 2011. During its Summer recess, the Court does not hold weekly conferences to consider (among other items) cert petitions.

Kharn
07-22-2011, 2:45 PM
navyinrawanda:
Palmer is at the district court level, not the Supreme Court. A chamber conference is between the lawyers and the new judge so he can make introductions and take care of other business.

nicki
07-22-2011, 3:38 PM
Yeah, I know, if we have a "right", then any mandatory "training" is a obstruction of that right. In theory, I agree with this position.

That being said, the court of public opinion is that having untrained people carrying loaded guns in public is a "bad idea".

Hey, if a state goes "Constitutional Carry", I'm cool with that. I view it similar as if a state went to "Open Speed Limits", I wouldn't complain.

But if there was legislation that would raise the speed limit to say 95mph, you think I would say that the speed limit still violates my right to travel.

Tying CCW permits to something like a "driver's license" is an easy argument to win. Conversely if we were to regulate "driver's licenses" like CCW permits, the public wouldn't go for it because few people would be able to meet the standards.

However, the emotion that controls most people's lives is "FEAR". As such, to win the court of "public opinion", we have to move forward that we recognize that the public will do a balancing test of "personal rights vs public safety".

Based on the track record of CCW in other states, the hardest part was always to get CCW passed in the first place, then once that is done, clean up legislation to expand the right came later.

With each clean up, the opposition was less and less.

Right now we have 41 states that are shall issue, we will soon see the eradication of "VD" throughout the country within the next 24 to 36 months.

For those of you who are impatient, I pose the following question.

If I told you back in 2000 during Bill Clinton's last year in office that by 2010:

1.The AW ban would be gone.
2.That so called AWs would become the most common arm in the US.
3.That 82 percent of the states would be shall issue.
4.That the US Supreme court would rule rule that the second amendment is an individual right
5. That we could carry guns in national parks because a anti gun president had to sign it
6. That the BATF would be fighting for it's very survival due to majorily screwing up a program that was designed to undermine the 2A.
7. That the head of the Brady Bunch Paul Helmke resigned.
8. That Democrats were avoiding "gun control" like the plague.
9. That a "mass shooting" couldn't get media traction inspite of them trying.
10. That gun ownership was would be at it's highest level ever

Honestly, what would you have said to me?

Maestro Pistolero
07-22-2011, 5:13 PM
Honestly, what would you have said to me?I'd say you one crazy bee-otch.

Love ya.

hoffmang
07-22-2011, 7:14 PM
The case remains under submission. There will be no more oral argument and we should have a decision in the next couple of months.

-Gene

Joe
07-22-2011, 7:17 PM
Hopefully completely in our favor.

kcbrown
07-22-2011, 8:02 PM
The case remains under submission. There will be no more oral argument and we should have a decision in the next couple of months.


That's what we said last time. :D


Just kidding. This time around I really do think we're going to get a decision in a more or less reasonable amount of time.

Paladin
07-22-2011, 8:50 PM
The case remains under submission. There will be no more oral argument and we should have a decision in the next couple of months.

-GeneI'll be a crass literalist and mark my calendar saying we should get a decision sometime before 1 Oct.

So, for others who may not have been keeping track, this is what I've got on my calendar for the rest of the year (this has all been posted on CGN previously, nothing confidential here). Looks like things will really pick up come 1 Sept! :chris:

* 12 Aug, 9:00 am: Scocca hearing

* 7 Sept: LAPD must obey judge's order re Assenza case, incl prominently posting CCW app & policy on LAPD website

* 26 Sept: SCOTUS "long conference" re cert of Williams

* in either Sept or Nov: Peterson carry case oral arguments (w/decision probably before January)

* before 1 Oct: Palmer decision re DC's total carry ban

* before Nov: SCOTUS re Williams (that's all I wrote, not sure what's supposed to happen here)

* before Jan 2012: Pena re CA's safe HG roster

"Right People": Did I miss anything? Any comments/corrections?

Thanks!

Of course, this list does NOT include any unannounced "fireworks" CGF may be planning.... ;)

dantodd
07-22-2011, 11:00 PM
* before Nov: SCOTUS re Williams (that's all I wrote, not sure what's supposed to happen here)[/B]



I think this one is probably the expected date of decision on the Writ of Certiorari

Paladin
08-21-2011, 9:09 AM
The case remains under submission. There will be no more oral argument and we should have a decision in the next couple of months.

-Gene
1 month down, 1 month to go.... :43:

press1280
08-21-2011, 1:21 PM
I'll be a crass literalist and mark my calendar saying we should get a decision sometime before 1 Oct.

So, for others who may not have been keeping track, this is what I've got on my calendar for the rest of the year (this has all been posted on CGN previously, nothing confidential here). Looks like things will really pick up come 1 Sept! :chris:

* 12 Aug, 9:00 am: Scocca hearing

* 7 Sept: LAPD must obey judge's order re Assenza case, incl prominently posting CCW app & policy on LAPD website

* 26 Sept: SCOTUS "long conference" re cert of Williams

* in either Sept or Nov: Peterson carry case oral arguments (w/decision probably before January)

* before 1 Oct: Palmer decision re DC's total carry ban

* before Nov: SCOTUS re Williams (that's all I wrote, not sure what's supposed to happen here)

* before Jan 2012: Pena re CA's safe HG roster

"Right People": Did I miss anything? Any comments/corrections?

Thanks!

Of course, this list does NOT include any unannounced "fireworks" CGF may be planning.... ;)

I've become very cynical due to the unusually long wait on 2A cases post McDonald. I think there's a chance this one doesn't get decided before SCOTUS rules. We have a little over a month before certiorari could be granted to either Williams/Masciandaro, once that's done everything stops. The judge will hold his decision pending SCOTUS' decision.

Peaceful John
08-21-2011, 2:11 PM
I've become very cynical due to the unusually long wait on 2A cases post McDonald.

Me, too.

But sometimes I have to pinch myself when I remember that we had *nothing* as recently as June, 2008 (Heller). Then, two years later, McDonald. And, maybe / probably, by June 2012 we'll have Williams. Four years from dipgus to the individual right to keep and to bear in public. This their nightmare, but our dream.

Pinch me.

Maestro Pistolero
08-21-2011, 2:18 PM
It's a shame the CA legislature doesn't have as much deference for pending SCOTUS cases as the lower courts seem to have.

press1280
08-21-2011, 4:14 PM
Me, too.

But sometimes I have to pinch myself when I remember that we had *nothing* as recently as June, 2008 (Heller). Then, two years later, McDonald. And, maybe / probably, by June 2012 we'll have Williams. Four years from dipgus to the individual right to keep and to bear in public. This their nightmare, but our dream.

Pinch me.

The delay tactic is the new strategy, both the anti judges and states/municipalities are employing this knowing in the end they'll lose with the current SCOTUS. You can't lose if you keep cases floating in limbo forever. Just look at Palmer-we should have been celebrating this victory in SCOTUS this summer. Instead the judge buried it, and I have no doubt he didn't want to render a positive 2A decision or risk being overturned by SCOTUS or even the DC Circuit. So he just sat on it and let his hands be washed of it all.

2009_gunner
08-21-2011, 4:51 PM
we should have been celebrating this victory in SCOTUS this summer. Instead the judge buried it...

It is incredible that one lower court judge could affect our rights in this way. At least the history books will remember him for his actions. I hope!

Crom
08-21-2011, 9:24 PM
The delay tactic is the new strategy, both the anti judges and states/municipalities are employing this knowing in the end they'll lose with the current SCOTUS. You can't lose if you keep cases floating in limbo forever. Just look at Palmer-we should have been celebrating this victory in SCOTUS this summer. Instead the judge buried it, and I have no doubt he didn't want to render a positive 2A decision or risk being overturned by SCOTUS or even the DC Circuit. So he just sat on it and let his hands be washed of it all.

It is incredible that one lower court judge could affect our rights in this way. At least the history books will remember him for his actions. I hope!

Don't know how long you have been following the case, but it was written last year the the Department of Justice interfered with one of Judge Kennedy cases dealing with a Gitmo detainee. It caused some real eyebrows to raise in the legal community as there were effectively two opinions released and both had different facts. The DOJ pulled (deleted) his first opinion and he was forced to write another.

See Gene's post below from last year and the subsequent posts by others for some interesting remarks from those who read the article. It appears that the article has now been archived.

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

Patrick-2
08-22-2011, 5:59 AM
Kennedy has a reputation for being slow meticulous on every case. He is reputed to be a fair jurist; the primary complaint against him is that it can take more than year to get a ruling from him. Toss in the DoJ games from last year - where they approved release of a Gitmo decision only to later come back and claim it was classified (after the release) - and he was busy.

