PDA

View Full Version : July 26 2014: Palmer v. DC; US District Court rules in favor of Gura/Palmer


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7

ToldYouSo
10-23-2013, 10:43 AM
Update: July 26,2014, US District Court rules in favor of Gura/Palmer. Opinion is located here (http://alangura.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/DCT_OPINION.pdf). ~Lorax3

------

I tried to post the following in an existing DC v. Palmer thread but got an error message saying the thread was too old.

Two hours ago Alan Gura tweeted a writ of mandamus which seeks to force a decision from the district court in this case.

Here is the link from his website -> http://gurapossessky.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/petition.pdf

Normally, he might have a good argument but it has been less than three months since Gura filed a motion in the district court for a decision and he didn't have to wait for four years to file that motion.

Palmer v. DC is a "carry case."

Here is a link to the internet archives of the filings in the case -> http://ia700408.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.docket.html

Librarian
10-23-2013, 12:08 PM
Win or lose, Petitioners are entitled to a resolution of this important
case—and to an appeal. Because the district court’s failure to decide the
case impedes this Court’s appellate jurisdiction, because the delay in
resolving this priority civil rights case is extreme, because no reason
exists to believe an opinion will issue within another four years absent
this Court’s intervention, and because Petitioners lack any other
remedy, a writ of mandamus should issue directing the district court to
forthwith produce an appealable order with a sufficiently-elaborated
opinion. Petitioners respectfully submit that seven days would suffice.

We'll see, I guess.

Re: 'too old' error message - mostly that has a checkbox asking 'do you still want to post?' and if you check it, the software will allow the reply.

ToldYouSo
10-23-2013, 12:32 PM
Re: 'too old' error message - mostly that has a checkbox asking 'do you still want to post?' and if you check it, the software will allow the reply.

Good to know.

postal
10-23-2013, 12:56 PM
Arent there several other cases just sitting around too? Maybe Gura should send them a memo too?

speedrrracer
10-23-2013, 1:21 PM
Arent there several other cases just sitting around too? Maybe Gura should send them a memo too?

Palmer is in a different league....going on 5 years now.

And he's right about the 7 days, esp given the junk that passes for jurisprudence wrt to the 2A from courts these days. I'm betting they just throw darts or run a random BS decision-generation algorithm. Shouldn't take clowns like that more than a few minutes, tops.

press1280
10-23-2013, 1:36 PM
Palmer is in a different league....going on 5 years now.

And he's right about the 7 days, esp given the junk that passes for jurisprudence wrt to the 2A from courts these days. I'm betting they just throw darts or run a random BS decision-generation algorithm. Shouldn't take clowns like that more than a few minutes, tops.

If they don't want to give us a victory, an "only in the home" opinion would work too:43:

Peaceful John
10-23-2013, 2:05 PM
Great news, but so many questions . . .

1: How long does D.C. have to respond?
2: Once both sides have been heard, how long does the C.A. have to opine?
3: What is the most likely (even a range) period the District Court will be given to comply?

Paladin
10-23-2013, 9:24 PM
This raises something I have been thinking about for a few weeks, but dared not post about. Gura doing this just 3 months after his motion makes me think he's thinking along the same lines.

What if the antis are right? What if some of the Heller 5 -- not necessarily back in Heller days or in the Heller opinion, but now -- believe that they did not say the 2nd A protects a RKBA in public? IOW, some of them (cough, Kennedy, cough, Roberts, cough), may have changed their mind/s.

Since we (unfortunately?), won against the ONLY "No Issue" concealed carry and no OC state (IL), we are not able ask for cert. with a state case against a total carry ban. Thus, Gura has to go back to his roots, back to D.C., the only place in the entire US that has a total ban on all carry, both OC and CC.

Let's say we win a RKBA in public in Palmer. (I won't speculate what they'll say re. unlicensed vs permitted LOC, LCC, or both being required.) The question then is, since D.C. is a federal enclave, does "ol' McDonald" incorporate it, or do we need a new state case to incorporate Palmer's RKBA in public? If the latter, what kind of state case? Since ALL states now (or soon will) issue CCWs or better, it has to be a May Issue or better state. Would a May Issue w/unequal standards across the state and a total ban on LOC case work (i.e., Richards-Peruta in CA)? If so, will CA9 be slow enough in releasing its opinion that Palmer could get cert. ahead of it, or that SCOTUS could hold Richards-Peruta (next fall) for Palmer asking cert. later in that term? (This also brings up the discussion of skipping the CA level entirely and trying to go directly to SCOTUS, or just skipping requesting a rehearing/en banc.)

Or does SAF/NRA/CGF have to file a new state carry case in federal court? (Probably wise to do anyway just to cover our bases given the way things have been going.)

taperxz
10-23-2013, 10:42 PM
This raises something I have been thinking about for a few weeks, but dared not post about. Gura doing this just 3 months after his motion makes me think he's thinking along the same lines.

What if the antis are right? What if some of the Heller 5 -- not necessarily back in Heller days or in the Heller opinion, but now -- believe that they did not say the 2nd A protects a RKBA in public? IOW, some of them (cough, Kennedy, cough, Roberts, cough), may have changed their mind/s.

Since we (unfortunately?), won against the ONLY "No Issue" concealed carry and no OC state (IL), we are not able ask for cert. with a state case against a total carry ban. Thus, Gura has to go back to his roots, back to D.C., the only place in the entire US that has a total ban on all carry, both OC and CC.

Let's say we win a RKBA in public in Palmer. (I won't speculate what they'll say re. unlicensed vs permitted LOC, LCC, or both being required.) The question then is, since D.C. is a federal enclave, does "ol' McDonald" incorporate it, or do we need a new state case to incorporate Palmer's RKBA in public? If the latter, what kind of state case? Since ALL states now (or soon will) issue CCWs or better, it has to be a May Issue or better state. Would a May Issue w/unequal standards across the state and a total ban on LOC case work (i.e., Richards-Peruta in CA)? If so, will CA9 be slow enough in releasing its opinion that Palmer could get cert. ahead of it, or that SCOTUS could hold Richards-Peruta (next fall) for Palmer asking cert. later in that term? (This also brings up the discussion of skipping the CA level entirely and trying to go directly to SCOTUS, or just skipping requesting a rehearing/en banc.)

Or does SAF/NRA/CGF have to file a new state carry case in federal court? (Probably wise to do anyway just to cover our bases given the way things have been going.)

Understood your point. However, if you read the complaint provided in the OP, notice how he references the state decision in Illinois on carry. He uses it as both a reference for the time it took and how it was ruled in the 7th. Not a bad way to bring up his complaint.

Gray Peterson
10-23-2013, 10:54 PM
This raises something I have been thinking about for a few weeks, but dared not post about. Gura doing this just 3 months after his motion makes me think he's thinking along the same lines.

What if the antis are right? What if some of the Heller 5 -- not necessarily back in Heller days or in the Heller opinion, but now -- believe that they did not say the 2nd A protects a RKBA in public? IOW, some of them (cough, Kennedy, cough, Roberts, cough), may have changed their mind/s.

Since we (unfortunately?), won against the ONLY "No Issue" concealed carry and no OC state (IL), we are not able ask for cert. with a state case against a total carry ban. Thus, Gura has to go back to his roots, back to D.C., the only place in the entire US that has a total ban on all carry, both OC and CC.

Let's say we win a RKBA in public in Palmer. (I won't speculate what they'll say re. unlicensed vs permitted LOC, LCC, or both being required.) The question then is, since D.C. is a federal enclave, does "ol' McDonald" incorporate it, or do we need a new state case to incorporate Palmer's RKBA in public? If the latter, what kind of state case? Since ALL states now (or soon will) issue CCWs or better, it has to be a May Issue or better state. Would a May Issue w/unequal standards across the state and a total ban on LOC case work (i.e., Richards-Peruta in CA)? If so, will CA9 be slow enough in releasing its opinion that Palmer could get cert. ahead of it, or that SCOTUS could hold Richards-Peruta (next fall) for Palmer asking cert. later in that term? (This also brings up the discussion of skipping the CA level entirely and trying to go directly to SCOTUS, or just skipping requesting a rehearing/en banc.)

Or does SAF/NRA/CGF have to file a new state carry case in federal court? (Probably wise to do anyway just to cover our bases given the way things have been going.)

No, from McDonald:

3043:
First, while § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains "an antidiscrimination rule," namely, the Equal Protection Clause, municipal respondents can hardly mean that § 1 does no more than prohibit discrimination. If that were so, then the First Amendment, as applied to the States, would not prohibit nondiscriminatory abridgments of the rights to freedom of speech or freedom of religion; the Fourth Amendment, as applied to the States, would not prohibit all unreasonable searches and seizures but only discriminatory searches and seizures—and so on. We assume that this is not municipal respondents' view, so what they must mean is that the Second Amendment should be singled out for special—and specially unfavorable—treatment. We reject that suggestion.

3046

Time and again, however, those pleas failed. Unless we turn back the clock or adopt a special incorporation test applicable only to the Second Amendment, municipal respondents' argument must be rejected. Under our precedents, if a Bill of Rights guarantee is fundamental from an American perspective, then, unless stare decisis counsels otherwise,[30] that guarantee is fully binding on the States and thus limits (but by no means eliminates) their ability to devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values. As noted by the 38 States that have appeared in this case as amici supporting petitioners, "[s]tate and local experimentation with reasonable firearms regulations will continue under the Second Amendment." Brief for State of Texas et al. as Amici Curiae 23.

3047

Municipal respondents assert that, although most state constitutions protect firearms rights, state courts have held that these rights are subject to "interest-balancing" and have sustained a variety of restrictions. Brief for Municipal Respondents 23-31. In Heller, however, we expressly rejected the argument that the scope of the Second Amendment right should be determined by judicial interest balancing, 554 U.S., at ___ - ___, 128 S.Ct., at 2820-2821, and this Court decades ago abandoned "the notion that the Fourteenth Amendment applies to the States only a watered-down, subjective version of the individual guarantees of the Bill of Rights," Malloy, supra, at 10-11, 84 S.Ct. 1489 (internal quotation marks omitted).

McDonald incorporates it, unless a presumed Palmer case opinion were to suddenly pull back from McDonald.

press1280
10-23-2013, 11:59 PM
This raises something I have been thinking about for a few weeks, but dared not post about. Gura doing this just 3 months after his motion makes me think he's thinking along the same lines.

What if the antis are right? What if some of the Heller 5 -- not necessarily back in Heller days or in the Heller opinion, but now -- believe that they did not say the 2nd A protects a RKBA in public? IOW, some of them (cough, Kennedy, cough, Roberts, cough), may have changed their mind/s.

Since we (unfortunately?), won against the ONLY "No Issue" concealed carry and no OC state (IL), we are not able ask for cert. with a state case against a total carry ban. Thus, Gura has to go back to his roots, back to D.C., the only place in the entire US that has a total ban on all carry, both OC and CC.

Let's say we win a RKBA in public in Palmer. (I won't speculate what they'll say re. unlicensed vs permitted LOC, LCC, or both being required.) The question then is, since D.C. is a federal enclave, does "ol' McDonald" incorporate it, or do we need a new state case to incorporate Palmer's RKBA in public? If the latter, what kind of state case? Since ALL states now (or soon will) issue CCWs or better, it has to be a May Issue or better state. Would a May Issue w/unequal standards across the state and a total ban on LOC case work (i.e., Richards-Peruta in CA)? If so, will CA9 be slow enough in releasing its opinion that Palmer could get cert. ahead of it, or that SCOTUS could hold Richards-Peruta (next fall) for Palmer asking cert. later in that term? (This also brings up the discussion of skipping the CA level entirely and trying to go directly to SCOTUS, or just skipping requesting a rehearing/en banc.)

