Nordyke sensitive area question

[Kharn]

A SCOTUS test would be good, I could just see MD stamping every permit with "Not valid within 1500' of any school"

[jdberger]

Originally Posted by hoffmang

DC argues that all of DC is a sensitive place in Palmer. DC is a master at coming into our brier patch and I almost want to kiss them for it. Almost...

-Gene

It's like having a whole government full of AMs..

[hoffmang]

Originally Posted by wash

Gene, it sounds like Palmer has to lose, appeal and lose again before McDonald vs. Chicago is settled and the Nordyke en-banc is settled if they want to file a petition for cert first.

Is that something that could happen?

Kind of but not quite. Here is my prediction. I'm not sure what the outcome in the DC District court will be. It wouldn't surprise me if we lose Palmer in District just like we lost Heller (then Parker) in DC District. However, I tend to expect we'll win the DC Court of Appeals. I also expect DC is dumb enough to ask for Cert from SCOTUS after they lose in the court of Appeals...

-Gene

[press1280]

Originally Posted by dantodd

While D.C. making a "sensitive areas" claim in not issuing CCWs Palmer is ultimately about complete prohibitions on "Bearing" arms. It is quite reasonable that the courts could deem the law unconstitutional without directly defining "sensitive areas" by merely rejecting the defense on the grounds that you cannot deem an entire jurisdiction sensitive without defining what makes it sensitive (i.e. within X ft. or X miles of a government building.)

Nordyke, post incorporation, is specifically about narrowly a defined "sensitive area" and will necessitate the application of some type of test to determine if the area in question (a public congregation place owned by the city) is a "sensitive area."

They will likely both go to SCOTUS. By reading Gene's posts it seems that Nordyke will likely get there first. I think this is good as Nordyke would require the creation, in some form, of a "sensitive areas" test which could then be used against D.C. in their attempt to claim the entire District is "sensitive"

The thing about the Palmer case is that DC does have a carry law/permit system on the books, and although few permits were issued before, people did have carry permits in the city. They obviously took the police chief's issuance power away as a result of Heller. I wish they'd explain why the city as a whole is "sensitive" now, but wasn't before Heller.
Also, would Nordyke actually file for cert. if they lose the en banc? They didn't file after the original panel's ruling.

[dantodd]

Originally Posted by press1280

Also, would Nordyke actually file for cert. if they lose the en banc? They didn't file after the original panel's ruling.

My understanding is that the Nordykes were willing to file continue the case after the initial panel in the 9th but the general consensus was that incorporation was more important than "sensitive areas" and as long as we kept incorporation that sensitive areas could be argued with another case where incorporation wouldn't up for grabs as it would be by re-opening Nordyke.

Since the en banc panel is on hold pending McDonald which will settle incorporation so that portion of Nordyke won't need to be re-argued. So, post-incorporation Nordyke really becomes a sensitive areas case with a portion of the original first amendment claim possibly revitalized.