I don't know where Kennedy would have fallen, but he is long on the history of civil rights in the United States. Some research suggested he might have been a possibility for SCOTUS, but his plodding manner tanked that path.

Either way, things are un-stuck at the moment. We stand chance of seeing a decision soon.

I am not worried about cert petitions. They can be pushed back, reviewed, put on hold - all on the way to eventual granting. There need not be a great reason. Sometimes things just happen.

jnojr
08-29-2011, 9:42 AM
Could someone update the wiki page?

Crom
08-29-2011, 9:51 AM
Could someone update the wiki page?

The wiki for Palmer is correct. We are waiting for a decision.

Sutcliffe
08-29-2011, 10:36 AM
But, it's better than a stick in the eye. Pretty close though.

Anchors
09-01-2011, 1:57 AM
:sleeping:

chris12
09-20-2011, 4:29 PM
The case remains under submission. There will be no more oral argument and we should have a decision in the next couple of months.

-Gene
:yawn:
I'm ready!

bulgron
09-20-2011, 4:47 PM
:yawn:
I'm ready!

Is it time to wake up from my nap now?

krucam
09-20-2011, 4:51 PM
There WAS some activity this month in Palmer v DC.

Defendants (here and in many other cases) were tripping over untied laces and biting their tongues falling as they ran to file "Supplemental Authority" notices regarding NY's Kachalsky ruling in District.

At least 4 cases, Woollard/Palmer/Moore/Sheppard got these "Supplemental Authority" notices filed regarding Kachalsky.

For the geeks out there, you'll realize 3 of those 4 are SAF/Gura cases, Sheppard being the outlier NRA sponsored case.

For the other 3, Gura wasted little time responding to the normally "don't bother with it" "Supplemental Authority" filings.

Palmer was one of them.

#25 on the Docket if you're needing a dose of legalese...

http://ia700408.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.docket.html

yellowfin
09-20-2011, 6:49 PM
Since we have their previous #1 move as the 2A two step, should we call this their current move the circuit circle jerk?

hoffmang
10-06-2011, 9:47 PM
SAF & Mr. Gura filed an amusing supplemental authority (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.26.0.pdf) briefing in Palmer today.

-Gene

Crom
10-06-2011, 9:53 PM
Very good! :) Short and sweet. The more I think about this case, the more I think it's going to win first.

Liberty1
10-06-2011, 9:54 PM
A quick fun read indeed!

Purple K
10-07-2011, 7:55 AM
Smacking them down with their own words. The über smack down!

krucam
10-07-2011, 8:24 AM
Great job in preempting what would have likely been a Defendant Supplemental using Heller II.

Even with the relative loss of Heller II, he turned the lemons into lemonade...

mag360
10-07-2011, 8:32 AM
reading Gura, et al briefs make me want to go back to school for a JD. Happy to see my contributions hard at work.

IrishPirate
10-07-2011, 9:00 AM
It is no different than the District’s unlamented prohibition on the keeping of firearms in the home—which the Supreme Court struck down without resorting to any manner of means-ends level of scrutiny, because it simply contradicted a core textual guarantee.

"Hi, I'm Alan Gura, and I'll be making you look like an idiot today." :D

Kharn
10-07-2011, 9:08 AM
Gura, yet again turning the anti's favorite rulings into ammo for our side.

HowardW56
10-07-2011, 9:47 AM
Alan Gura's pleadings have style...



:D

ojisan
10-07-2011, 10:07 AM
"Hi, I'm Alan Gura, and I'll be making you look like an idiot today." :D

LOL
:thumbsup:

Purple K
10-28-2011, 1:32 AM
Ninety-eight days since it was reassigned...

HowardW56
10-28-2011, 5:48 AM
Ninety-eight days since it was reassigned...

Maybe 100 will be the magic number :rolleyes:

bulgron
10-28-2011, 10:16 AM
I think they're running out the clock, hoping that one of the Heller five retires or dies.

510dat
10-28-2011, 10:19 AM
I think they're running out the clock, hoping that one of the Heller five retires or dies.

Gene-

Where do we stand if this happens before Ezell, Masciarano or any of our other cases go through?

I'm concerned that if we don't move quickly on these, we're going to lose big. All this "Chess, Not Checkers" is cute, but when the local bully comes around and torches your board, it doesn't matter what game you're playing; it's over.

sholling
10-28-2011, 11:14 AM
I think they're running out the clock, hoping that one of the Heller five retires or dies.
I think that you're dead on. It's pretty obvious that another Obama term would likely lead to a far left appointment and a reversal of Heller and more than a few judges are going to do everything in their power to drag out justice as long as humanly possible.

OleCuss
10-28-2011, 11:35 AM
OK, let's assume that one of my beloved Supremes dies in June. There's a decent chance (not a high probability, though) that any nomination would be put on hold because of the upcoming election and campaigning. There are a lot of ways a nomination can cause problems for Obama. . .

So you may get Herman Cain nominating the next Supreme - or maybe Romney or Santorum? Whether we like them or vote for them - they're likely to appoint a Supreme who would recognize the fundamental RKBA.

And who knows? The next exit could be a radical liberal and we could end up with a much more conservative SCOTUS.

The elections matter - a lot. We need friends in the White House and in the Senate.

bulgron
10-28-2011, 11:59 AM
OK, let's assume that one of my beloved Supremes dies in June. There's a decent chance (not a high probability, though) that any nomination would be put on hold because of the upcoming election and campaigning. There are a lot of ways a nomination can cause problems for Obama. . .

So you may get Herman Cain nominating the next Supreme - or maybe Romney or Santorum? Whether we like them or vote for them - they're likely to appoint a Supreme who would recognize the fundamental RKBA.

And who knows? The next exit could be a radical liberal and we could end up with a much more conservative SCOTUS.

The elections matter - a lot. We need friends in the White House and in the Senate.

Yeah, but you'll still find a lot of people around here who are going to vote for Obama for ... well, I don't know why they'd do that. But they'll certainly find a reason why, and then they'll tell it to us too.

I don't think the Republicans are necessarily always our bestest buddies when it comes to gun rights. But I do know that if Obama stays in the White House past 2012, then it is an absolute guarantee that any SCOTUS nominations he might get to make will cost us our gun rights. This is one election where pro-gun voters can't afford to play games. I say that fully expecting to see Kennedy retire from the bench in the next four years.

If we want to secure our gun rights for the next 100 years, then this next election must to result in a Republican president and a Republican-dominated Senate. Otherwise, I don't see the future as being very bright for our cause.

If we CAN get a Republican president and senate, then things will look really good for us. This is because I also expect Ginsburg to leave the bench in the next four years. So imagine a SCOTUS with two new, young, vigorous, conservative-leaning justices with firm ideas about originalism. Or, we can get Obama again and end up with a couple of liberal justices who believe in results-based opinions.

Vote wisely.

kcbrown
10-28-2011, 12:24 PM
The case remains under submission. There will be no more oral argument and we should have a decision in the next couple of months.

-Gene

This might be premature, but I just can't help myself...

:gene:



:D

yellowfin
10-28-2011, 4:36 PM
Yeah, but you'll still find a lot of people around here who are going to vote for Obama for ... well, I don't know why they'd do that. But they'll certainly find a reason why, and then they'll tell it to us too.

I don't think the Republicans are necessarily always our bestest buddies when it comes to gun rights. But I do know that if Obama stays in the White House past 2012, then it is an absolute guarantee that any SCOTUS nominations he might get to make will cost us our gun rights. This is one election where pro-gun voters can't afford to play games. I say that fully expecting to see Kennedy retire from the bench in the next four years.

If we want to secure our gun rights for the next 100 years, then this next election must to result in a Republican president and a Republican-dominated Senate. Otherwise, I don't see the future as being very bright for our cause.

If we CAN get a Republican president and senate, then things will look really good for us. This is because I also expect Ginsburg to leave the bench in the next four years. So imagine a SCOTUS with two new, young, vigorous, conservative-leaning justices with firm ideas about originalism. Or, we can get Obama again and end up with a couple of liberal justices who believe in results-based opinions.

Vote wisely.Equal part of that: avoid RINOs. East Coast Rockefeller R's will put exactly the same people on the bench, or at very least identical in how they vote on gun cases, as hardcore fire breathing anti gun Chicago style Dems. A Souter is just as bad a result as a Sotomayor. I really hope those who were saying "Oh don't worry, it's still 5-4 our way" over and over don't end up having royally screwed us.

Purple K
12-12-2011, 6:30 PM
140+ days since it was reassigned.... :icon_bs:

safewaysecurity
12-12-2011, 6:38 PM
You got me all excited

Yankee Clipper
12-12-2011, 8:33 PM
Yeah, but you'll still find a lot of people around here who are going to vote for Obama for ... well, I don't know why they'd do that. But they'll certainly find a reason why, and then they'll tell it to us too.