Or does SAF/NRA/CGF have to file a new state carry case in federal court? (Probably wise to do anyway just to cover our bases given the way things have been going.)

If Palmer gets to SCOTUS and they strike down the carry ban, then it's enforceable nationwide. The issue will be how the opinion is worded. If it's watered down too much then watch DC try to re-implement their old may(no)-issue. The problem for them will be that the plaintiffs would need to be issued permits as part of their relief. It'll be difficult for them to then start denying other law abiding citizens, because their plaintiffs don't have "extraordinary cause" or "specific threats" unlike Muller in NJ.

BobB35
10-24-2013, 5:19 AM
So after 7 days passes and nothing happens, what is next.

At some point, the judiciary stops being a viable alternative. When the social contract is negated (as was done long ago in this country) what binds men to a govt? This has only gone on as long as it has because of the illusion of proseperty bought by 17 trillion in Debt with an additional 85 billion added every month. When that stops watch how fast things unravel.

M. D. Van Norman
10-24-2013, 8:00 AM
When the social contract is negated … what binds men to a govt?

Only fear.

speedrrracer
10-24-2013, 9:26 AM
When the social contract is negated … what binds men to a govt?
Only fear.


Not if you're on the free-crap train!

M. D. Van Norman
10-24-2013, 9:31 AM
Or bribes then! :p

speedrrracer
10-24-2013, 9:53 AM
So after 7 days passes and nothing happens, what is next.


Next is the appeals court denies Gura's writ, and the case goes to Limbo for all eternity. It's not a bug in the legal system, it's a feature :D

Paladin
10-24-2013, 1:42 PM
No, from McDonald:

<snip>

McDonald incorporates it, unless a presumed Palmer case opinion were to suddenly pull back from McDonald.
Sounds good, Gray.

Some more issues:

What if we win Palmer at the DC and D.C. gives in, does NOT appeal to the D.C. CA (this term)? Are we back to hoping that for some reason SCOTUS will want to take Drake and/or Richards-Peruta, even though they skipped Kachalksy and Woollard? Back to starting some federal LOC cases (in No LOC state/s?), to see if that is what SCOTUS wants?

What if we win Palmer at the D.C. CA, but D.C. gives in (like IL), and does NOT appeal to SCOTUS (next term)? Then we're left w/May Issue CCW state cases (like what SCOTUS has turned down), and/or some No LOC state cases.

We need to make sure SCOTUS speaks on public RKBA and fast! Otherwise we'll end up like Napoleon and Hitler in Russia -- gaining tons of ground only to lose it all when "winter comes" (SCOTUS packed w/antis and then they decide to start taking 2nd A cases again)....

thedrickel
10-24-2013, 2:45 PM
Ha, "win Palmer at the DC" . . . yeah . . . good one.

M. D. Van Norman
10-24-2013, 2:57 PM
We need to make sure SCOTUS speaks on public RKBA and fast!

That’s what I said four years ago … and was an opportunity that I think has almost surely expired. Now, winter is definitely upon us.

And the perpetual delay in Palmer raises unpleasant questions about the nature of this formerly polite, legalistic struggle.

formerTexan
10-24-2013, 3:20 PM
I'm not sure why "we" waited 4+ years to do this, why not at the 2 year mark? Hopefully the next time a case sits for 2 years, the lawyers would get on this step instead of waiting another 2.

wolfwood
10-24-2013, 3:25 PM
Eventually the Court must rule and in favor of Palmer. Honestly I don't get why the DC district court would appeal. They know they must lose and would be better off simply turning DC into a may issue State like New York. Then if Gura sues again D.C. would be in compliance with current jurisprudence. If they push this like they did Heller they will end up doing all of us a favor and they know it.

Kharn
10-24-2013, 3:30 PM
wolfwood,
Liberals nationwide begged DC to live with a loss at the Circuit level in Heller, their arrogance cost the entire antigun movement greatly.

Wolverine
10-24-2013, 3:36 PM
I'm not sure why "we" waited 4+ years to do this, why not at the 2 year mark? Hopefully the next time a case sits for 2 years, the lawyers would get on this step instead of waiting another 2.

They did. After 2 years with the first judge they complained and the case was reassigned to another judge. Now the second judge has taken 2 years and they are complaining again.

bulgron
10-24-2013, 4:19 PM
They did. After 2 years with the first judge they complained and the case was reassigned to another judge. Now the second judge has taken 2 years and they are complaining again.

So then they'll assign to a different judge, and 2 years from now ....

Wolverine
10-24-2013, 4:40 PM
So then they'll assign to a different judge, and 2 years from now ....

Yep. That is what I am expecting.

NotEnufGarage
10-24-2013, 5:37 PM
wolfwood,
Liberals nationwide begged DC to live with a loss at the Circuit level in Heller, their arrogance cost the entire antigun movement greatly.

Liberals are nothing if not arrogant.

Funtimes
10-24-2013, 6:13 PM
T
Since we (unfortunately?), won against the ONLY "No Issue" concealed carry and no OC state (IL), we are not able ask for cert. with a state case against a total carry ban. Thus, Gura has to go back to his roots, back to D.C., the only place in the entire US that has a total ban on all carry, both OC and CC.


I disagree. Hawaii is still no issue. Zero permits in 15+ years in Honolulu. The government has said they don't issue them on the record.

speedrrracer
10-24-2013, 7:49 PM
I disagree. Hawaii is still no issue. Zero permits in 15+ years in Honolulu. The government has said they don't issue them on the record.

In practice, yes, but it hasn't been codified. A different govt, under the same Hawaiian laws, could issue permits. Ergo, may issue.

Al Norris
10-25-2013, 5:16 AM
They did. After 2 years with the first judge they complained and the case was reassigned to another judge. Now the second judge has taken 2 years and they are complaining again.So then they'll assign to a different judge, and 2 years from now ....

No, if the writ is granted, this time a decision will be produced.

sholling
10-25-2013, 7:15 AM
I have to wonder how long the DC Court of Appeals will need to ponder the writ and what excuse they will use to turn Gura down. I strongly suspect that the case will not leave the DC court or complete the follow on appeal in time to reach SCOTUS until well into Hillary's 1st term as president. The DC courts will want to delay long enough for the make up of the Supreme Court to move left.

Paladin
10-25-2013, 8:39 AM
I have to wonder how long the DC Court of Appeals will need to ponder the writ and what excuse they will use to turn Gura down.
That brings up another question I was wondering: If the D.C. CA says "no" to the writ, can Gura appeal that to SCOTUS?

ToldYouSo
10-25-2013, 10:49 AM
That brings up another question I was wondering: If the D.C. CA says "no" to the writ, can Gura appeal that to SCOTUS?

Yes, and technically Gura could have bypassed the Court of Appeals:

"US Supreme Court Rule 20...
3.(a) A petition seeking a writ of prohibition, a writ of mandamus, or both in the alternative shall state the name and office or function of every person against whom relief is sought and shall set out with particularity why the relief sought is not available in any other court. A copy of the judgment with respect to which the writ is sought, including any related opinion, shall be appended to the petition together with any other document essential to understanding the petition."

See also:

Rule 11. Certiorari to a United States Court of Appeals Before Judgment
A petition for a writ of certiorari to review a case pending in a United States court of appeals, before judgment is entered in that court, will be granted only upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court. See 28 U. S. C. § 2101(e).

28 U. S. C. § 2101(e) "An application to the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review a case before judgment has been rendered in the court of appeals may be made at any time before judgment."

I say "technically" because the chances of the cert petition being granted is somewhere between nil and none.

Paladin
10-26-2013, 7:15 AM
Some more issues:

What if we win Palmer at the DC and D.C. gives in, does NOT appeal to the D.C. CA (this term)? Are we back to hoping that for some reason SCOTUS will want to take Drake and/or Richards-Peruta, even though they skipped Kachalksy and Woollard? Back to starting some federal LOC cases (in No LOC state/s?), to see if that is what SCOTUS wants?

What if we win Palmer at the D.C. CA, but D.C. gives in (like IL), and does NOT appeal to SCOTUS (next term)? Then we're left w/May Issue CCW state cases (like what SCOTUS has turned down), and/or some No LOC state cases.

We need to make sure SCOTUS speaks on public RKBA and fast! Otherwise we'll end up like Napoleon and Hitler in Russia -- gaining tons of ground only to lose it all when "winter comes" (SCOTUS packed w/antis)....In the alternative, assuming we somehow get Palmer to SCOTUS and we're granted (how nice of them! :rolleyes:), a RBA in public.

Then we're left w/attacking May Issue. We'll need a "new generation" of May Issue carry cases from around the nation (see the various circuits involved in my thread at:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=812950).

We either can file them before SCOTUS' opinion in Palmer and hope that their predecessors were declined only because they came before Palmer established a RBA in public, or we can wait until after the opinion to see if there are clues as to other reasons why SCOTUS turned down the 1st gen, and then start the search for plaintiffs who we believe will satisfy SCOTUS.

Other issues:

(1) Likelihood SCOTUS will address standard of review/scrutiny in Palmer?

(2) Likelihood SCOTUS may give us one standard of review/scrutiny for RKA and another, probably lower standard, for (public) RBA.

(3) Likelihood SCOTUS will state Palmer is incorporated via McDonald and what to do if they don't explicitly state it.

Paladin
10-26-2013, 7:18 AM
Yes, and technically Gura could have bypassed the Court of Appeals:

<snip>

I say "technically" because the chances of the cert petition being granted is somewhere between nil and none.I'm thinking the odds of Gura needing to appeal the CA's decision to SCOTUS is much greater than the odds he'd try to skip over the CA entirely.

Paul S
10-27-2013, 7:02 PM
An opinion from a guy who owns guns, shoots and reloads.

Palmer will never be a win and SCOTUS will not rule favorably on any future 2A cases. With Roberts lean to the left we're out of luck with this court. Any further Supreme Court appointments from the continuing Democratic dynasty will further seal our fate.

Of course this opinion + $2 gets you a cup of coffee at Denny's. :(

North86
10-29-2013, 3:52 PM
So what happens tomorrow? Anything?

Paladin
10-29-2013, 4:34 PM
Two hours ago Alan Gura tweeted a writ of mandamus which seeks to force a decision from the district court in this case.
Does anyone know if there's a time limit on the D.C. CA to act on this? If not, how long does this usually take w/the D.C. CA or CA's in general?

So what happens tomorrow? Anything?I don't think necessarily so. The 7 days is what Gura says is plenty of time for the district court to publish its opinion after the writ is issued.

But the question remains, as I state above, how long does the D.C. Court of Appeals have to decide whether to issue the writ to demand the District Court judge publish his opinion.

Calzona
10-30-2013, 10:03 AM
Today marks 7 days, right? Should we be getting some news on this today?

sholling
10-31-2013, 10:03 AM
Today marks 7 days, right? Should we be getting some news on this today?
It could easily take 6-12 months for the DC Court of Appeals to get around to ruling on the merits of the writ. Keep in mind that the DC Court of appeals is one of those that Progressive (fascist) Democrats are working hard to pack with like minded judges.

kcbrown
10-31-2013, 11:51 AM
It could easily take 6-12 months for the DC Court of Appeals to get around to ruling on the merits of the writ. Keep in mind that the DC Court of appeals is one of those that Progressive (fascist) Democrats are working hard to pack with like minded judges.

