[dantodd]

Is there another suit in front of Nordyke addressing sensitive areas or are the Nordykes first in line on this issue?

[bwiese]

I'd expect there may be fast-track cases possible on 'sensitive areas' in DC, and perhaps in the offing.

Post-incorporation, that would carry down. I don't know of others, unless 'sensitive areas' treatment someone got to be a part of Chicago case.

[dantodd]

That sounds good for us. It would be nice to have Don and the Nordykes get some recognition since they have dedicated so much of their "lives and fortunes" to this good fight. It also seems like a very clean case and should be a clear win.

[bwiese]

Dan, I'm glad we're on the same plane about "sensitive areas".

[wildhawker]

Sensitive areas!?! IBTL!

[Theseus]

IBTL!!!

I so can't wait for that case! The sensitive places that is.

[E Pluribus Unum]

Originally Posted by Theseus

IBTL!!!

I so can't wait for that case! The sensitive places that is.

Yeah..... I wonder why!!

[Liberty1]

Originally Posted by Theseus

IBTL!!!

I so can't wait for that case! The sensitive places that is.

Don't even concern yourself with this as your 364 days in county will be long over before this issue is settled. Or maybe you should be concearned with sensitive places....

[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

[dantodd]

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...

This doesn't even make sense. Claiming a sensitive places exemption doesn't allow one to refuse to issue a CCW or to outright outlaw bearing of a weapon. They may try and come up with a creative "gun free zone" such as 2 miles from any federal building but that would be a restriction on carry not a completely prohibition. No matter how you cut it they'll have to issue permits even if they try to exclude 99% of their area via "sensitive area" doctrine.

The funny part would be the LEOSA carriers, congress critters, retired police, body guards who are not SS etc. would all probably have to be prohibited as well in order to meet the requirements of "equal protection." I just don't see congress critters, police, local politicians and rich folk letting themselves be disarmed like regular folks.

[Untamed1972]

Originally Posted by dantodd

This doesn't even make sense. Claiming a sensitive places exemption doesn't allow one to refuse to issue a CCW or to outright outlaw bearing of a weapon. They may try and come up with a creative "gun free zone" such as 2 miles from any federal building but that would be a restriction on carry not a completely prohibition. No matter how you cut it they'll have to issue permits even if they try to exclude 99% of their area via "sensitive area" doctrine.

The funny part would be the LEOSA carriers, congress critters, retired police, body guards who are not SS etc. would all probably have to be prohibited as well in order to meet the requirements of "equal protection." I just don't see congress critters, police, local politicians and rich folk letting themselves be disarmed like regular folks.

Never underestimate the likelihood of our elected officials including any number of self-serving exceptions to new laws/controls placed on us that will not apply to them or their cronies. Always wondered how they justified that under equal-protection? How can they vote us all into a socialized healthcare but exclude themselves?

[hvengel]

Also keep in mind that Nordyke v King was set aside by the 9th and for all practical purposes never happened. The current panel is waiting for the Chicago case and if SCOTUS incorporates we should see a new sensitive places ruling in the 9th and who know what that will say.

[wash]

Where is Palmer at right now?

I thought it had to go through a district court or something before it gets to SCOTUS.

If the result of the Nordyke en-banc does not rule in favor of gun shows at the fairgrounds, isn't that a loss at a circuit court level? Wouldn't the next step be SCOTUS?

I think the Nordyke en-banc review will be settled shortly after McDonald vs. Chicago so a filing for cert could happen quite soon.

I would like to see Don Kilmer at SCOTUS with Alan Gura backing him up (unless we get gun shows from the circuit court).

Maybe that's wishful thinking and Palmer will get there first but it looks like Nordyke is closer to me.

[dantodd]

Originally Posted by hvengel

Also keep in mind that Nordyke v King was set aside by the 9th and for all practical purposes never happened. The current panel is waiting for the Chicago case and if SCOTUS incorporates we should see a new sensitive places ruling in the 9th and who know what that will say.

It is not as if Nordyke never happened. While the Nordyke decision has been vacated the case is still active and once the en banc panel rules the next step is SCOTUS.

[dantodd]

Originally Posted by wash

Where is Palmer at right now?

I thought it had to go through a district court or something before it gets to SCOTUS.

If the result of the Nordyke en-banc does not rule in favor of gun shows at the fairgrounds, isn't that a loss at a circuit court level? Wouldn't the next step be SCOTUS?

I think the Nordyke en-banc review will be settled shortly after McDonald vs. Chicago so a filing for cert could happen quite soon.

I would like to see Don Kilmer at SCOTUS with Alan Gura backing him up (unless we get gun shows from the circuit court).

Maybe that's wishful thinking and Palmer will get there first but it looks like Nordyke is closer to me.

I don't know what the Palmer schedule looks like and I believe there are certain peculiarities with D.C. cases so I do not know which would be more likely to reach SCOTUS first. I am also unclear if Palmer would give an adequate reading on sensitive areas as the most likely outcome I can see for a sensitive areas claim there would be them required to issue because their policy is to not issue at all. They would need an issue but restrict where you can carry policy to make a sensitive areas claim.

[hoffmang]

Palmer is awaiting oral arguments in the DC District Court 1/22/2010 @ 2:00 PM Eastern. There is a DC Circuit Court of Appeals case likely after that decision comes out and then, and only then, would this be in front of SCOTUS on a petition for cert.

-Gene

[dantodd]

Originally Posted by hoffmang

Palmer is awaiting oral arguments in the DC District Court 1/22/2010 @ 2:00 PM Eastern. There is a DC Circuit Court of Appeals case likely after that decision comes out and then, and only then, would this be in front of SCOTUS on a petition for cert.

-Gene

Thanks for the straight scoop. I had always thought there was some difference in D.C.

[hoffmang]

Originally Posted by dantodd

Thanks for the straight scoop. I had always thought there was some difference in D.C.

D.C. is somewhat odd in that it has two court systems - like a state. D.C. has a "state court" system for its usual state style court reasons - think DUI, tickets, most crime. However it, like a state, also has a regular Federal Court system that just happens to be all in D.C. It gets a lot of nationwide cases though (including patents) since it is the seat of government and you almost always have standing to sue the Federal Government there.

-Gene

[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?

If your time line for McDonald vs. Chicago is correct, Nordyke could petition for cert in less than a year unless the en-banc takes a long time and it seems to me that it shouldn't take the panel very long to decide that one.

Is there any reason why they would want to hear Palmer instead of Nordyke?

[dantodd]

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?

If your time line for McDonald vs. Chicago is correct, Nordyke could petition for cert in less than a year unless the en-banc takes a long time and it seems to me that it shouldn't take the panel very long to decide that one.

Is there any reason why they would want to hear Palmer instead of Nordyke?

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"

[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.