I don't think the Republicans are necessarily always our bestest buddies when it comes to gun rights. But I do know that if Obama stays in the White House past 2012, then it is an absolute guarantee that any SCOTUS nominations he might get to make will cost us our gun rights. This is one election where pro-gun voters can't afford to play games. I say that fully expecting to see Kennedy retire from the bench in the next four years.

If we want to secure our gun rights for the next 100 years, then this next election must to result in a Republican president and a Republican-dominated Senate. Otherwise, I don't see the future as being very bright for our cause.

If we CAN get a Republican president and senate, then things will look really good for us. This is because I also expect Ginsburg to leave the bench in the next four years. So imagine a SCOTUS with two new, young, vigorous, conservative-leaning justices with firm ideas about originalism. Or, we can get Obama again and end up with a couple of liberal justices who believe in results-based opinions.

Vote wisely.
So the Democratic Party sees the handwriting on the wall and dumps a sitting president for a more conservative, erectable, party member to run against what would otherwise be a shoe-in Republican. We aren't there yet, we aren't even close, but we then might happily change our voting inclinations to a different party.
I know it's not going to happen but I'd like to think we could have that kind of choice: both parties on the 2A side.

Window_Seat
12-12-2011, 9:05 PM
So the Democratic Party sees the handwriting on the wall and dumps a sitting president for a more conservative, erectable, party member to run against what would otherwise be a shoe-in Republican. We aren't there yet, we aren't even close, but we then might happily change our voting inclinations to a different party.
I know it's not going to happen but I'd like to think we could have that kind of choice: both parties on the 2A side.

Come on... This is a G rated forum... :lol::smilielol5::rofl2::rofl::laugh:

Otherwise, I guess I had better be the first (since the bump)...

:twoweeks:, then a sandwich and a nap...

Erik.

wildhawker
12-12-2011, 9:32 PM
You know we're winning when kcbrown gets [slightly more] optimistic, Window_Seat grabs a sandwich and a nap (unprompted!), and Paladin starts assuming we're litigating on schedule. :cool:

-Brandon

Monticore
12-12-2011, 9:42 PM
I'll be a crass literalist and mark my calendar saying we should get a decision sometime before 1 Oct.

So, for others who may not have been keeping track, this is what I've got on my calendar for the rest of the year (this has all been posted on CGN previously, nothing confidential here). Looks like things will really pick up come 1 Sept! :chris:

* 12 Aug, 9:00 am: Scocca hearing

* 7 Sept: LAPD must obey judge's order re Assenza case, incl prominently posting CCW app & policy on LAPD website

* 26 Sept: SCOTUS "long conference" re cert of Williams

* in either Sept or Nov: Peterson carry case oral arguments (w/decision probably before January)

* before 1 Oct: Palmer decision re DC's total carry ban

* before Nov: SCOTUS re Williams (that's all I wrote, not sure what's supposed to happen here)

* before Jan 2012: Pena re CA's safe HG roster

"Right People": Did I miss anything? Any comments/corrections?

Thanks!

Of course, this list does NOT include any unannounced "fireworks" CGF may be planning.... ;)

Is there an updated version of this anywhere?
I don't get to stalk the forums as much as I used to so I'm afraid I will miss a thread or two with updates.

Paladin
12-13-2011, 8:13 PM
You know we're winning when kcbrown gets [slightly more] optimistic, Window_Seat grabs a sandwich and a nap (unprompted!), and Paladin starts assuming we're litigating on schedule. :cool:

-Brandon
"You're a funny guy, Brandon ...."

vTFZWiB-ESI

bulgron
02-08-2012, 4:21 PM
The case remains under submission. There will be no more oral argument and we should have a decision in the next couple of months.

-Gene

Just out of curiosity, have we exceeded your definition of "the next couple of months" yet?

kcbrown
02-08-2012, 4:29 PM
:gene:

press1280
02-08-2012, 4:45 PM
So how long before something else happens, like Chief Justice Roberts peeks in at the DC District court and sees this case still sitting? Is there any precedence for cases sitting this long?

Purple K
02-08-2012, 5:15 PM
There was a notice of supplemental authority two days ago....

bulgron
02-08-2012, 5:51 PM
There was a notice of supplemental authority two days ago....

What does that mean?

Chatterbox
02-08-2012, 5:56 PM
What does that mean?

Supplemental pleadings which raise legal issues or cite caselaw which did not exist at the time the first filing was made.

Scarecrow Repair
02-08-2012, 8:50 PM
Just out of curiosity, have we exceeded your definition of "the next couple of months" yet?

There are error bars of plus or minus two weeks.

sholling
02-08-2012, 9:28 PM
Just based on the delays so far I'm sure the judge will need 6-8 months to ponder the notice of supplemental authority by which time there will be one or two more notices of supplemental authority filed. Naturally each of those will need extensive pondering which will probably be interrupted by more notices of supplemental authority each requiring still more pondering. :rolleyes:

But look at the bright side it'll give us something to talk about for years to come. :p

Rossi357
02-08-2012, 10:36 PM
This case has been stayed till Dec 21, 2012. If we all are still here they will rule the next day.

safewaysecurity
02-08-2012, 10:39 PM
This case has been stayed till Dec 21, 2012. If we all are still here they will rule the next day.

:confused: Where did you read that?

curtisfong
02-08-2012, 10:40 PM
Looks like my skepticism about the judicial system as regards the possibility of judges just sitting on cases indefinitely may have been misplaced by at least a bit. So to whatever degree the system works better than I expected, I have to eat crow.

Alas, your plate of crow will have to remain uneaten.

You were right. The court system is hopelessly broken.

hoffmang
02-08-2012, 10:45 PM
Just out of curiosity, have we exceeded your definition of "the next couple of months" yet?

Yes.

-Gene

Connor P Price
02-08-2012, 10:50 PM
:confused: Where did you read that?

I'm pretty sure that was a Mayan Calendar end of the world joke.

kcbrown
02-08-2012, 11:18 PM
Yes.


What do you believe will be done to remedy this situation? We've now had two separate district judges just sit on the same case. If something substantial doesn't occur as a result, then my assertions about the court system will have been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

Also: did anything even remotely like this happen to any of the civil rights cases?

Rossi357
02-08-2012, 11:56 PM
I'm pretty sure that was a Mayan Calendar end of the world joke.
Thanks for explaining my joke. I hate doing it.

safewaysecurity
02-09-2012, 12:07 AM
I'm pretty sure that was a Mayan Calendar end of the world joke.

Yeah I got the Mayan Calendar reference right when I submitted my post. But no harm in making sure it wasn't some crazy coincidence. :p

Gray Peterson
02-09-2012, 12:10 AM
What do you believe will be done to remedy this situation? We've now had two separate district judges just sit on the same case. If something substantial doesn't occur as a result, then my assertions about the court system will have been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

Also: did anything even remotely like this happen to any of the civil rights cases?

And while they dawdle, cases in other jurisdictions move forward. We now have 6 court of appeals cases on carry now: Peterson (CA10), Moore (CA7), Richards (CA9), Piszczatoski (CA3), Kachalsky (CA2), and Hightower (CA1).

mud99
02-09-2012, 12:26 AM
As a point of reference, my employer has a civil case on the docket in federal court in New York, and the expected wait is 3 years!!!

This is lightning speed!

safewaysecurity
02-09-2012, 12:58 AM
Didn't you forget Palmer and Peruta?

hoffmang
02-09-2012, 1:01 AM
What do you believe will be done to remedy this situation? We've now had two separate district judges just sit on the same case. If something substantial doesn't occur as a result, then my assertions about the court system will have been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

Also: did anything even remotely like this happen to any of the civil rights cases?

CA-7 and CA-10 both have unstayed carry cases that will move very quickly. CA-7's is just as good as Palmer. Peterson is good but a touch more complex than Palmer and Moore (CA-7) as we all expected it to be a follow up that has gotten ahead.

On the civil rights cases I do think there was some stalling on some of the integration cases - certainly at the District level.

-Gene

Mulay El Raisuli
02-09-2012, 5:46 AM
This case has been stayed till Dec 21, 2012. If we all are still here they will rule the next day.


LMAO!


The Raisuli

Maestro Pistolero
02-09-2012, 7:32 AM
Just a thought: If they thought they could rule unfavorably the judge would have probably already dispensed with the case. The judge doesn't want to rule the way he knows he must. So he just procrasturbates indefinitely.

Paul S
02-09-2012, 9:11 AM
Just a thought: If they thought they could rule unfavorably the judge would have probably already dispensed with the case. The judge doesn't want to rule the way he knows he must. So he just procrasturbates indefinitely.