Or it could do exactly the same thing that the DC district court is doing with Palmer, and just ignore it.

Oh, I forgot. Federal courts are too professional to do such things (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=4631655#post4631655). :facepalm:


Don't know how likely that is here, but the DC district court's treatment of Palmer is an existence proof of the possibility.

Maestro Pistolero
10-31-2013, 2:30 PM
Does the DC court get noticed at the same time? Just curious.

Peaceful John
11-02-2013, 3:29 PM
Eventually the Court must rule and in favor of Palmer. Honestly I don't get why the DC district court would appeal. They know they must lose and would be better off simply turning DC into a may issue State like New York. Then if Gura sues again D.C. would be in compliance with current jurisprudence. If they push this like they did Heller they will end up doing all of us a favor and they know it.

If the District of Columbia loses Palmer and does NOT appeal they are the ones their base will rail against. That is not the way to re-election. Much better to appeal and then being able to say,"Even though the earlier decision went against us, even though others did not wish us to, we appealed to the Supreme Court because we wanted to do everything we could to save our fair city from the plague of guns. We went to the bitter end, confident that our base would wish it so. There are absolutely no options left".

If they lose, my bet is that they'll appeal.

press1280
11-03-2013, 3:32 AM
If the District of Columbia loses Palmer and does NOT appeal they are the ones their base will rail against. That is not the way to re-election. Much better to appeal and then being able to say,"Even though the earlier decision went against us, even though others did not wish us to, we appealed to the Supreme Court because we wanted to do everything we could to save our fair city from the plague of guns. We went to the bitter end, confident that our base would wish it so. There are absolutely no options left".

If they lose, my bet is that they'll appeal.

I'm curious how this would work if DC loses. If they go to may-issue, there's still the issue with the plaintiffs. Do they give them licenses and try to slam the door behind them(everyone applying after gets denied,save a few cronies)? AFAIK none of them have "specific" threats, so it seems you have an easy equal protection problem in that scenario.
If on the other hand they go may-issue then try to deny the plaintiffs a license because they don't have a "need", then the lawsuit isn't mooted and the plaintiffs didn't receive any relief. The case then continues as a "may-issue" case like Woollard/Kachalsky.
Or do I have it wrong?

Paladin
11-03-2013, 7:58 AM
I'm curious how this would work if DC loses. If they go to may-issue, ....

Or do I have it wrong?
Hopefully, you have it wrong from the get-go. ;)

Hopefully, Congress will force them to go Shall Issue (won't hold my breath out for Con. Carry in D.C.), like the 40+ states those Representatives & Senators represent.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_home_rule

press1280
11-05-2013, 2:58 PM
While Congress could force DC into shall-issue, I'm not sure if the votes would be there, and certainly not to override a sure veto unless the bill is attached to other legislation(think National Reciprocity bills).

Paladin
11-11-2013, 8:35 AM
While Congress could force DC into shall-issue, I'm not sure if the votes would be there, and certainly not to override a sure veto unless the bill is attached to other legislation(think National Reciprocity bills).

1) Not sure if the president votes on DC legislation or not, so not sure he could veto it.

2) Don't think DC legislation can be tied to federal legislation.

Gray Peterson
11-11-2013, 10:31 AM
1) Not sure if the president votes on DC legislation or not, so not sure he could veto it.

2) Don't think DC legislation can be tied to federal legislation.

Still a law that the president needs to sign and DC has had federal legislative controls over its laws. See their medicinal cannabis laws...

Paladin
11-12-2013, 9:50 PM
Two hours ago Alan Gura tweeted a writ of mandamus which seeks to force a decision from the district court in this case.

Here is the link from his website -> http://gurapossessky.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/petition.pdf

Normally, he might have a good argument but it has been less than three months since Gura filed a motion in the district court for a decision and he didn't have to wait for four years to file that motion.

Palmer v. DC is a "carry case."

Here is a link to the internet archives of the filings in the case -> http://ia700408.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.docket.html(emphasis added)

It has been 3 weeks.

Anyone know how long it usually takes for a CA, or the D.C. CA in particular, to decide re. a writ of mandamus to force a DC to issue an opinion?

fizux
11-12-2013, 10:35 PM
(emphasis added)

It has been 3 weeks.

Anyone know how long it usually takes for a CA, or the D.C. CA in particular, to decide re. a writ of mandamus to force a DC to issue an opinion?

Usually months, unless it is a high profile (daily coverage by MSM) case.
After 4 years, they probably figure Palmer can wait another 60-90 days. After all, Woolard's problem "resolved" itself.

Paladin
12-07-2013, 12:05 PM
It has been 3 weeks.

Anyone know how long it usually takes for a CA, or the D.C. CA in particular, to decide re. a writ of mandamus to force a DC to issue an opinion?

Just a bump to let folks know this Monday will now be 7 weeks since Gura asked for the writ.

speedrrracer
12-08-2013, 11:53 AM
Just a bump to let folks know this Monday will now be 7 weeks since Gura asked for the writ.

Yup

Seems to me we should cut the salaries of our elected representatives in half, and hire some more judges to deal with (what I assume to be) the crushing workload.

press1280
12-09-2013, 4:55 AM
Just a bump to let folks know this Monday will now be 7 weeks since Gura asked for the writ.

The DC Circuit and District Court, it seems, doesn't want to make a call on this period. The circuit doesn't need to decide the issue-only decide that 4years is(or isn't :mad:) enough time for a ruling, taking into account the SCOTUS chief justice reassigned the case.

sholling
12-09-2013, 10:12 AM
With Obama and Reid set to pack the DC Circut Court of Appeals with 4 new hardcore statist judges the lefties already on the CA and the district court judge only need to stall the case for a few more months before they can safely shoot down "bear" as a right.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-judicial-nominees-poised-to-join-powerful-dc-circuit-court-of-appeals/2013/12/08/047dd476-604d-11e3-8beb-3f9a9942850f_story.html

cmug870
12-17-2013, 7:03 PM
MILLER: Federal court refuses Alan Gura’s request for a decision on D.C. gun carry rights ban

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/17/alan-gura-appeal-gun-carry-rights-dc-denied/

meaty-btz
12-17-2013, 7:17 PM
So, now what? If a court can just dither about forever and refuse to issue a judgement then what?

Librarian
12-17-2013, 7:19 PM
The circuit judges wrote that the delay was not “so egregious or unreasonable as to warrant the extraordinary remedy of mandamus at this time.”

They added that, “We are confident that the district court will act on the motions as promptly as its docket permits.”

The definition of “promptly” seems to mean something different in the federal court system than it does for the rest of us, as it took the appeals court two months to just decide that the lower court was not slow walking the case.
Even allowing for the general adoption of 'internet time' as an expectation, this is pretty slow.

Tarn_Helm
12-17-2013, 7:43 PM
Or bribes then! :p

Fear of losing one's helping of that "free" government cheese!

:D

taperxz
12-17-2013, 7:47 PM
Even allowing for the general adoption of 'internet time' as an expectation, this is pretty slow.

Its almost literally in reverse.

curtisfong
12-17-2013, 8:45 PM
So, now what? If a court can just dither about forever and refuse to issue a judgement then what?

I'm sure there are those who would claim that the court, being fair, logical, efficient, and reasonable, would only dither this egregiously if the plaintiff's case were defective (say, due to incompetence). But if the plaintiffs weren't, the court would be SURE to answer in a timely, logical fashion, and in their favor.

:laugh:

sholling
12-17-2013, 9:06 PM
As I said before the DC Circus sees this as a waiting game and we are unlikely to see resolution before both the DC Circus and SCOTUS have been moved hard left by Obama and Hillary appointments. They'll wait us out and then reverse Heller and read the 2nd Amendment completely out of the Constitution.

curtisfong
12-17-2013, 9:15 PM
I agree. The court has no interest in the law, let alone justice.

Paladin
12-17-2013, 10:26 PM
MILLER: Federal court refuses Alan Gura’s request for a decision on D.C. gun carry rights ban

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/17/alan-gura-appeal-gun-carry-rights-dc-denied/UN-FRICKIN'-BELIEVABLE!!!

:taz::taz::taz::taz::taz:

From the WashTimes article: Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., heard oral arguments in the case in district court in Oct. 2012. At the end, he promised a decision “within a short period of time.” In the fourteen months since, Judge Scullin has not mentioned the case.

Time for gunnies to start protesting on the steps of the courthouse and to shout out when Scullin enters or leaves: "No Justice, No Peace." Time to use our 1st Amendment rights to protect our 2nd Amendment rights.

Paladin
12-17-2013, 10:39 PM
What if the antis are right? What if some of the Heller 5 -- not necessarily back in Heller days or in the Heller opinion, but now -- believe that they did not say the 2nd A protects a RKBA in public? IOW, some of them (cough, Kennedy, cough, Roberts, cough), may have changed their mind/s.

Since we (unfortunately?), won against the ONLY "No Issue" concealed carry and no OC state (IL), we are not able ask for cert. with a state case against a total carry ban. Thus, Gura has to go back to his roots, back to D.C., the only place in the entire US that has a total ban on all carry, both OC and CC.

I guess our only hope is that SCOTUS will take a CCW case (vs OC), from a "May Issue" (vs DC "No Issue") state, either Drake or Richards-Peruta....

If we start an OC case somewhere now we may be too late by the time it gets to SCOTUS....

LoneYote
12-17-2013, 10:44 PM
Time for gunnies to start protesting on the steps of the courthouse and to shout out when Scullin enters or leaves: "No Justice, No Peace." Time to use our 1st Amendment rights to protect our 2nd Amendment rights.

Appeals steps IMHO... they are the ones that said "Meh it's only been a few years we can't expect him to make up his mind yet"....

curtisfong
12-17-2013, 10:47 PM
It's a message to lawyers: Never ever try to force a judge to make a decision he doesn't want to make. They simply do not care about anything but their own biases.

Paladin
12-17-2013, 10:50 PM
I wonder if Scalia and Alito are happy about this??? This is happening right in the city where they work, not way off in Nebraska or somewhere.

Paladin
12-17-2013, 10:52 PM
Appeals steps IMHO... they are the ones that said "Meh it's only been a few years we can't expect him to make up his mind yet"....It's out of their hands. Actually, they chose not to put their hands on it.

The trial judge is the cause of all of this and he's the one who's still in control of it.

sholling
12-18-2013, 1:32 AM
I guess our only hope is that SCOTUS will take a CCW case (vs OC), from a "May Issue" (vs DC "No Issue") state, either Drake or Richards-Peruta....

If we start an OC case somewhere now we may be too late by the time it gets to SCOTUS....:
Nope, we need an OC case. Every CCW case so far has either stalled or or been rejected so we cannot afford to delay an OC case any longer (although we will) or we'll miss what my be our last best hope for SCOTUS to get off their butts and enforce the Bill of Rights.

OleCuss
12-18-2013, 3:33 AM
Perhaps a different take on the refusal of the mandamus request?

Is it possible that the court actually went to the judge and asked when he was going to issue his ruling and was told that it was a matter of a few weeks or a month or two? If this were so, then issuing a writ of mandamus might just be obnoxious rather than helpful.

The other thing? You could interpret what the court said as pressuring the judge just a little to move things along.

And I'd bet Gura expected just what he expected. I mean, how many really thought the court would order the judge to issue his ruling? But having the court technically refuse to ensure that there was even a ruling might be a way of pointing out to the SCOTUS that dilatory tactics are far too rampant and that they themselves need to get on the stick and move things along.