We have a winner :D
Seems to be a common tactic of many jurists these days especially for 2A cases.

sholling
02-09-2012, 10:35 AM
CA-7 and CA-10 both have unstayed carry cases that will move very quickly. CA-7's is just as good as Palmer. Peterson is good but a touch more complex than Palmer and Moore (CA-7) as we all expected it to be a follow up that has gotten ahead.

On the civil rights cases I do think there was some stalling on some of the integration cases - certainly at the District level.

-Gene
With the SCOTUS' apparent decision to keep running away from carry cases and the ongoing judicial revolt against the 2nd Amendment it's a pretty sure thing that we won't see "bear" as a legally enforced fundamental right until there is a change for the better on the supreme court. We have to keep plugging away but it's going to be a very-very long series of legal battles.


SAF Appeals Dismissal of Moore V. Madigan (http://www.thetacticalwire.com/story/253857)
In her ruling, Judge Meyerscough stated, "This Court finds that the Illinois Unlawful Use of Weapons' and Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon' statutes do not violate Plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights. The United States Supreme Court and the Seventh Circuit have recognized only a Second Amendment core individual right to bear arms inside the home. Further, even if this Court recognized a Second Amendment right to bear arms outside of the home and an interference with that right, the statutes nonetheless survive constitutional scrutiny."

Gray Peterson
02-09-2012, 10:36 AM
Didn't you forget Palmer and Peruta?

Palmer is still in district. Richards is related to Peruta and is a more all encompassing case (takes care of good cause/moral character both, not just "good cause").

Gray Peterson
02-09-2012, 10:59 AM
With the SCOTUS' apparent decision to keep running away from carry cases

Which has been explained numerous times, the two carry cases they denied cert to were all criminal cases. SCOTUS isn't going to take 2A criminal cases for several years, I'm willing to bet. That's not "running away". They want civil, we're giving them civil cases, but that won't be tee'd up until later this year.

Remember that we couldn't file any civil carry cases nationwide until McDonald was filed (Sykes nee Richards was the exception due to the Nordyke 2009 ruling, but in the end the 9th Circuit vacated Nordyke and stayed it for McDonald so...). So we were only able to start in earnest on July of 2010.

My case out of the district court rulings was decided the earliest because I filed in January of 2010 (6 months before McDonald), but that slack time of being ahead of everyone else was eaten up by need for the 10th Circuit to rehear the case (delaying it for 5 months, eating up nearly the 6 months...) It'll still be the first court of appeals case to be heard, however, purely on civil carry (rather than 4th amendment involved stuff in CA2, RICO stuff in CA9 w/ Gorski, etc).

bulgron
02-09-2012, 11:29 AM
Which has been explained numerous times, the two carry cases they denied cert to were all criminal cases. SCOTUS isn't going to take 2A criminal cases for several years, I'm willing to bet.

I really, really hope you aren't grasping at straws. And I hope even more that we aren't running out of time.

Gray Peterson
02-09-2012, 11:51 AM
I really, really hope you aren't grasping at straws.

My understanding is based on the court's actions over the last several decades. Civil cases win out over criminal, every time. The 2nd amendment is not the 4th or 5th amendment. Nearly all 1st amendment case law came from civil challenges, not criminal.

And I hope even more that we aren't running out of time.

We're all running out of time. It's called being human.

I'm not focused on politics here because at least in Washington and California and the places making all of the litigation stuff for 2A, they are all from states which overwhelmingly voted for Obama and will vote for him again. If he loses, it'll be despite the states that have bad anti-2A law which is legally a target rich environment.

Given against the impossibility of the odds of overturning that particular result, there's no point in a campaign against him in the states where we live. Therefor, I'm plugging away at the legal stuff and doing our best to speed it along.

We will have a carry case decided by June of 2013 if the court takes one. If they decline three cases, first my case (non-residency/PorI complexity), then Moore (full carry ban, but may not have prior restraint doctrine implications needed), and then Kachalsky or the NJ carry case or Hightower (discretionary, prior restraint), I would then say I was incorrect, and we need to be speaking of the 28th amendment at that point.

They asked for responses, however, on the criminal 2A cases. According to the most expert SCOTUS watchers, that means they're interested in taking up the subject matter at hand....

kcbrown
02-09-2012, 2:26 PM
They asked for responses, however, on the criminal 2A cases. According to the most expert SCOTUS watchers, that means they're interested in taking up the subject matter at hand....

If they have no intention of taking any criminal 2A cases for the next few years, then why did they bother going through these motions on cases that they knew were criminal cases?

OleCuss
02-09-2012, 2:32 PM
If they have no intention of taking any criminal 2A cases for the next few years, then why did they bother going through these motions on cases that they knew were criminal cases?

That's what is so encouraging! Someone(s) is/are very interested in taking a 2A case.

The two best explanations I've got would be:
1. They are looking at criminal cases to see if one is sufficiently clean or focused to go ahead and take it anyway.
2. They may be deliberately signaling an interest in taking a 2A case in hopes that SAF/CGF/etc. will keep working the civil cases and get them sent up for cert. This one seems a little less likely and if it is actually a reason for the info requests it is probably a desirable secondary effect of the first explanation.

wildhawker
02-09-2012, 3:14 PM
If I were in the anti-2A wing of the Supreme Court, and given how the law-and-order conservative justices (e.g. Scalia) would likely be forced into ruling if I were successful in getting a bad (in some way) criminal case before us, I'd be making every effort to get a criminal case granted cert.

Speculating that it's simply "one [or more] of our team" interested in these crim cases is really ignoring a lot of possibilities.

-Brandon

mdimeo
02-09-2012, 3:14 PM
If they have no intention of taking any criminal 2A cases for the next few years, then why did they bother going through these motions on cases that they knew were criminal cases?

To tell criminal defense lawyers not to bother them.

wildhawker
02-09-2012, 3:28 PM
To tell criminal defense lawyers not to bother them.

But that's not really rational or practical since it's entirely unlikely criminal appeals would not be made in spite of previous cert denials.

-Brandon

Southwest Chuck
02-09-2012, 4:36 PM
..........
2. They may be deliberately signaling an interest in taking a 2A case in hopes that SAF/CGF/etc. will keep working the civil cases and get them sent up for cert. This one seems a little less likely and if it is actually a reason for the info requests it is probably a desirable secondary effect of the first explanation.


Speculating that it's simply "one [or more] of our team" interested in these crim cases is really ignoring a lot of possibilities.

-Brandon

Ok , I'll play and throw out another possibility, however unlikely.

Looking at it logically, (I know, wrong move :facepalm:), It could be an effort or strategy by some of the conservative members of the court to make the other members keep up with the state of affairs that exists in the 2A arena across the country since the Heller/McDonald decisions; An educational exercise, if you will. By requesting responses, it makes all members of the court fully informed on the issues being raised. Some members may still have to be dragged kicking and screaming when a "Clean" civil case comes along, but it should give Kennedy some comfort and may even embolden his stance, in that he may well go along with much stronger language and a more decisive decision when one finally comes down the pike.

Sounds just as plausible, but who knows :shrug: ?

wildhawker
02-09-2012, 5:24 PM
I don't think that the Court or its clerks are at all in need of [or acting to facilitate] "education" on the core issues.

I fully expect that the selected 'bear' case(s) to be a restatement of Heller plus some additional argument going to historical precedent and public safety.

-Brandon

OleCuss
02-09-2012, 6:32 PM
If I were in the anti-2A wing of the Supreme Court, and given how the law-and-order conservative justices (e.g. Scalia) would likely be forced into ruling if I were successful in getting a bad (in some way) criminal case before us, I'd be making every effort to get a criminal case granted cert.

Speculating that it's simply "one [or more] of our team" interested in these crim cases is really ignoring a lot of possibilities.

-Brandon

Very interesting and worthwhile thought.

Now to speculate a bit?

Let's say Ginsburg wants to take a 2A criminal case in order to have the opportunity to make a maximally RKBA unfriendly ruling? If it only takes 4 justices to grant cert, that would suggest that at this time there might be only 3 SCOTUS votes for RKBA-gutting rulings?

That is very speculative and obviously not to be taken too seriously.

wildhawker
02-09-2012, 7:26 PM
Very interesting and worthwhile thought.

Now to speculate a bit?

Let's say Ginsburg wants to take a 2A criminal case in order to have the opportunity to make a maximally RKBA unfriendly ruling? If it only takes 4 justices to grant cert, that would suggest that at this time there might be only 3 SCOTUS votes for RKBA-gutting rulings?

That is very speculative and obviously not to be taken too seriously.

Consider that those who would likely find against 2A might not be entirely willing to implicate other fundamental rights in the process of their attempt(s) to re-argue Heller.