Paladin
12-18-2013, 7:43 AM
Nope, we need an OC case.Well, other than D.C., there's 5 states that appear to be "No OC." From OCDO:

http://www.opencarry.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/opencarrymap-Aug1-2013.png

Every CCW case so far has either stalled or or been rejected so we cannot afford to delay an OC case any longer (although we will) or we'll miss what my be our last best hope for SCOTUS to get off their butts and enforce the Bill of Rights.No reason to assume the fed cts won't stall and SCOTUS won't reject OC cases either. Not saying we should assume that and give up, just pointing out how perilous our 2nd A RKBA is at this time....

Worst thing about all this: if you go to other gun forums ones not CA focused (or other "May Issue" state focused), or not Carry focused, most of them aren't even watching these cases and aren't concerned at what the fed cts are/aren't doing! They're like, "I've got my CCW, so why should I care?" :facepalm: "Helloooo? Anybody home?"

The Dems in the Senate have started running roughshod over the Repubs and are pushing their anti judges into the D.C. Cir., which is a feeder for SCOTUS nominees. I sure hope once the 9th releases Richards-Peruta SCOTUS will weigh in. But we've only got 3 WEEKS until the Drake cert. deadline....

CCWFacts
12-18-2013, 8:56 AM
just pointing out how perilous our 2nd A RKBA is at this time....

People just don't get it. The simple situation right now: no Republican can win the presidency (and nominate judges) without winning Florida, and Florida is just barely within reach, and as Florida becomes less white, it will become completely unwinnable by Republicans, same as California, NYC, and other majority-minority locations. TX will soon be a battleground state (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/01/can-democrats-turn-texas-and-arizona-blue-by-2016/?_r=0).

The Dems in the Senate have started running roughshod over the Repubs

Yes, they don't want to share power or work together. They know they have demographics on their side.

I sure hope once the 9th releases Richards-Peruta SCOTUS will weigh in. But we've only got 3 WEEKS until the Drake cert. deadline....

Let's hope on Drake and the 9th Circuit cases. This is our last shot, as far as I can tell.

Paladin
12-18-2013, 9:21 AM
I sure hope once the 9th releases Richards-Peruta SCOTUS will weigh in. But we've only got 3 WEEKS until the Drake cert. deadline....
The Drake deadline is Thursday, Jan 9th, and SCOTUS has conferences scheduled for that Fri, the 10th, and the following two Fridays (17th and 24th), so it doesn't look like there will be a long period of time for Richards-Pertua to be released between the Drake cert. deadline and when SCOTUS will decide re. granting Drake cert. They'll be virtually and practically the same date.

Why does that matter? If SCOTUS is waiting for the 9th's decision before taking a Carry case, they may deny Drake and then, if our side later wins Richards-Peruta, we would not be able to ask for cert. in it -- CA would. Would they, or would they cut their losses and fold like IL did in Shepard-Moore?

Assuming Gura waits until that last day, the 9th, to ask for cert., at which of those conferences would it most likely be taken up and decided? IIRC, we'll hear their decision the following Monday or Tues.

http://www.scotusblog.com/events/2014-01/

press1280
12-18-2013, 2:10 PM
I wonder if Scalia and Alito are happy about this??? This is happening right in the city where they work, not way off in Nebraska or somewhere.

I don't think Roberts would be either, considering he thought 2 years was too long and re-assigned the case to the current judge. IIRC, they can ask SCOTUS for a writ of mandamus, although I'm sure the odds of a grant are roughly equal to winning the lottery.

press1280
12-18-2013, 2:47 PM
The Drake deadline is Thursday, Jan 9th, and SCOTUS has conferences scheduled for that Fri, the 10th, and the following two Fridays (17th and 24th), so it doesn't look like there will be a long period of time for Richards-Pertua to be released between the Drake cert. deadline and when SCOTUS will decide re. granting Drake cert. They'll be virtually and practically the same date.

Why does that matter? If SCOTUS is waiting for the 9th's decision before taking a Carry case, they may deny Drake and then, if our side later wins Richards-Peruta, we would not be able to ask for cert. in it -- CA would. Would they, or would they cut their losses and fold like IL did in Shepard-Moore?

Assuming Gura waits until that last day, the 9th, to ask for cert., at which of those conferences would it most likely be taken up and decided? IIRC, we'll hear their decision the following Monday or Tues.

http://www.scotusblog.com/events/2014-01/

Drake wouldn't have a conference date until March most likely with briefing and a usual delay by the state (NJ in this case). That gives CA9 some time to hopefully decide Richards.

Paladin
12-18-2013, 6:31 PM
Perhaps a different take on the refusal of the mandamus request?

Is it possible that the court actually went to the judge and asked when he was going to issue his ruling and was told that it was a matter of a few weeks or a month or two? If this were so, then issuing a writ of mandamus might just be obnoxious rather than helpful.Yeah, my guess is that it will come "soon": before next July. The D.C. Cir. probably asked Scullin how long and what he said satisfied them.

If he doesn't follow thru, they've allowed Gura to refile request.

The reason I was so ticked reading this last night is I remembered yesterday that FIVE YEARS AGO I had told a childhood friend how we were filing cases that should get us Shall Issue in a couple of years.... I really may be like this by the time I get a CA CCW: :wheelchair:

Paladin
02-20-2014, 7:15 PM
From: http://ia600408.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.docket.html

NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY by GEORGE LYON, AMY MCVEY, TOM G. PALMER, EDWARD RAYMOND, SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC. (Gura, Alan) (Entered: 02/18/2014)

The .pdf informing the judge of the Peruta decision:
http://ia600408.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.49.0.pdf

sholling
02-20-2014, 7:49 PM
From: http://ia600408.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.docket.html

NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY by GEORGE LYON, AMY MCVEY, TOM G. PALMER, EDWARD RAYMOND, SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC. (Gura, Alan) (Entered: 02/18/2014)

The .pdf informing the judge of the Peruta decision:
http://ia600408.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.49.0.pdf
The judge will need at least 2 more years to ponder the contents of the latest notice of supplemental authority, by which time there will be more notices - each requiring more years of pondering. I suspect that he will still need even more years of pondering if/when SCOTUS finally rules in favor of right to carry.

Calplinker
02-20-2014, 7:53 PM
From: http://ia600408.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.docket.html

NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY by GEORGE LYON, AMY MCVEY, TOM G. PALMER, EDWARD RAYMOND, SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC. (Gura, Alan) (Entered: 02/18/2014)

The .pdf informing the judge of the Peruta decision:
http://ia600408.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.49.0.pdf

Thank you for posting this.

Alan Guras' notice of supplemental authority is a masterpiece of brevity. Succinct, yet compelling....

kcbrown
02-20-2014, 8:19 PM
Palmer is proof that the judiciary adhere to rules only when/because they wish to, not because they're compelled to by any outside force.

riddler408
02-20-2014, 8:24 PM
Don't know about ypu guys but I prefer concealed carry...

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk

Southwest Chuck
02-20-2014, 8:27 PM
Palmer is proof that the judiciary some judges adhere to rules only when/because they wish to, not because they're compelled to by any outside force.

Too broad of a brush there KC. Do they have that power? Yes. Do some abuse their power? Yes. Do they all do it as a matter of course? No. You might argue it's trending that way though ;) .

kcbrown
02-20-2014, 8:58 PM
Too broad of a brush there KC. Do they have that power? Yes. Do some abuse their power? Yes. Do they all do it as a matter of course? No. You might argue it's trending that way though ;) .

I'm not arguing that all in the judiciary abuse their power. Clearly, that's not the case.

I'm arguing that there are no real-world constraints (of any real consequence, at least) on the judiciary as regards what they do and how they do it within the judicial sphere. That's what it means to not be compelled to adhere to the rules.

We, the citizenry, do not adhere to the rules (e.g., the law) merely because we wish to (though there are many rules to which most of us would adhere even if such consequences weren't present). We do so at least in part because if we do not, we face some very serious consequences. That is not true of the judiciary, at least as regards the rules they claim to operate under.


When there are no consequences for breaking a rule, then is the rule really a rule? No. It is, at most, a "gentleman's agreement". And we know from observation that such agreements go up in smoke as soon as one of the parties decides there is more than minimal incentive to break them.

I would argue that we are seeing, before our very eyes, those agreements strain to the breaking point. As far as I know, never before in the history of the country has the federal judiciary rebelled against the Supreme Court the way it has with respect to the 2nd Amendment. This is new ground, and it's happening because many in the judiciary no longer have a sense of duty to the Constitution or to the founding principles of the country. Their duty now lies to themselves, their party, and the ideology they cling to. That is, after all, why they were selected by the politicians in Congress in the first place.

Tarn_Helm
02-20-2014, 9:01 PM
From: http://ia600408.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.docket.html

NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY by GEORGE LYON, AMY MCVEY, TOM G. PALMER, EDWARD RAYMOND, SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC. (Gura, Alan) (Entered: 02/18/2014)

The .pdf informing the judge of the Peruta decision:
http://ia600408.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.49.0.pdf

Thank you for posting this.

I had completely forgotten about it.

It would be very interesting if the notice of supplemental authority sparked a response to the now-fossilized petition for writ of mandamus.

We'll see . . .
:twoweeks:
:cool:

Kharn
02-21-2014, 3:33 AM
Palmer is proof that the judiciary adhere to rules only when/because they wish to, not because they're compelled to by any outside force.

Judge Scullin's recent opinions (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=frederick+scullin&btnG=&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=6%2C49)
Remember, Scullin is on senior status, basically he's supposed to be retired with a reduced case load, but he's still turning out opinions weekly.

Funtimes
02-21-2014, 7:55 AM
Judge Scullin's recent opinions (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=frederick+scullin&btnG=&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=6%2C49)
Remember, Scullin is on senior status, basically he's supposed to be retired with a reduced case load, but he's still turning out opinions weekly.

That last case was argued in 2012.

press1280
02-21-2014, 8:41 AM
One thing which may be significant is he's been assigned a case from DC district, at the same time seemingly working a full slate at NDNY.

formerTexan
02-21-2014, 9:07 AM
Scullin's probably got some skeletons that the NSA has, and h0lder/0bama are leveraging it. Or its because this case is not a liberal cause winner, so no need to issue a decision when there is nobody to force you to.

dantodd
05-08-2014, 11:16 AM
And, in case you missed it. Gura filed another Mandamus petition.

This one a bit more scathing than the last.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=11578&d=1399555579

taperxz
05-08-2014, 11:23 AM
And, in case you missed it. Gura filed another Mandamus petition.

This one a bit more scathing than the last.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=11578&d=1399555579

This will be interesting.

Drivedabizness
05-08-2014, 1:12 PM
Is there any way he can simply go to SCOTUS and say "the bastards are leaving my clients hanging!"

CCWFacts
05-08-2014, 1:17 PM
The situation with Palmer and the denial of cert in Drake all point to my theory: "bear" in NYC, DC and LA is a bridge too far for the elite of this country. Never mind what the constitution says, never mind what the word "and" means, having ordinary people carrying guns as they walk past the Dakota Building is a bridge too far.

LostInSpace
05-08-2014, 2:08 PM
... all point to my theory: "bear" in NYC, DC and LA is a bridge too far for the elite of this country.

NYC and DC are quite plausible, but California (and LA) still hasn't quite reached the East Coast mentality on firearms, both culturally and legally - one can't even begin to compare buying a gun as a resident of LA to what one has to go through in DC or NYC.

And wound't one have had Chicago on this list a couple of years ago?

Peaceful John
05-08-2014, 2:09 PM
SNIP Nearly six months ago, this Court denied the original petition for
mandamus “without prejudice to renewal,” on the theory that “the
district court’s delay in ruling on the pending cross-motions for
summary judgment is not so egregious or unreasonable as to
warrant the extraordinary remedy of mandamus at this time.” Order,
Dec. 16, 2013. SNIP OFF

What am I missing? Shouldn't there be a "not" (added for illustrative purposes) in that sentence?

command_liner
05-08-2014, 2:15 PM
Tis a good read.

Once again, this bit from Gura reinforces my contention that Heller was *mainly* about abortion. Recall that the Heller main decision, on rights, was 9-0. The application of those rights to the particular situation was 5-4.

Certainly the recent action of the court -- ignoring other clear 2A issues -- does nothing to disprove the 'mainly abortion' interpretation.

dantodd
05-08-2014, 3:31 PM
SNIP Nearly six months ago, this Court denied the original petition for
mandamus “without prejudice to renewal,” on the theory that “the
district court’s delay in ruling on the pending cross-motions for
summary judgment is not so egregious or unreasonable as to
warrant the extraordinary remedy of mandamus at this time.” Order,
Dec. 16, 2013. SNIP OFF

What am I missing? Shouldn't there be a "not" (added for illustrative purposes) in that sentence?

I think he was quoting his theory for the petition.

In other words he is not prohibited from renewing his petition on the theory that "the district court’s delay in ruling on the pending cross-motions for summary judgment is so egregious or unreasonable as to warrant the extraordinary remedy of mandamus at this time."

It took me a while the first time through to understand it and I may certainly be wrong and it was a typo.

I didn't bother to seek out the last petition but if that was a direct quote lifted from his petition it would support my reading.

dantodd
05-08-2014, 3:40 PM
Here is the quote from the initial mandamus denial.

Petitioners have not shown that the district court’s delay in ruling on the pending cross-motions for summary judgment is so egregious or unreasonable as to warrant the extraordinary remedy of mandamus at this time.

So, I believe that this is probably the legal description of the standard which must be met for a writ to be issued.

I still think the way to read the paragraph is that the quoted section was Gura's theory which the court ruled didn't apply.

Noble Cause
05-08-2014, 4:21 PM
And, in case you missed it. Gura filed another Mandamus petition.

This one a bit more scathing than the last.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=11578&d=1399555579

Well, the situation is unconscionable. I would say an escalation in Gura's
admonishment to the court is entirely justified.

Thx for the link, dantodd


Petitioners should not, echoing Jarndyce v. Jarndyce, wait a lifetime seeking
vindication of a right meant to defend their lives.

Would a four and a half year delay be tolerated in the context of any other
fundamental right? Had Petitioners challenged an abortion ban, would this Court
accept the district court’s failure to decide the case for four and a half years?
If not, why should that delay be tolerated here?

Petitioners’ fundamental constitutional rights are being violated.
The city denies Petitioners’ Second Amendment rights, and the district court
denies their rights to due process and to access the courts—this Court and, if
need be, the Supreme Court.
The writ of mandamus exists to remedy the latter violation.



Noble

Maestro Pistolero
05-08-2014, 4:22 PM
SNIP Nearly six months ago, this Court denied the original petition for
mandamus “without prejudice to renewal,” on the theory that “the
district court’s delay in ruling on the pending cross-motions for
summary judgment is not so egregious or unreasonable as to
warrant the extraordinary remedy of mandamus at this time.” Order,
Dec. 16, 2013. SNIP OFF

What am I missing? Shouldn't there be a "not" (added for illustrative purposes) in that sentence?

I caught that too. I believe you are correct. Even Alan Gura needs to have a proofreader.

If you read the bolded above, subtracting out the phrase "in ruling on the pending cross-motions for summary judgment", the error becomes clear. Your addition of "not" corrects the error.

Paladin
05-08-2014, 9:19 PM
And, in case you missed it. Gura filed another Mandamus petition.

This one a bit more scathing than the last.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=11578&d=1399555579

FWIW, last time it took the D.C. Cir. just over 8 weeks to decline Gura's request.

Baja Daze
05-08-2014, 9:38 PM
If this second writ of mandamus is also denied, does Gura have the option to petition SCOTUS?

So well stated:

Adds Prof. Blackman,

Four years is “egregious.” It is “unreasonable.” There is absolutely no reason why such an important constitutional decision is still pending. This is a significant constitutional issue, the resolution of which could create a Circuit Split, and lead to Supreme Court review. This is embarrassing. I hope this is the magnum opus of Second Amendment opinions, because with all this time to work on it, it better be.

ryan_j
05-09-2014, 4:31 AM
Yes he can petition SCOTUS for a writ of mandamus

Peaceful John
05-09-2014, 7:35 AM
I think he was quoting his theory for the petition.

In other words he is not prohibited from renewing his petition on the theory that "the district court’s delay in ruling on the pending cross-motions for summary judgment is so egregious or unreasonable as to warrant the extraordinary remedy of mandamus at this time."

It took me a while the first time through to understand it and I may certainly be wrong and it was a typo.

I didn't bother to seek out the last petition but if that was a direct quote lifted from his petition it would support my reading.

Here is the quote from the initial mandamus denial.

So, I believe that this is probably the legal description of the standard which must be met for a writ to be issued.

I still think the way to read the paragraph is that the quoted section was Gura's theory which the court ruled didn't apply.

Thanks, Dan, for clearing this up for me. I'm grateful.

Peaceful John
05-09-2014, 7:45 AM
I caught that too. I believe you are correct. Even Alan Gura needs to have a proofreader.

If you read the bolded above, subtracting out the phrase "in ruling on the pending cross-motions for summary judgment", the error becomes clear. Your addition of "not" corrects the error.

Thanks, MP. I'm going to use your approach in the future and (mentally) delete subordinate phrases to gain clarity. It's very helpful.

Mulay El Raisuli
05-10-2014, 7:59 AM
And, in case you missed it. Gura filed another Mandamus petition.

This one a bit more scathing than the last.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=11578&d=1399555579


Just a tiny bit. :rolleyes:


The Raisuli

ddestruel
05-10-2014, 1:33 PM
DOA

Maestro Pistolero
05-10-2014, 2:42 PM
Thanks, MP. I'm going to use your approach in the future and (mentally) delete subordinate phrases to gain clarity. It's very helpful.

Can a brief such as this, once submitted, can be corrected for a typo or grammatical error? The writ of mandamus is so short I'm amazed that the error slipped through the cracks. That's got to be a real forehead-slapper. The absence of one with three letter word changes the meaning 180°.

HowardW56
05-10-2014, 2:53 PM
Can a brief such as this, once submitted, can be corrected for a typo or grammatical error? The writ of mandamus is so short I'm amazed that the error slipped through the cracks. That's got to be a real forehead-slapper. The absence of one with three letter word changes the meaning 180°.


Corrected like this one......

Apocalypsenerd
05-10-2014, 4:20 PM
Wow, I think it's time to start impeaching judges.

penguin0123
05-10-2014, 4:47 PM
:rofl2: Gura's stuff always make for interesting reading.

“Four more years” is the maximum that voters may
constitutionally give a sitting President, not what individuals should
endure in seeking relief from a violation of their fundamental rights.

M. D. Van Norman
05-10-2014, 6:30 PM
Wow, I think it’s time to start impeaching judges.

That would be preferable to shooting them. :sweatdrop:

Funtimes
05-10-2014, 7:29 PM
Corrected like this one......

Yeah everyone makes mistakes. I had noticed a few errors in it. When typing on a screen, I find it harder to catch all the errors. When I'm proofing for real, I print it out and then read the whole thing out loud.

yellowfin
05-13-2014, 6:59 AM
The situation with Palmer and the denial of cert in Drake all point to my theory: "bear" in NYC, DC and LA is a bridge too far for the elite of this country. Never mind what the constitution says, never mind what the word "and" means, having ordinary people carrying guns as they walk past the Dakota Building is a bridge too far.Quite honestly, to hell with what they think.

ziegenbock
05-14-2014, 11:15 PM
That would be preferable to shooting them. :sweatdrop:

Qualify that statement please.

M. D. Van Norman
05-15-2014, 5:57 AM
Legal solutions to political problems are preferable to the violence that will result if legal avenues are blocked.

yellowfin
05-15-2014, 2:31 PM
Legal solutions to political problems are preferable to the violence that will result if legal avenues are blocked.And it looks like those avenues are getting fairly plugged up.

M. D. Van Norman
05-15-2014, 9:22 PM
Yes, that fact was one of the straws that broke my back and drove me from California. In the most cynical corner of my mind, I think that the prohibitionists are intentionally trying to provoke us into violence. :(

CapS
05-15-2014, 9:48 PM
Yes, that fact was one of the straws that broke my back and drove me from California. In the most cynical corner of my mind, I think that the prohibitionists are intentionally trying to provoke us into violence. :(

Holy Moly! That's more cynical than anything even my mind has conceived.

:facepalm:

Cap

Foxmaster05
05-16-2014, 12:21 AM
Yes, that fact was one of the straws that broke my back and drove me from California. In the most cynical corner of my mind, I think that the prohibitionists are intentionally trying to provoke us into violence. :(

Interesting theory. De Leon's stupidity makes me want to punch my wall if that counts.

M. D. Van Norman
05-16-2014, 9:52 PM
Think about it. Some actors on our side break into violence. The full armed might of the state comes down upon us, we’re vilified in the mainstream media (even more than we already are), and the general public clamors for total bans.

Sure. A few cops would get killed in the process. A small price to pay (from the prohibitionists’ perspective) to purge “gun nuts” from civil society …

On the other hand, in the unlikely event they should lose the war, treasonous judges and other “enemies of the people” would end up in a line … against a wall …

I’ve done everything within my meager power to avoid either outcome. The polite, legalistic solution was right there for the taking, but that powers that be have declined that compromise at almost every opportunity. :(

Curtis
05-17-2014, 9:03 AM
What happens if the Mandamus petition is granted? What is the process and time line?

Californio
05-17-2014, 10:39 AM
Hitler used the Communists as the scapegoat for dictatorial powers and the People hated the Communists so they did not complain and then after the Communists were taken out, Hitler was the same laws against the People.

Concerning Government, always be careful what you wish for, History has a habit of repeating itself over and over again.


Think about it. Some actors on our side break into violence. The full armed might of the state comes down upon us, we’re vilified in the mainstream media (even more than we already are), and the general public clamors for total bans.

Sure. A few cops would get killed in the process. A small price to pay (from the prohibitionists’ perspective) to purge “gun nuts” from civil society …

On the other hand, in the unlikely event they should lose the war, treasonous judges and other “enemies of the people” would end up in a line … against a wall …

I’ve done everything within my meager power to avoid either outcome. The polite, legalistic solution was right there for the taking, but that powers that be have declined that compromise at almost every opportunity. :(

North86
05-30-2014, 8:50 AM
Any news on this?

ryan_j
05-30-2014, 8:53 AM
Nada

Master_P
05-30-2014, 11:18 AM
Will this mandamus petition go before the same three judges who ruled on the prior petition, or will they draw three different judges?

RP1911
05-30-2014, 11:22 AM
Is there a mechanism to appeal to SCOTUS to force a decision by the lower court?

dantodd
05-30-2014, 11:23 AM
My guess is that this is "one last chance" for the circuit to do the right thing. I would expect a petition to SCOTUS if this isn't attended to this time.

dantodd
05-30-2014, 11:23 AM
Is there a mechanism to appeal to SCOTUS to force a decision by the lower court?

Yes

RP1911
05-30-2014, 11:26 AM
Thanks.