-Brandon

Gray Peterson
02-09-2012, 7:28 PM
Very interesting and worthwhile thought.

Now to speculate a bit?

Let's say Ginsburg wants to take a 2A criminal case in order to have the opportunity to make a maximally RKBA unfriendly ruling? If it only takes 4 justices to grant cert, that would suggest that at this time there might be only 3 SCOTUS votes for RKBA-gutting rulings?

That is very speculative and obviously not to be taken too seriously.

Not to speak for Brandon, but I would agree with what you said. I believe it only takes one justice to ask for a response, not all four.

wildhawker
02-09-2012, 7:34 PM
http://www.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/2010RulesoftheCourt.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_four

hoffmang
02-10-2012, 1:15 AM
With the SCOTUS' apparent decision to keep running away from carry cases and the ongoing judicial revolt against the 2nd Amendment it's a pretty sure thing that we won't see "bear" as a legally enforced fundamental right until there is a change for the better on the supreme court.

In the early non civil carry cases SCOTUS had the coming civil cases specifically called out to them. None of those have made it to them yet.

Don't worry if the first civil carry case that does not create a split doesn't get cert. Worry if and only if a circuit split develops on carry and the case that causes the split doesn't get cert.

My money is case one or two above will certainly get cert. The splits are on the way between CA-10, CA-7, and CA-1, and CA-2. The plot is just thickening.

-Gene

press1280
02-10-2012, 3:58 AM
Consider that those who would likely find against 2A might not be entirely willing to implicate other fundamental rights in the process of their attempt(s) to re-argue Heller.

-Brandon

I don't think the Heller/McDonald dissenters want to see a 2A case, even a criminal one. After all, the lower courts have so far(for the most part) confined the 2A to the home, only overturning laws in a very few places(Chicago,DC,amd public housing). The dissenters can probably live with that.

hoffmang
02-10-2012, 11:31 PM
I don't think the Heller/McDonald dissenters want to see a 2A case, even a criminal one. After all, the lower courts have so far(for the most part) confined the 2A to the home, only overturning laws in a very few places(Chicago,DC,amd public housing). The dissenters can probably live with that.

I'm sure the 4 dissenters don't want another case but it only takes 4 votes to take a case and we have 5 in the majority.

-Gene

formerTexan
02-29-2012, 11:03 AM
Just a FYI for people who thinks this case is dragging just because it is 2A related, this excerpt is about a law regarding the collection of DNA of persons that are ARRESTED (read not convicted, simply arrested):
Virginia's Supreme Court has upheld that state's law, and an appeals court in Arizona has OK'd the law there. However, California and Minnesota appeals courts have rejected their laws, and a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to rule on a federal challenge to California's law, even though the arguments took place 18 months ago.
full article http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017430694_apwaarrestdna.html

press1280
02-29-2012, 11:41 AM
Just a FYI for people who thinks this case is dragging just because it is 2A related, this excerpt is about a law regarding the collection of DNA of persons that are ARRESTED (read not convicted, simply arrested):

full article http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017430694_apwaarrestdna.html

Going on 25 months since arguments(the case was filed in August 09'). I'm not sure if it's just slow judges, huge workload,exc. I do know it would be easy for an anti judge to cut and paste a decision based on other district courts, so that's probably not it.

kcbrown
03-21-2012, 3:11 PM
:gene:

sholling
03-21-2012, 4:24 PM
:gene:
Look at the bright side, we're probably almost half way though our wait for a decision. ;)

2009_gunner
03-21-2012, 4:42 PM
It seems lately the new judge has been busy with a criminal case (http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20120306/NEWS07/703069872) and an EPA case (http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=4210f604-e99d-4582-99a6-31ad4f3c3090). I wonder how that leaves his case load.

Purple K
03-30-2012, 11:27 AM
A Notice of Supplimental Authority was filed yesterday regarding Bateman v. Purdue.

Crom
04-04-2012, 2:22 PM
D.C. filed a NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY re: Shepard v. Madigan (S.D. Ill. Mar. 30, 2012))(Saindon, Andrew) (Entered: 04/04/2012)

kcbrown
05-25-2012, 9:11 PM
CA-7 and CA-10 both have unstayed carry cases that will move very quickly. CA-7's is just as good as Palmer. Peterson is good but a touch more complex than Palmer and Moore (CA-7) as we all expected it to be a follow up that has gotten ahead.

On the civil rights cases I do think there was some stalling on some of the integration cases - certainly at the District level.


Do you know which specific cases experienced such stalling? I'd be very interested in knowing just what degree of stalling there was. My suspicion is that it was nowhere near what we are experiencing (and can look forward to) with 2A cases.


EDIT:

In partial answer to my own question, one such case is NAACP v Alabama, where it took some 5 years of bouncing around between the Alabama state court system and the Supreme Court to finally get resolution. It's also an example of judicial rebellion. However, the rebellion in question was on the part of the Alabama state court system, not the federal judiciary. The resolution to that was for the Supreme Court to grant cert to the case and decide it on its merits, after the Alabama court system first refused to do so and then, finally, did so and (predictably) found against the plaintiffs. Of course, I expect that absolutely nothing of consequence whatsoever actually happened to those on the Alabama court system who participated in all that.

I still know of no example of the federal court system engaging in judicial rebellion, something I fully expect of the federal court system with respect to 2A cases (in particular, I fully expect it of the 9th Circuit at the very least. I'm not familiar enough with the behavior of the other circuits to really say how they're likely to rule. My guess is that the 2nd Circuit will also engage in such behavior).


Additionally, the above may not necessarily be an example of stalling as such. So far, I haven't found a civil rights case that spent 3 years just sitting in district court with no real movement whatsoever as a result of the court itself not doing anything (a form of judicial rebellion if there ever was one). Palmer is almost there.


Also of note is that it appears the civil rights cases were typically resolved more quickly than even the fastest 2A cases have thus far been. For instance, Cooper v Aaron was filed in late February 1958 and decided by the Supreme Court in December 1958, a scant ten months from initial filing to Supreme Court resolution, and that included an Eighth Circuit decision! There's no way we'll ever get that kind of speed out of the court system. Our cases are likely to languish in district court alone for at least that long. Even Ezell, which is a preliminary injunction case (and thus is supposed to be "fast"), took 10 months just to go from initial filing to an initial decision at the circuit level.

So you'll have to excuse me if I'm heavily skeptical of the proclaimed time frame before we get any meaningful right to keep and bear arms in this state. I have damned good reason to be skeptical of that. It took over 10 years to get from Brown v Board of Education (which is the equivalent of our Heller) to Loving v Virginia, and that was in a court system that by all appearances was markedly faster than our own. Those of you who continually harp on the fact that the courts don't operate at internet speed had better realize the contradictory nature of your own position: you cannot simultaneously claim that the courts are slow and that we're somehow magically going to have our right to keep and bear arms secured substantially more quickly than the rights of colored people were secured, particularly when the evidence indicates that the court environment we're operating in is substantially slower than the one the civil rights movement operated in.

hoffmang
05-26-2012, 12:01 PM
Also of note is that it appears the civil rights cases were typically resolved more quickly than even the fastest 2A cases have thus far been. For instance, Cooper v Aaron was filed in late February 1958 and decided by the Supreme Court in December 1958, a scant ten months from initial filing to Supreme Court resolution, and that included an Eighth Circuit decision!

McDonald v. Chicago. Filed June 26, 2008 and resolved June 28, 2010. The court system has changed a little bit since the late 50's on speed to resolution as the Federal docket now has a bunch of criminal crap on it that didn't used to be there - thanks drug war!

-Gene

kcbrown
05-26-2012, 5:14 PM
McDonald v. Chicago. Filed June 26, 2008 and resolved June 28, 2010. The court system has changed a little bit since the late 50's on speed to resolution as the Federal docket now has a bunch of criminal crap on it that didn't used to be there - thanks drug war!


Yes, but McDonald v Chicago was resolved about as quickly as it gets (or so I presume, since that's the case you're raising as an example. :D ), while the amount of time it took for it to be resolved seems to be about how long the average civil rights case took to get resolution.

So: the fastest case we've got took as long to resolve as the average civil rights case. That illustrates my point pretty clearly.


Whatever the reason, the bottom line is that our cases are going to take significantly longer to work through the courts than the civil rights cases took, so there is very good reason to expect it to take at least as long as it did the civil rights movement to secure the fundamentals of the right to keep and bear arms.

That means at least a decade, which is roughly the timeframe I've been assuming it would take all this time.

I hope it doesn't take that long, but I'm not confident it won't. Indeed, the assumption of a decade is based on the presumption that it will take fewer cases to secure the right to keep and bear arms than it took to secure the rights of non-whites. I'm quite confident the strategy involves fewer cases (though I do not know, since I'm not privy to the strategy), but no plan survives contact with the enemy, and ours won't either. I will not be surprised if the number of cases we have to bring blossoms to at least the number that were required by the civil rights movement. And with a slower judiciary, that means it'll take significantly longer than a mere decade to secure the right.


And during all that time, we rely on a Supreme Court that backs our side of things. Doesn't seem like a high probability play to me, but it's the only one we've got.

hoffmang
05-26-2012, 6:24 PM
I'll say it again since you missed it. The dockets are different these days so it takes about 18 months to get to cert. Because we're "lucky" and our cases are interesting, we'll always see them released at the end of the Supreme Court term for maximum PR impact (which is a benefit.) In the African American civil rights context, the court wanted those decisions out before the end of the term to minimize PR hit to the court...

So what you think is some conspiracy against us is kind of the opposite. And by the way - the polls reflect that the Supreme Court is doing us a big favor by maximizing PR impact.

-Gene

kcbrown
05-26-2012, 7:02 PM
So what you think is some conspiracy against us is kind of the opposite. And by the way - the polls reflect that the Supreme Court is doing us a big favor by maximizing PR impact.


Agreed on the PR impact side of things. The Court is indeed doing us a huge favor there.

I do not regard the additional amount of time involved that results from the nature of the judicial system as it is today as a conspiracy at all, merely a fact that substantially increases the amount of time it will take before we secure the right and which casts serious doubt on the optimistic timeframes typically thrown around.

The amount of time it takes to get through the district and circuit courts in anti-gun areas, however, could be considered a "conspiracy", I suppose. But that, too, is something I expect will occur and also casts serious doubt on the overly-optimistic timeframes bandied about here.

The amount of time these cases take once they hit the Supreme Court is, frankly, the least interesting factor. I've seen no evidence whatsoever that the amount of time they spend there is inordinately long or that the Court is attempting to "stall" the cases. But there is substantial evidence that the anti-gun district and circuit courts will stall our cases to the maximum degree possible, turning a case that would normally take between 2 and 3 years to go from initial filing to Supreme Court resolution into a case that may take 5 or more years to resolve. Palmer has been in its initial district court phase for nearly 3 years. I've found no civil rights case at all thus far for which that is the case. Palmer appears to be unprecedented in that respect as civil rights cases go.

That wouldn't be so bad if we could get resolution strictly in pro-gun or neutral circuits, but we cannot. The very nature of the system forces us to initiate challenges in every anti-gun area precisely because laws remain enforced until they are explicitly and successfully challenged. Even if the Supreme Court issued a ruling that said, essentially, "what part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?" and thereby gave us everything we could possibly want, every single anti-gun ordinance and law except for the one the Supreme Court explicitly struck down would still remain in force and continue to be enforced until explicitly and successfully challenged. And the fact that the law has to be successfully challenged before it becomes null and void means that those cases will have to make it to the Supreme Court. We will not get a favorable ruling in those cases anywhere else, because courts have mastered the ability to take a ruling from a higher court and issue a ruling based on it that essentially states the exact opposite. The Alabama court system in NAACP v Alabama did precisely that, as did the Supreme Court in Slaughterhouse and, most recently, the 9th Circuit in its (now defunct) Nordyke ruling (which, had the case not been taken en banc yet again, would have turned strict scrutiny for 2A cases into another form of rational basis).


No, I stand firm in my skepticism of the wildly optimistic timeframes that we constantly see bandied about here. Most amusingly, the deeper I dig, the more skeptical I become.

M. D. Van Norman
05-26-2012, 8:08 PM
I understand the psychological factors at work better than most, it seems, but even I grow impatient. It doesn’t help when political moves in other states advance the clock either. :mad:

And that is the greatest danger now—that our collective patience will fail … and that someone will do something rash.

hoffmang
05-26-2012, 8:30 PM
Ironically, the deeper you dig the further your opinion tends to diverge from reality. :)

-Gene

M. D. Van Norman
05-26-2012, 9:03 PM
In Mr. Brown’s defense, it’s hard to look at the business surrounding Nordyke and not see deliberate stalling.

kcbrown
05-26-2012, 9:33 PM
Ironically, the deeper you dig the further your opinion tends to diverge from reality. :)


It's funny you should say that, because the litmus test of an opinion relative to reality is how well predictions based on that opinion hold up.

I hope my opinions are divergent from reality, and that reality is closer to yours than to mine. But so far, reality has not been terribly kind to your time predictions, which calls into question whose opinion is truly diverging from reality. :D

In truth, we could both be wrong. Indeed, there's a reasonable chance of that.

My time predictions give a timeline that is far enough out that it could easily be shown incorrect. Most certainly there is plenty of time for that! And I will be quite happy indeed if they're proven incorrect.

But that's not the way I'm betting...


I won't be surprised if reality winds up being somewhere between your optimism and my cynical realism. Indeed, I'm hoping that's the case. But the real world has a way of dashing hopes...

kcbrown
05-26-2012, 9:35 PM
I understand the psychological factors at work better than most, it seems, but even I grow impatient. It doesn’t help when political moves in other states advance the clock either. :mad:

And that is the greatest danger now—that our collective patience will fail … and that someone will do something rash.

This illustrates the folly of proclaiming an overly-optimistic timeline. People's expectations are based on what those "in the know" say. When what is predicted does not come to pass, the reliability of later predictions will start to be questioned. Needless to say, that does nothing good for the movement.

If you're going to predict that something will take at most some amount of time, you'd better be damned sure of your timeline. At most means under the worst possible circumstances, and at the furthest edges of the error bars.

For example, we were told that it would be at most 36 months after McDonald that we'd have secured shall-issue LTCs in the anti-gun strongholds. Now we know that 36 months was wildly optimistic. We'll be mildly lucky (roughly 50% probability) if we get a general ruling on public carry from the Supreme Court by then (June 2013). It's just as likely that we'll get that by June 2014, and there is some chance (though very slight) that it will be even longer. Then we have to win Richards and/or Peruta to secure shall-issue LTC in the state, and then we have to fight the anti-gun strongholds in subsequent cases we'll have to bring in order to make LTCs in the anti-gun strongholds realistically obtainable and useful. Hint: having to wait for a year or more to get your LTC does not constitute "shall-issue" in the real world, and neither does having restrictions on the LTCs that are issued that render them essentially useless.

If you're going to make time predictions, they must account for what can go wrong.

kcbrown
05-26-2012, 10:46 PM
Lest some begin to believe that I have some sort of personal grudge, let me dispense with that notion right here and right now (I'm not saying this in response to anything, I'm saying this preemptively).

I may disagree with Gene's opinion of how long it will take to win this fight. I may even disagree with his notions of how the courts will respond to us. But he is absolutely, positively, 100% the right person to be leading this fight in California (if you don't believe me, look at the part of CBS video on SB 249 in which they interviewed him. It is completely full of win! And that is with what is almost certain to be "creative" editing), and I'm deeply grateful to him for the things he's done for all of us.

Gene, I may disagree with you on a number of things, but you still kick serious ***!!

Mulay El Raisuli
05-27-2012, 5:06 AM
Ironically, the deeper you dig the further your opinion tends to diverge from reality. :)

-Gene


Not that I want an 'in' on strategy or anything, but it seems to me that the whole of the anti effort relies entirely on the "in the home" part of Heller. The core of Chicago's intransigence in re ranges, etc is that they're not "in the home" & so the city is allowed to play whatever games they want.

If I'm right about this, wouldn't a SCOTUS "clarification" that the 2A includes outside the home (all by itself) be all that it takes to knock the wind out the sails of the anti effort?


The Raisuli

kcbrown
05-27-2012, 6:35 AM
Not that I want an 'in' on strategy or anything, but it seems to me that the whole of the anti effort relies entirely on the "in the home" part of Heller. The core of Chicago's intransigence in re ranges, etc is that they're not "in the home" & so the city is allowed to play whatever games they want.

If I'm right about this, wouldn't a SCOTUS "clarification" that the 2A includes outside the home (all by itself) be all that it takes to knock the wind out the sails of the anti effort?


No. The ways that the right can be effectively nullified (or nearly so -- enough to make the right essentially useless) are varied and numerous, and make use of plenty of different "time, place, and/or manner" restrictions.

And each one of those will have to be fought separately.


There are also more "indirect" approaches. Think about, for instance, the implications of the fact that any felony conviction eliminates your right to keep and bear arms permanently.

hoffmang
05-27-2012, 10:14 PM
The core of Chicago's intransigence in re ranges, etc is that they're not "in the home" & so the city is allowed to play whatever games they want.