LoneYote
05-30-2014, 3:01 PM
Wish I had a job where I could ignore my work for 5 years.....

RP1911
05-30-2014, 3:19 PM
IIRC, wasn't the case re-assigned to another judge so it could be dealt with? If so, the second judge is also dragging the case...

dantodd
05-30-2014, 5:18 PM
IIRC, wasn't the case re-assigned to another judge so it could be dealt with? If so, the second judge is also dragging the case...

It was reassigned in July 2011.

CCWFacts
05-30-2014, 8:13 PM
It was reassigned in July 2011.

http://www.theargonath.cc/characters/treebeard/pictures/treebeard3.jpg
Lets not be hasty!

dantodd
05-30-2014, 8:58 PM
I'm pretty sure even the Ents could outrun this judge.

mmayer707
05-30-2014, 9:06 PM
^ Like

press1280
05-31-2014, 6:10 PM
IIRC, wasn't the case re-assigned to another judge so it could be dealt with? If so, the second judge is also dragging the case...

I did find out the original judge, Henry Kennedy, retired in 2011, so it's possible the case wasn't reassigned necessarily to speed things up as much as it was to clear Kennedy's plate. There were about a dozen cases reassigned to Judge Scullin when Palmer was, I'm not sure if they were all Kennedy cases or not.

NotEnufGarage
06-23-2014, 4:56 AM
Justice delayed is justice denied.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

North86
06-23-2014, 7:18 AM
Unbelievable. Actually, I guess we shouldn't be surprised.

Paladin
06-23-2014, 1:57 PM
Any news on this?
The first time it took them, IIRC, 8 weeks to decide. Gura asked them the 2nd time on May 8th. My *guess* is we'll hear their decision in July.

No real need to ck more than 1x/week on this case. It won't/can't affect us for quite awhile. Just have a sandwich and a nap on this one.

Peruta, on the other hand.... :toetap05: (I expect we'll hear the panel's decision re. intervention in July too.)

North86
07-25-2014, 10:39 AM
And a month later.....

Apocalypsenerd
07-25-2014, 11:41 AM
We need to start removing judges for non-action. Is this a federal judge? Can congress impeach him?

Drivedabizness
07-25-2014, 2:47 PM
They could...but they won't over this. And if the House charged him, the Senate wold never try him.

IANAL but it seems to me its time for Gura to approach SCOTUS.

Apocalypsenerd
07-25-2014, 3:12 PM
Having a court case sit for 4 years has to be considered criminal. The mere mention of impeachment from a congressman might get him to publish his opinion.

planetbuster
07-25-2014, 3:39 PM
I'm not sure why "we" waited 4+ years to do this, why not at the 2 year mark? Hopefully the next time a case sits for 2 years, the lawyers would get on this step instead of waiting another 2.

ive been *****ing about this since day one. exactly where is it written that any attorney for 'our' side should sit idly by, waiting patiently along timeframes measures in years? what manner of nonsense is that?

6 months goes by with nothing and its time to raise hell IMO, as standing general principle.

Apocalypsenerd
07-25-2014, 4:05 PM
I think I am going to give my congressman a call when they go into recess. He does have meet and greet with his voters sometimes. I might go to one if he has any scheduled.

Paladin
07-25-2014, 4:47 PM
I'm not sure why "we" waited 4+ years to do this, why not at the 2 year mark? Hopefully the next time a case sits for 2 years, the lawyers would get on this step instead of waiting another 2.
Don't forget D.C. DC switched judges on us midstream (~2 yr mark). Gura gave new judge another 2 yrs before 1st request. Gura then waited 6 months before the 2nd request (2014 May 08).

Plus, there's been other RKBA cases Gura has been involved with that, unfortunately, were lost or were denied cert., with the IL win being happy an exception.

My hope is that if DC does not decide by Nov 8th (6 months after the 2nd request), Gura will take it to the next level. (Directly to SCOTUS?)

nodeone
07-26-2014, 1:08 PM
Victory! http://alangura.com/2014/07/victory-in-palmer-v-d-c/

nodeone
07-26-2014, 1:09 PM
Sorry for potato post from my phone. Quote from the ruling just announced:

In light of Heller, McDonald, and their progeny, there is no longer any basis on which this Court can conclude that the District of Columbia’s total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns outside the home is constitutional under any level of scrutiny. Therefore, the Court finds that the District of Columbia’s complete ban on the carrying of handguns in public is unconstitutional. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and enjoins Defendants from enforcing the home limitations of D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4) and enforcing D.C. Code § 22-4504(a) unless and until such time as the District of Columbia adopts a licensing mechanism consistent with constitutional standards enabling people to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.4 Furthermore, this injunction prohibits the District from completely banning the carrying of handguns in public for self-defense by otherwise qualified non-residents based solely on the fact that they are not residents of the District.

mrmichael
07-26-2014, 1:11 PM
Wow...the ruling even says non-residents can carry.

PhillyGunner
07-26-2014, 1:26 PM
Wow! How 'bout that!

blofeld42
07-26-2014, 1:30 PM
Link to opinon:
http://alangura.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/DCT_OPINION.pdf

They cite Peruta and rely on that case for much of the discussion.

thayne
07-26-2014, 1:39 PM
EPIC WIN

MudCamper
07-26-2014, 1:45 PM
They cite Peruta and rely on that case for much of the discussion.

Yes. They cite it many times. What will this mean for Peruta? What will that mean for this case if Peruta is overturned en banc?

Paul S
07-26-2014, 1:46 PM
I am both pleased and dumbfounded. I never expected this kind of ruling.

Wonder what D.C.'s next move will be? Will D.C. officials be as obstinate as Chicago's were?

thayne
07-26-2014, 1:47 PM
So as of right now DC is in effect constitutional carry?

Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and enjoins Defendants from enforcing the home limitations of D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4) and enforcing D.C. Code § 22-4504(a) unless and until such time as the District of Columbia adopts a licensing mechanism consistent with constitutional standards enabling people to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.4 Furthermore, this injunction prohibits the District from completely banning the carrying of handguns in public for self-defense by otherwise qualified non-residents based solely on the fact that they are not residents of the District.

Southwest Chuck
07-26-2014, 1:50 PM
Yes. They cite it many times. What will this mean for Peruta? What will that mean for this case if Peruta is overturned en banc?

Not totally reliant on Peruta ...
"In light of Heller, McDonald, and their progeny .... "

:D :party: :D

I'm reading the opinion now ....

Southwest Chuck
07-26-2014, 1:56 PM
So as of right now DC is in effect constitutional carry?

That's the way I read it! For residents and non-residents alike !!!

Woo Hoo !!!

mshill
07-26-2014, 2:00 PM
First, RICO charges for Lee and now this, what a great week.

formerTexan
07-26-2014, 2:08 PM
About time. Maybe the judge was waiting for Peruta to come out so he didn't have to write as much? ;)

09rubicon
07-26-2014, 2:12 PM
Just saw the link on TTAG! This is awesome! The anti's house of cards based off lies is beginning to crumble!

1JimMarch
07-26-2014, 2:17 PM
Luckiest dude in America:

http://www.wltx.com/story/news/local/2014/07/24/sc-man-released-after-arrest-at-us-capitol/13122745/

JUST got charged with illegal packin' in DC, just pled not guilty to same (felony charges)! And then this ruling comes out. Ye GODS!

thayne
07-26-2014, 2:20 PM
Luckiest dude in America:

http://www.wltx.com/story/news/local/2014/07/24/sc-man-released-after-arrest-at-us-capitol/13122745/

JUST got charged with illegal packin' in DC, just pled not guilty to same (felony charges)! And then this ruling comes out. Ye GODS!

He shoulda bought a lottery ticket lol

Southwest Chuck
07-26-2014, 2:33 PM
Looks like the decision cites Peruta and Moore as examples, but relies on Heller and McDonald for the major basis of the opinion from what I can tell so far. I'm not too sure that if Peruta went En Banc it would effect this ruling a great deal, but then IANAL.

As the court noted in Peruta, "[t]he Second Amendment secures the right not only to
'keep' arms but also to 'bear' them[,]" Peruta, 742 F.3d at 1151; and, as the Supreme Court
explained in Heller, "[a]t the time of the founding, as now, to 'bear' meant to 'carry[,]'" Heller,
554 U.S. at 584. "Yet, not 'carry' in the ordinary sense of 'convey[ing] or transport[ing]' an
object, as one might carry groceries to the check-out counter or garments to the laundromat, but
'carry for a particular purpose confrontation.'" Peruta, 742 F.3d at 1151-52 (quoting [Heller,
554 U.S. at 584]). According to the Heller majority, the "natural meaning of 'bear arms'" was the
one that Justice Ginsburg provided in her dissent in Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125
(1998), that is "'wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with
another person.'" Heller, 554 U.S. at 584 (quoting Muscarello, 524 U.S. at 143, 118 S. Ct. 1911)

PhillyGunner
07-26-2014, 2:40 PM
In fact, a couple of the Peruta citations seem to be where Peruta was citing Heller.

I wonder, if by showing how Heller and McDonald 'begat' Peruta, Kalchalskiy and Moore v. Madigan and now Palmer (Heller/McDonald's "progeny"), if it will actually strengthen Peruta if is somehow challenged?

Southwest Chuck
07-26-2014, 2:41 PM
Wonder if one of the Mods can alter the thread title to reflect the win since the OP TOLDYOUSO was banned...

PhillyGunner
07-26-2014, 2:42 PM
Oh, and lest we forget...

Kudos and Congrats to Mr. Gura and the Plaintiffs. Thank you for your persistence.

North86
07-26-2014, 2:44 PM
Wow!! This is awesome!

Interestingly, the judge mentions non-residents in the decision. Does that have any effect outside of DC?

Fjold
07-26-2014, 2:51 PM
Well good news, for once.

putput
07-26-2014, 2:53 PM
Ha ha. We should all apply for a permit...

thayne
07-26-2014, 2:57 PM
Ha ha. We should all apply for a permit...

As of now you dont need one!

Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and enjoins Defendants from enforcing the home limitations of D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4) and enforcing D.C. Code § 22-4504(a) unless and until such time as the District of Columbia adopts a licensing mechanism consistent with constitutional standards enabling people to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.4 Furthermore, this injunction prohibits the District from completely banning the carrying of handguns in public for self-defense by otherwise qualified non-residents based solely on the fact that they are not residents of the District.

taperxz
07-26-2014, 2:59 PM
Paging KC! Paging KC!

Southwest Chuck
07-26-2014, 3:00 PM
Paging KC! Paging KC!

HAHAHAHA !!!! No Kidding!!! Where are you KC? lol

chris
07-26-2014, 3:01 PM
does this ruling come with immediate affect to CCW and other forms of carry in this stupid state?


better yet when will the conniption of Kamala Harris begin when she gets word of this?

thayne
07-26-2014, 3:01 PM
Paging KC! Paging KC!

:D:D:D:D:D

putput
07-26-2014, 3:06 PM
As of now you dont need one!
Ha ha. Then we should all book flights.

Paging the open carry movement....

thayne
07-26-2014, 3:08 PM
Ha ha. Then we should all book flights.

Paging the open carry movement....

Hell yeah!

chris
07-26-2014, 3:08 PM
Ha ha. We should all apply for a permit...

if you live in a county that issues you should do so now. I have applied I only have my CCW class to do.

nicki
07-26-2014, 3:09 PM
just to remind everyone, Tom Palmer, the plaintiff in this cage, is a gay lawyerfrom the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.

Tom was also one of the plaintiffs and the original Parker Heller case.

When discussing this case with people who are left wing liberals, say with a smile on your face about how this is a great victory for gays, because now instead of relying on a whistle to protect their lives when they are confronted with a violence hate crime attack with multiple attackers, they can whip out their big Black Glocks make their day.

I promise you they will be speechless.

Nicki

wireless
07-26-2014, 3:09 PM
**** ya!

1JimMarch
07-26-2014, 3:09 PM
They might get a stay put on it on Monday, but there ain't one on it now, right?

Gawd, I'm in Northern Alabama, I wish I had the spare cash to drive out there right now!

PhillyGunner
07-26-2014, 3:11 PM
As of now you dont need one!

May still have to "register", their system for firearm possession within the District, if I understand the ruling correctly, and it looks like you have to "register" in person an the Metropolitan Police Department.

http://mpdc.dc.gov/service/firearm-registration-district-columbia

I haven't read their code yet, so I don't know exactly what the ruling's orders curtail.

M. D. Van Norman
07-26-2014, 3:15 PM
Link to opinon:
http://alangura.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/DCT_OPINION.pdf

They cite Peruta and rely on that case for much of the discussion.

Is that why we had to wait so long for a ruling? :online2long:

Ronin2
07-26-2014, 3:23 PM
Proud life member of the Second Amendment Foundation!!!

Who wants to step up and join? Does anyone think this kind of action is not worth giving up a few boxes of ammo a year??

chris
07-26-2014, 3:24 PM
Link to opinon:
http://alangura.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/DCT_OPINION.pdf

They cite Peruta and rely on that case for much of the discussion.

Is that why we had to wait so long for a ruling? :online2long:

The Peruta court addressed the issue of "whether a responsible, law-abiding citizen has a right under the Second Amendment to carry a firearm in public for self-defense." Peruta, 742F.3d at 1147. As a preliminary matter, the court noted that "California generally prohibits the open or concealed carriage of a handgun, whether loaded or unloaded, in public locations." Id. (citations and footnote omitted). However, an individual could apply for a license to carry a concealed weapon in the city or county in which he worked or resided. See id. at 1148 (citationsomitted). To obtain such a license, however, an applicant had to meet several requirements, including a demonstration of good moral character, completion of a specified training course, and establishing good cause. See id. (citations omitted). The plaintiff challenged San Diego County's procedures for obtaining a concealed-carry license, in particular its definition of the term "good
cause." See id.
-

I found this interesting

eville
07-26-2014, 3:25 PM
You've got to think these courts all communicate with each other the way this ruling played out.
Almost like its come full circle back to DC.
I've gotta think we hear something positive in peruta/Richards soon based on this today.

10 Spot
07-26-2014, 3:26 PM
Yes. They cite it many times. What will this mean for Peruta? What will that mean for this case if Peruta is overturned en banc?

I'd guess it will not be overturned due in large part to this ruling. They'll see the writing on the wall and not want to be overturned by SCOTUS.

ronlglock
07-26-2014, 3:28 PM
I think this means that Circuits 4, 7, and 9 are pro carry outside the home, and Circuits 2, 3, and 10 are against it. I wonder if an even split will trigger the Supremes to take up a case?

By the way, I was so excited that I sent a note to Kammie:

Dear AG Harris,

I am so excited and wanted to be one of the first to tell you that the District of Columbia’s total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns outside the home was struck down today. Even better, a lot of the ruling points out how our very own Peruta vs. San Diego used the Supreme Court’s Heller and McDonald rulings to prove that San Diego County's restrictive policy regarding documentation of "good cause” is also illegal.

I hope that you are as thrilled as I am that law-abiding citizens in the District of Columbia, and soon California, will be able to legally carry handguns for personal protection outside the home. This is great news and should lead to decreases in crime in cities such as Richmond, Oakland, and elsewhere in our state.

ronlglock
07-26-2014, 3:32 PM
They cite Peruta and rely on that case for much of the discussion.

He is not really quoting Peruta. He is showing that Peruta relies heavily on Heller and McDonald. In other words, he is pointing out over and over that his ruling must be correct because Peruta must be correct as well.

Southwest Chuck
07-26-2014, 3:35 PM
You've got to think these courts all communicate with each other the way this ruling played out.
Almost like its come full circle back to DC.
I've gotta think we hear something positive in peruta/Richards soon based on this today.

Yup. You'd think it would have an effect, wouldn't you. I'm still holding to my bet, .... that Harris will be allowed to intervene, but en banc will be denied, leaving her no choice but to ask for Cert. Palmer may not get to SCOTUS (or even through the DC Circuit process) before Peruta is finally decided.

Rossi357
07-26-2014, 3:36 PM
I just did all 3 body functions in my underwear.....

Southwest Chuck
07-26-2014, 3:40 PM
I'd guess it will not be overturned due in large part to this ruling. They'll see the writing on the wall and not want to be overturned by SCOTUS.

Since when did the 9thCA care about being overturned by SCOTUS?

I think this means that Circuits 4, 7, and 9 are pro carry outside the home, and Circuits 2, 3, and 10 are against it. I wonder if an even split will trigger the Supremes to take up a case?

No split anymore. It's a crack in the Earth's crust at this point :p .

He is not really quoting Peruta. He is showing that Peruta relies heavily on Heller and McDonald. In other words, he is pointing out over and over that his ruling must be correct because Peruta must be correct as well.

^^^ This. Absolutely ^^^ This

phase1
07-26-2014, 3:40 PM
How does this effect CA residents? Will this force cities to lower the requirements? ie. contacting neighbors & employers...

PhillyGunner
07-26-2014, 3:46 PM
Can we cite Palmer, as 'non-residents', and all start applying in Ventura County? :D

hill billy
07-26-2014, 3:46 PM
What effect, if any, will this have on DC's ammunition and empty brass possession laws?

10 Spot
07-26-2014, 3:50 PM
Since when did the 9thCA care about being overturned by SCOTUS?

Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?

09rubicon
07-26-2014, 3:52 PM
Anyone want to take a shot at how this will effect reciprocity? Specifically stating DC can't ban otherwise qualified non-residents.

dustoff31
07-26-2014, 3:59 PM
Anyone want to take a shot at how this will effect reciprocity? Specifically stating DC can't ban otherwise qualified non-residents.

I don't see reciprocity happening. My guess is that they will (in time) issue non-resident permits at the highest possible cost of course.

The court said they had to allow non-residents to carry. It didn't say they couldn't make money off of it.

dustoff31
07-26-2014, 4:02 PM
How does this effect CA residents? Will this force cities to lower the requirements? ie. contacting neighbors & employers...

Not at all. It might, if and when it gets to SCOTUS, but probably not in any of the areas you mention.

Southwest Chuck
07-26-2014, 4:02 PM
Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?

:facepalm:

I think you have me confused with KC Brown there junior. Have another hit and think about it, and Chill out a little. Oh and before you spout off again, why don't you do a little research. The 9th is the most overturned circuit in the Nation.

ronlglock
07-26-2014, 4:12 PM
What effect, if any, will this have on DC's ammunition and empty brass possession laws?

If u have a loaded gun, you obviously have ammo. Therefore that law must be mooted by this ruling - as long as you have a handgun and matching ammo.

Empty brass and ammo that doesn't fit your handgun are a different story - in theory empty brass that matches your handgun could imply that you fired it.

ronlglock
07-26-2014, 4:14 PM
Anyone want to take a shot at how this will effect reciprocity? Specifically stating DC can't ban otherwise qualified non-residents.

Will be interesting to see this applied to other states like Colorado, Nevada, California, etc.

CG of MP
07-26-2014, 4:17 PM
I am in absolute SHOCK. Who in hell would have ever thought that a DC court would actually rule in our favor?!?!!?

I too wonder (and frankly kind of doubt) what effect if any this will have in California, but folks, I honestly never thought I would see such a tidal wave of pro-firearm decisions and legislation as we have over the last decade or so.

BTW gotta love the quote from Mr. Gura on his website: " Congratulations Americans, your capital is not a constitution-free zone."
http://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.gif

Bangzoom
07-26-2014, 4:18 PM
This is very nice...tagged

Southwest Chuck
07-26-2014, 4:20 PM
If u have a loaded gun, you obviously have ammo. Therefore that law must be mooted by this ruling - as long as you have a handgun and matching ammo.

Empty brass and ammo that doesn't fit your handgun are a different story - in theory empty brass that matches your handgun could imply that you fired it.

Or you went to the range .... ;)

I'm betting they repeal their ammo laws pretty quick. They are ripe for a lawsuit on them after this ruling came out, IMO. But who knows. Maybe they want to make another donation to SAF? :D

Tincon
07-26-2014, 4:23 PM
No real surprise here, even the Kachalsky court pointed out that there is some RKBA outside the home, and DC had a total ban. The court had no choice with this ruling, which is probably why they took so long to release it.

The real question, which I'm hopeful Peruta will continue to resolve in our favor, is what regulations/restrictions on that right are constitutionally permissible.

johnyreb
07-26-2014, 4:25 PM
Just on Fox News.....

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/26/emily-miller-federal-judge-rules-dc-ban-on-gun-carry-rights-unconstitutional/

chris
07-26-2014, 4:26 PM
:facepalm:

I think you have me confused with KC Brown there junior. Have another hit and think about it, and Chill out a little. Oh and before you spout off again, why don't you do a little research. The 9th is the most overturned circuit in the Nation.

heck that is common knowledge. :)

jrwhitt
07-26-2014, 4:27 PM
I think the Non-Resident holdings in Palmer are going to be very significant in future cases.

Southwest Chuck
07-26-2014, 4:27 PM
No real surprise here, even the Kachalsky court pointed out that there is some RKBA outside the home, and DC had a total ban. The court had no choice with this ruling, which is probably why they took so long to release it.

The real question, which I'm hopeful Peruta will continue to resolve in our favor, is what regulations/restrictions on that right are constitutionally permissible.

I think D.C. will ultimately tell us. They'll pull out all the stops on this one and go for broke. :chris:

Southwest Chuck
07-26-2014, 4:31 PM
Just on Fox News.....

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/26/emily-miller-federal-judge-rules-dc-ban-on-gun-carry-rights-unconstitutional/

Stay tuned for Emily Miller's new 5 year saga ....

"Emily Get's Her Permit"

lol

chris
07-26-2014, 4:34 PM
I like this one also.

Based on its historical review, the Court found support for the proposition that the Second Amendment secures an individual right to carry in case of confrontation means nothing if not the general right to carry a common weapon outside the home for self-defense.

Tincon
07-26-2014, 4:36 PM
I think D.C. will ultimately tell us. They'll pull out all the stops on this one and go for broke. :chris:

No doubt they will, but Palmer is far behind Peruta procedurally. I'm hoping things are a bit more clear by way of the latter case before any DC cases on whatever new laws are passed get close to a final resolution.

Nor*Cal
07-26-2014, 4:44 PM
This is great news and can only help strengthen Peruta.

IVC
07-26-2014, 4:45 PM
But, but, KCBrown said we were to lose based on political leanings of the judges, so liberal courts were out...

I hate to rub it in.... Strike that. I LIKE to rub it in.

ZombieTactics
07-26-2014, 4:51 PM
I think the Non-Resident holdings in Palmer are going to be very significant in future cases.

Yep, this is one aspect of the ruling that seems to be getting little attention. The DC court ruled that you can't deny someone a permit just because they don't live there.

This is big.

PhillyGunner
07-26-2014, 4:52 PM
Looks like Palmer may provide for both concealed and open carry:

From the ruling:

"ORDERS that Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in
active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this Memorandum- Decision and Order are permanently enjoined from enforcing D.C. Code § 22-4504(a)..."