If I'm right about this, wouldn't a SCOTUS "clarification" that the 2A includes outside the home (all by itself) be all that it takes to knock the wind out the sails of the anti effort?

As to carry, yes - that the 2A applies in more than the home pretty much puts the nail in the coffin.

However, then we'll move on to being told that semiautomatics are not common...

-Gene

CapS
05-28-2012, 12:29 AM
As to carry, yes - that the 2A applies in more than the home pretty much puts the nail in the coffin.

However, then we'll move on to being told that semiautomatics are not common...

-Gene

Keep on keep on keep on. Please. :oji:

Cap

Mulay El Raisuli
05-28-2012, 10:16 AM
As to carry, yes - that the 2A applies in more than the home pretty much puts the nail in the coffin.

However, then we'll move on to being told that semiautomatics are not common...

-Gene


I'm thinking that it'll put the nail in the coffin for more than carry. It seems that every anti ruling I see starts off with "The 2A only applies in the home & so we can be the biggest jerks on the planet when it comes to everything outside of the home" (or words to that effect). :) This is certainly the case with Ezell. My thinking then is that once the "only in the home" reasoning is tossed, there just won't be anything for an anti to hang his hat on for ANYthing & the restrictions on ranges, driving across state lines, etc., etc., etc. will fall fairly rapidly.

Yes, antis can be clever & so they could trot out something else to base their obstinacy upon, but I can't imagine what that could be. "Only in the home" seems to the only life buoy available.

As for 'autos v. revolvers,' didn't SCOTUS put that to bed already?


The Raisuli

Maestro Pistolero
05-28-2012, 10:46 AM
This is certainly the case with Ezell.Not at the appellate level. The CA7 absolutely reaffirmed the right exists outside the home, in part, because that's where ranges are located. And because one must transport one's arms to and from the range.

As for 'autos v. revolvers,' didn't SCOTUS put that to bed already?
Yes, IMO. Arms in common use. Semi-autos are the MOST commonly used self-defense weapon by quite a margin.

Window_Seat
05-28-2012, 4:40 PM
Not at the appellate level. The CA7 absolutely reaffirmed the right exists outside the home, in part, because that's where ranges are located. And because one must transport one's arms to and from the range.


Yes, IMO. Arms in common use. Semi-autos are the MOST commonly used self-defense weapon by quite a margin.And the same should go for SARs as well

"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding." District of Columbia v. Heller, 559 U.S. 582 (2008).

Again, "bear" means to "carry". It could be argued that SARs can be carried, just not as concealed as a small handgun, no? And speaking of "common use", I was researching this just a few ago (while working on a paper):

For the anti's, a pipe bomb is not one that is in common use. United States v. Tagg, 572 F.3d. 1320 (11th Cir. 2009).

Still (specifically), to this day, "[m]achine guns are not in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes and therefore fall within the category of dangerous and unusual weapons that the government can prohibit for individual use." United States v. Fincher, 538 F.3d 868, 874 (8th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S.Ct. 1369 (2009).

Firearms with obliterated serial numbers fall within those that aren't protected by the Second Amendment, but although the 3rd Circuit says so, I'm just not sure if it should be considered to fall into the category of dangerous and unusual. United States v. Marzzarella, 614. F.3d 85, 105 (3d Cir. 2010).

I tried to find one for "semi-automatic rifle" or "semi-automatic long gun", etc., but nothing.

So when courts talk about "dangerous and unusual", it could be argued easily that they are talking about things like pipe bombs, FA machine guns, maybe even nuclear bombs, etc., but NOT semi autos, and they certainly haven't implied that semi-automatic rifles that are California compliant would at any time, fall within that category.

And not to hijack this thread, so back onto the Palmer discussion... This waiting really suc(<s... :D

Erik.

nick
05-28-2012, 5:20 PM
The only reason FA rifles are "unusual" is because they've been effectively banned since 1986 (at least, their number cannot increase, and only decreases), and heavily taxed with the goal of limiting their affordability since 1934. Given the prices they command, it looks like the demand for them is high, and so, if it wasn't for the government regulation, they would be quite common today.

Maestro Pistolero
05-28-2012, 6:29 PM
The only reason FA rifles are "unusual" is because they've been effectively banned since 1986 (at least, their number cannot increase, and only decreases), and heavily taxed with the goal of limiting their affordability since 1934. Given the prices they command, it looks like the demand for them is high, and so, if it wasn't for the government regulation, they would be quite common today.Your point is well taken, that is it could be considered circular logic to claim that FA is not common because it the supply has been artificially suppressed.

And certainly since 1986 with the closing of the registration, the NFA represents an effective ban on FA/select-fire for all but the richest among us. But the fact is that, for whatever the reasons, FA was not all that common even before it was suppressed, then (effectively) banned. We can only speculate as to how common FA might be if the market wasn't artificially quashed.

The most direct work around, IMO, in light of unfortunate precedent supporting certain NFA restrictions, is for some gun-friendly states to begin officially authorizing private ownership for militia-related contingency purposes. This would place such ownership out of the bounds of federal regulation, IMO.

kcbrown
05-28-2012, 6:44 PM
Your point is well taken, that is it could be considered circular logic to claim that FA is not common because it the supply has been artificially suppressed.


This is why I consider the "common use" criteria to be entirely improper and a fundamental roadblock to the 2nd Amendment. It ensures that only the arms that are common today will remain protected, and makes it possible for the government to prevent any further development of arms for citizen ownership.

Look, the fact that FA is widely regarded as unprotected quite clearly means that military and police arms are essentially unprotected as regards citizen ownership, and the military and police are the only organizations which are likely to see significant improvements in arms. Everything else can either be restricted to military and/or police use, or can be killed in its infancy.


That is quite clearly intolerable, and an abomination in the eyes of the 2nd Amendment as it was envisioned.




The most direct work around, IMO, in light of unfortunate precedent supporting certain NFA restrictions, is for some gun-friendly states to begin officially authorizing private ownership for militia-related contingency purposes. This would place such ownership out of the bounds of federal regulation, IMO.

No, it wouldn't. With the commerce clause as is it currently interpreted by the Supreme Court, there is absolutely nothing on this earth that cannot be regulated under it.

Maestro Pistolero
05-28-2012, 8:37 PM
It ensures that only the arms that are common today will remain protected, and makes it possible for the government to prevent any further development of arms for citizen ownership.

That is quite clearly intolerable, and an abomination in the eyes of the 2nd Amendment as it was envisioned.
An excellent point that I have made myself a time or two. The solution cannot be that ONLY arms in common use are protected. The test works well enough if only applied on the side of liberty: IF it's in common use, it's clearly protected.

But if it's not yet in common use it's also presumptively protected unless dangerous AND unusual. Paraphrasing Heller, what is protected is anything that constitutes a bearable arm.

Since all weapons are by definition, dangerous, the level of danger must be significantly greater than those arms in common use.

It's entirely likely that, going forward, arms will be developed that are more effective yet less dangerous.

kcbrown
05-28-2012, 8:48 PM
But if it's not yet in common use it's also presumptively protected unless dangerous AND unusual.


No, it should be presumptively protected unless the normal use of a single instance of it is of significant danger to the public on a scale notably larger than a single individual. "Unusual" is merely another word for "uncommon".

That terminology (worded, perhaps, better than I have here) gets you protection of everything that can do arbitrary amounts of damage to a single individual or, possibly, a small group of same, but which would not represent any sort of substantial threat to large numbers of people. So it would not protect area effect weapons, but would protect directed weapons as long as those weapons limit their damage to the target when used normally.

There is absolutely no reason at all to restrict an arm simply because it is unusual.



It's entirely likely that, going forward, arms will be developed that are more effective yet less dangerous.

Or, possibly, more dangerous to the target but less dangerous to everyone else.

Scarecrow Repair
05-29-2012, 6:27 AM
Again, "bear" means to "carry".

Not to nitpick, but I believe Heller said it meant carry ready for immediate use, not transport.

Maestro Pistolero
05-29-2012, 9:22 AM
The dangerous and unusual language is from Heller, quoting Miller, which said such restrictions pass muster. While the phrase is anything but definitive, it has favor with the court.

Not to nitpick, but I believe Heller said it meant carry ready for immediate use, not transport.

I believe transporting either constitutes keeping, or bearing, or both.

Mulay El Raisuli
05-29-2012, 9:34 AM
Not at the appellate level. The CA7 absolutely reaffirmed the right exists outside the home, in part, because that's where ranges are located. And because one must transport one's arms to and from the range.


Yes, IMO. Arms in common use. Semi-autos are the MOST commonly used self-defense weapon by quite a margin.