From Metropolitan PD's Firearm's Registration General Requirements-Study Guide: (Bolding is mine)

"D.C. Official Code § 22-4504. Carrying concealed weapons; possession of weapons during commission of crime of violence; penalty
(a) No person shall carry within the District of Columbia either openly or concealed on or about their person, a pistol, or any deadly or dangerous weapon capable of being so concealed. Whoever violates this section shall be punished as provided in § 22-4515, except that:"

http://mpdc.dc.gov/page/firearm-registration-general-requirements-study-guide

CG of MP
07-26-2014, 4:54 PM
Yep, this is one aspect of the ruling that seems to be getting little attention. The DC court ruled that you can't deny someone a permit just because they don't live there.

This is big.

Correct me if I am wrong but this binds only DC. Yes it can be quoted in another case, but that is a far cry from national reciprocity or even just getting permits in the various and sundry places that refuse to accept an out-of-towner's rights across this nation.

Gray Peterson
07-26-2014, 5:07 PM
Yep, this is one aspect of the ruling that seems to be getting little attention. The DC court ruled that you can't deny someone a permit just because they don't live there.

This is big.

Did someone say "non-resident carry"? :D

ZirconJohn
07-26-2014, 5:09 PM
National reciprocity?

71MUSTY
07-26-2014, 5:13 PM
Correct me if I am wrong but this binds only DC. Yes it can be quoted in another case, but that is a far cry from national reciprocity or even just getting permits in the various and sundry places that refuse to accept an out-of-towner's rights across this nation.

I can't speak to that directly, and I don't necessarily think it will lead to Reciprocity but it does lay some groundwork towards forcing states to issue non resident permits Which in itself would be a start.

Gray Peterson
07-26-2014, 5:17 PM
National reciprocity?

Non-resident licensing. Reciprocal agreements is purely a political question.

bubbapug1
07-26-2014, 5:24 PM
Excellent news. The tide is turning but we must defeat Hillary or the Supreme Court will be packed with hand wringing anti gun pansies in 6 years.

1JimMarch
07-26-2014, 5:25 PM
The court said they had to allow non-residents to carry. It didn't say they couldn't make money off of it.

They didn't have to because the US Supremes have long since banned cross-border discrimination:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=79&invol=418

hornswaggled
07-26-2014, 5:25 PM
:gura: Sweet win!

sholling
07-26-2014, 5:27 PM
Great news! Now we'll have to see what the heavily packed (packed with Progressives) DC court of appeals has to say once the district files its appeal. Hopefully this ruling will help CA9 hold off en banc.

10 Spot
07-26-2014, 5:29 PM
:facepalm:

I think you have me confused with KC Brown there junior. Have another hit and think about it, and Chill out a little. Oh and before you spout off again, why don't you do a little research. The 9th is the most overturned circuit in the Nation.

I was quoting Oddball in Kelly's Heroes. Why don't you chill and just enjoy the victory?

marcusrn
07-26-2014, 5:40 PM
It's a great day to be an American!

Congratulations and kind thanks to Tom Palmer,George Lyon,Edward Raymond, Amy McVey,Dick Heller, nurse Shelley Parker, Tracey Ambeau Hansen, Gillian St Lawrence, Otis McDonald, Alan Gura, Robert A. Levy, and Clark M Neily. Heroes and patriots, all.

I met Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Ramona today. What a great day!

Mark Cleary
Proud Peruta co plaintiff

Johnny_Utah
07-26-2014, 5:56 PM
I was quoting Oddball in Kelly's Heroes. Why don't you chill and just enjoy the victory?

Hey, Oddball, this is your hour of glory. And you're chickening out!


I love the smell of victory...

CG of MP
07-26-2014, 6:01 PM
:gura: Sweet win!

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/obamacry_slow.gif
And today President Obama was heard saying, "I felt great disturbance in the Force, as if a million of my fellow liberal anti-gun brothers cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced."

Gray Peterson
07-26-2014, 6:18 PM
Great news! Now we'll have to see what the heavily packed (packed with Progressives) DC court of appeals has to say once the district files its appeal. Hopefully this ruling will help CA9 hold off en banc.

That's if DC appeals.....

Assuming DC goes hardline and does actually appeal, I don't believe either a 3 judge panel or en banc will reverse the district court.

Why? Because it's SCOTUS bait if they do that. Unlike the splits between Moore versus the may-issue carry cases, a reversal of Palmer at DC Circuit is in fact a 100 percent unquestionable circuit split with Moore v. Madigan in the 7th Circuit.

Kid Stanislaus
07-26-2014, 6:22 PM
Ha ha. We should all apply for a permit...

It looks to me like a permit is not required.

Apocalypsenerd
07-26-2014, 6:22 PM
Gray, you think they won't? Isn't DC like Chicago, a gift that keeps giving?

wireless
07-26-2014, 6:25 PM
I need help understanding who is above this court. Is this the DC court or a federal court within D.C.? This still has three higher levels it can go to? 3 panel, en banc, and supremes?

chris
07-26-2014, 6:29 PM
http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/obamacry_slow.gif
And today President Obama was heard saying, "I felt great disturbance in the Force, as if a million of my fellow liberal anti-gun brothers cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced."



ahhh are those liberal tears I see.:D

Kid Stanislaus
07-26-2014, 6:30 PM
I just did all 3 body functions in my underwear.....



ENJOY!!:p

Kid Stanislaus
07-26-2014, 6:32 PM
Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?



Because he's smart enough to know that one hot day does not make a summer and one cold day does not make a winter, perhaps?;)

Peter.Steele
07-26-2014, 6:32 PM
I found this interesting

The Peruta court addressed the issue of "whether a responsible, law-abiding citizen has a right under the Second Amendment to carry a firearm in public for self-defense." Peruta, 742F.3d at 1147. As a preliminary matter, the court noted that "California generally prohibits the open or concealed carriage of a handgun, whether loaded or unloaded, in public locations." Id. (citations and footnote omitted). However, an individual could apply for a license to carry a concealed weapon in the city or county in which he worked or resided. See id. at 1148 (citationsomitted). To obtain such a license, however, an applicant had to meet several requirements, including a demonstration of good moral character, completion of a specified training course, and establishing good cause. See id. (citations omitted). The plaintiff challenged San Diego County's procedures for obtaining a concealed-carry license, in particular its definition of the term "good
cause." See id.
-




Is it just me, or does it seem like they completely misinterpreted CA's concealed carry licensing scheme?

Sgt Raven
07-26-2014, 6:36 PM
:facepalm:

I think you have me confused with KC Brown there junior. Have another hit and think about it, and Chill out a little. Oh and before you spout off again, why don't you do a little research. The 9th is the most overturned circuit in the Nation.

Maybe you should check your facts, too.... I think another circuit has taken that Title away from them.... :TFH:

Sgt Raven
07-26-2014, 6:38 PM
Will be interesting to see this applied to other states like Colorado, Nevada, California, etc.

WTF? You do know you can get a Non-Resident Nevada LTC?

Paladin
07-26-2014, 6:39 PM
FANTASTIC NEWS!!!

:party:

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/obamacry_slow.gif
And today President Obama was heard saying, "I felt great disturbance in the Force, as if a million of my fellow liberal anti-gun brothers cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced."


No offense to our pro-RKBA "liberals" on CGN, but that is just great! :smilielol5:

QUESTIONS: Did FGG make a prediction re. Palmer at the district level? If so, what was it?

So I guess we've got until Oct 24th to see if D.C. appeals this.

sholling
07-26-2014, 6:39 PM
That's if DC appeals.....

Assuming DC goes hardline and does actually appeal, I don't believe either a 3 judge panel or en banc will reverse the district court.
Their choices are 1) appeal, or 2) go with a may-issue scheme that is so restrictive that it's defacto no-issue for all but the best connected elites in DC, and with almost no legal places to carry within the district. There is no downside (for them) to the second option other than some small loss of face for having to issue a dozen or so very-very expensive permits per year. What they won't do is go shall-issue without a much longer legal fight. Worst case (for them) is that may-issue (defacto no-issue to peons) is tossed in a follow-up case 2-3 years down the road, but that's 2-3 more years of virtual no carry in DC.

Why? Because it's SCOTUS bait if they do that. Unlike the splits between Moore versus the may-issue carry cases, a reversal of Palmer at DC Circuit is in fact a 100 percent unquestionable circuit split with Moore v. Madigan in the 7th Circuit.
That doesn't mean that SCOTUS would grant cert or that they would rule in our favor. It's pretty obvious that there aren't 5 reliable votes for either carry or strict scrutiny (or to vote against carry) or they'd already have taken a case by now. I expect that they'd deny cert and DC has to know that as well.

10 Spot
07-26-2014, 6:40 PM
Hey, Oddball, this is your hour of glory. And you're chickening out!


I love the smell of victory...

"To a New Yorker like you, a hero is some type of weird sandwich, not some nut who takes on three Tigers."

I love Oddball! LOL

Southwest Chuck
07-26-2014, 6:49 PM
I was quoting Oddball in Kelly's Heroes. Why don't you chill and just enjoy the victory?

:facepalm:

Oh, you'll do well here .....

10 Spot
07-26-2014, 6:55 PM
I've noticed there are a few oddballs here. LOL

ronlglock
07-26-2014, 6:55 PM
WTF? You do know you can get a Non-Resident Nevada LTC?

You are quite correct about Nevada. I really meant Pennsylvania - since they are dropping reciprocity all over.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

taperxz
07-26-2014, 6:56 PM
Non-resident licensing. Reciprocal agreements is purely a political question.

Reread the opinion. It forbids DC from enforcing their non resident carry policy. Not trying to argue with you but I think it implies reciprocity of LTC's. Especially the way it's pointed out as a right for non residents. DC has been ordered to not enforce their law.

Bangzoom
07-26-2014, 7:08 PM
http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/obamacry_slow.gif
And today President Obama was heard saying, "I felt great disturbance in the Force, as if a million of my fellow liberal anti-gun brothers cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced."



Does that sign say "Forewarned"?

71MUSTY
07-26-2014, 7:10 PM
Reread the opinion. It forbids DC from enforcing their non resident carry policy. Not trying to argue with you but I think it implies reciprocity of LTC's. Especially the way it's pointed out as a right for non residents. DC has been ordered to not enforce their law.

I disagree, it is saying non- resident cant be treated different just because he's a non-resident.

So likely a non-resident who meets all the states requirements except residence would have to be issued a permit. That mean Non-Resident permits.

No where does it say they have to honor other states laws or permits (reciprocity).

taperxz
07-26-2014, 7:18 PM
I disagree, it is saying non- resident cant be treated different just because he's a non-resident.

So likely a non-resident who meets all the states requirements except residence would have to be issued a permit. That mean Non-Resident permits.

No where does it say they have to honor other states laws or permits (reciprocity).

The court forbids them to enforce their licensing scheme. Which is still on the books.

LAWABIDINGCITIZEN
07-26-2014, 7:18 PM
The DC liberals are crying in their wine spritzers tonight.


They'll pretend this doesn't matter. We'll keep reminding them it does.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

GaryV
07-26-2014, 7:23 PM
It forbids DC from enforcing their non resident carry policy.

Until they come up with an acceptable licensing scheme (and I'm sure there'll be a stay until then, just as there was in Illinois), at which time all they need to do in order to comply is include a non-resident license. The only thing the decision says is that they cannot ban someone from carrying solely on the fact that he is a non-resident. It says nothing about them not being able to require that he obtain a DC license.