Yes, but the message needs to pounded into the heads of the trial level judges. Having to take a case up to the appellate courts (even with a win assured) over each & every picayune detail that an anti-freedom city like Chicago can come up with gets old real fast. BEST would be to have the principle so thoroughly pounded into their heads that the antis get shot down at the start of the process.


An excellent point that I have made myself a time or two. The solution cannot be that ONLY arms in common use are protected. The test works well enough if only applied on the side of liberty: IF it's in common use, it's clearly protected.

But if it's not yet in common use it's also presumptively protected unless dangerous AND unusual. Paraphrasing Heller, what is protected is anything that constitutes a bearable arm.

Since all weapons are by definition, dangerous, the level of danger must be significantly greater than those arms in common use.(manner of emphasis changed by me)


Agree entirely.


It's entirely likely that, going forward, arms will be developed that are more effective yet less dangerous.


You mean, like a pulse rifle in the 40 watt range? :D


The Raisuli

curtisfong
05-29-2012, 9:54 AM
You mean, like a pulse rifle in the 40 watt range? :D


Ahem.

Phased plasma rifle :)

hammerhead_77
05-29-2012, 10:21 AM
Your point is well taken, that is it could be considered circular logic to claim that FA is not common because it the supply has been artificially suppressed.

And certainly since 1986 with the closing of the registration, the NFA represents an effective ban on FA/select-fire for all but the richest among us. But the fact is that, for whatever the reasons, FA was not all that common even before it was suppressed, then (effectively) banned. We can only speculate as to how common FA might be if the market wasn't artificially quashed.

The most direct work around, IMO, in light of unfortunate precedent supporting certain NFA restrictions, is for some gun-friendly states to begin officially authorizing private ownership for militia-related contingency purposes. This would place such ownership out of the bounds of federal regulation, IMO.

Actually, since federal regulation of firearms seems to be based in the 'interstate commerce"' clause, I think that the Montana Guns approach is the way to go. If it never moves in interstate commerce, it should be a pure state issue.

OleCuss
05-29-2012, 10:33 AM
Actually, since federal regulation of firearms seems to be based in the 'interstate commerce"' clause, I think that the Montana Guns approach is the way to go. If it never moves in interstate commerce, it should be a pure state issue.

You're making sense. When discussing the Commerce Clause and its current application, that is a mistake.

The Commerce Clause has been interpreted as allowing federal control of behavior wholly contained within your own property with no activity in trade at all. Net effect is that if you simply do something which would mean you won't purchase something - that can be construed as constituting affecting interstate commerce since you won't be buying that good or service from another state.

And do remember that most court watchers believe that at least 4 justices on SCOTUS will vote in favor of ObamaCare and the concept that the government can compel you to purchase a health care plan.

IMHO, the Commerce Clause has been trashed and its current implementation would outrage those who wrote the actual language. It should outrage all of us, for that matter.

scarville
05-29-2012, 10:38 AM
Actually, since federal regulation of firearms seems to be based in the 'interstate commerce"' clause, I think that the Montana Guns approach is the way to go. If it never moves in interstate commerce, it should be a pure state issue.
Gonzales v. Raich says otherwise.

Maestro Pistolero
05-29-2012, 10:51 AM
The Montana approach is untested. What is undisputed, is that the states have a right to arm militias. Under that authority, Montana or any other state could authorize civilian use of select fire weapons.

nicki
05-29-2012, 9:39 PM
Gonzales v. Raich says otherwise.


This is the case that the Obama administration used to justify the individual mandate.

I don't expect the court to overturn the "Raich ruling" outright, however they may weaken it enough.

Strangely enough, in the Silveria case the 9th circuit supported the concept that states have a right to keep and bear arms due to the "Militia".

The SCOTUS refused to grant cert in that case, so in light of Heller/MacDonald the anti's may have been too smart for themselves.;)

Montana will probably push the envelope with regards to state's rights, must be something in the air and/or water that infects people who reside in that state with the mindset that somehow they are "FREE".:43:

Still trying to figure out how to get that infection in a pandemic mode to hit California.:rolleyes:

Nicki

kcbrown
05-29-2012, 9:53 PM
This is the case that the Obama administration used to justify the individual mandate.

I don't expect the court to overturn the "Raich ruling" outright, however they may weaken it enough.

Strangely enough, in the Silveria case the 9th circuit supported the concept that states have a right to keep and bear arms due to the "Militia".


Probably because they can't quite bring themselves to rule that the 2nd is a dead letter. But mainly because a state "right" is a right of government, and the more of that there is, the "better".



The SCOTUS refused to grant cert in that case, so in light of Heller/MacDonald the anti's may have been too smart for themselves.;)


Not likely. In that context, the "right" to arm the militia doesn't necessarily imply that the arms used can contravene federal law, only that the federal government cannot outright prevent militias from being supplied arms by the states.

In other words, I see nothing about it that prevents extraordinarily intrusive and suffocating "time, place, and manner" restrictions on the part of the feds.


The last experiment in "states rights" ended very badly for the states. I see no reason to believe that things will change except through a Constitutional amendment. If we fail to properly secure the right to keep and bear arms through the judiciary, I fully expect that an attempt to do so through a Constitutional amendment will result in that process being co-opted by the states for the purpose of asserting "states rights", which will almost certainly cause us in anti-gun states to lose the right utterly. This is especially true since the amendment process will not be started by Congress (since reasserting the 2nd Amendment will only serve to limit Congress' ability to legislate on such matters, and Congress will never vote to limit its own power), so it has to be started by the states.

Mulay El Raisuli
05-30-2012, 5:32 AM
Ahem.

Phased plasma rifle :)


I stand corrected. :)


The Raisuli

curtisfong
05-30-2012, 8:48 AM
an attempt to do so through a Constitutional amendment will result in that process being co-opted by the states for the purpose of asserting "states rights", which will almost certainly cause us in anti-gun states to lose the right utterly.

Terrifying prediction.

I'm hoping you're overreaching; IMO the "states rights" thing has been dead for some time. Everybody loves a big happy unified federal government. Lets hope my cynicism is more accurate than yours, in this particular case.

Uxi
05-30-2012, 9:23 AM
The Montana approach is untested. What is undisputed, is that the states have a right to arm militias. Under that authority, Montana or any other state could authorize civilian use of select fire weapons.

That could be pretty cool. Some sort of voluntary reserve militia thing.

hammerhead_77
05-30-2012, 10:33 AM
Gonzales v. Raich says otherwise.

Probably...but so what? With lots of states passing Sovereignty statues to reinforce their legal standing for rejecting Federal overreach, I think the ground is actually well prepared for a state like Montana or Oklahoma to start clawing back States Rights versus Congress.

Arizona was oh-so-close with their resolution that if the Feds won't enforce federal immigration laws, then the state won't do anything to enforce ANY federal laws (i.e., collection and remitting of federal taxes). Alabama was also close with a similar thinly veiled threat. Both of these are attached to the much more pressing issue of illegal immigration costs, but serve to show an appetite within the state legislatures to buck the Feds.

What exactly do you think would happen if Montana decided to exercise its approach to Montana Guns, or even to arm the civilian militia with select fire weapons (based on the idea that militiamen keep their weapons in the home)? The last president to declare a state in insurrection was Bush I, and the political landscape is far, far different today. Declare Montana in insurrection and you would be likely to actually find one when you got there! Texas is not shy about reminding us all that they uniquely retain the right to leave the Union...and while it may not really happen, it would cause a firestorm in DC that this Whitehouse is entirely unwilling and unprepared to address.

No, I think what you would see is AG Holder doing a bunch of chest thumping. How the states respond to that - probably by ignoring it - will be very interesting. We may see some of this same activity based on how SCOTUS comes down on ObamaCare... States that are willing to lose their federal highway (and other) funds may just refuse to implement it. That would force Obama's hand to take some kind of action...and remember that in their official capacities, the legislators and Governors might not be easily targeted for charges as individuals.

While a second term Obama would be sorely tempted to push these issues, he is far too narcissistic to accept such a heavy risk to his legacy. We live interesting times.

Now, I'll go grab some coffee and wait for KCBrown to disagree...

OleCuss
05-30-2012, 10:51 AM
.
.
.
Now, I'll go grab some coffee and wait for KCBrown to disagree...

Yeah, some are very predictable. You can count on LCAV/Brady to claim that they will kill our RKBA - and kcbrown to believe them!

OK, OK, I exaggerate just a bit. . .;)

mdimeo
05-30-2012, 11:17 AM
The Montana approach is untested. What is undisputed, is that the states have a right to arm militias. Under that authority, Montana or any other state could authorize civilian use of select fire weapons.

In Article 1, congress gets the power to provide for arming the militia. A state can set up a militia, but congress can say how it is to be armed. Pointy sticks and slingshots, if they say so.

-m@