Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-11-2013, 12:04 PM
Al Norris Al Norris is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Idaho
Posts: 386
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Update on Palmer v. DC

Concerning the long overdue adjudication of the Palmer (carry in DC) case, just yesterday, Alan Gura filed a Motion To Expedite. The docket has been updated and the motion (doc #44) and memorandum in support (doc #44.1) have been made available.

This case was filed back on Aug. 6, 2009 and was assigned to DC District Judge Henry H. Kennedy. A MSJ (by the Plaintiffs - doc #5) was filed on Aug. 26, 2009 and a cross motion for MSJ (by defendants - doc #6) was filed on Sept. 9, 2009. Briefing was complete on Jan. 29, 2010.

After waiting some time for Judge Kennedy to order hearing or publish an opinion, C.J. Roberts ordered the case transferred to Judge Frederick J. Scullin, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, on Jul. 18, 2011.

Since that time, numerous notices of supplemental authorities have been filed and a hearing on the MSJ and Cross-MSJ have been held (Oct. 2012). As the latest motion affirms:

Quote:
This case is now in its fifth year before this Court. Over three and a half years have passed since the Court first heard argument on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, and nearly a year has passed since the Court re-heard those arguments.
Hopefully, this will prod the court to act.
__________________
Listings of the Current 2A Cases, over at the Firing Line.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-11-2013, 1:13 PM
fizux's Avatar
fizux fizux is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,541
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Knowing our luck, expect the case to be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-11-2013, 4:15 PM
smn smn is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 59
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default



I wish.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-11-2013, 5:03 PM
Rossi357's Avatar
Rossi357 Rossi357 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sandy Eggo County
Posts: 1,229
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I am expecting a rational basis decision.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-11-2013, 5:03 PM
Apocalypsenerd's Avatar
Apocalypsenerd Apocalypsenerd is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 922
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

So am I reading this right? The case has sat on 2 judges desks for the better part of 4 years?
__________________
Let me handle your property needs and I will donate 10% of the brokerage total commission to CG.
Buy or sell a home.
Property management including vacation rentals.
We can help with loans and refi's. 10% of all commissions will be donated to CG.

Serving the greater San Diego area.

Aaron Ross - BRE #01865640
CA Broker
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-11-2013, 5:10 PM
ccmc ccmc is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,790
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

For clarity - this one involves carry in DC whereas Heller involved possession?
How long did it take before Heller reached SCOTUS?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-11-2013, 5:15 PM
ziegenbock ziegenbock is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 128
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rossi357 View Post
I am expecting a rational basis decision.
Did you read heller?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-11-2013, 5:27 PM
Chatterbox Chatterbox is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,225
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ziegenbock View Post
Did you read heller?
I also am expecting a "rational" scrutiny decision masquerading as "intermediate" scrutiny decision.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-11-2013, 5:33 PM
Chatterbox Chatterbox is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,225
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ccmc View Post
For clarity - this one involves carry in DC whereas Heller involved possession?
How long did it take before Heller reached SCOTUS?
Heller was filed in 2003, accepted by SCOTUS in 2007, ruled in 2008.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-11-2013, 5:35 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,775
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chatterbox View Post
I also am expecting a "rational" scrutiny decision masquerading as "intermediate" scrutiny decision.
yep.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-11-2013, 11:10 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,672
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Glad he's giving them a poke.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chatterbox View Post
I also am expecting a "rational" scrutiny decision masquerading as "intermediate" scrutiny decision.
Me too.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-12-2013, 12:01 AM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,327
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

It's very likely that Judge Scullin will require an additional 1-2 years to ponder the Motion To Expedite, plus a year or two to ponder each of the notices of supplemental authorities that will pile up while he ponders the Motion To Expedite, and still more years to get back to pondering the original case once he rejects the motion to expedite. But at least he has various court of appeals blessed examples of rational basis dressed up as intermediate scrutiny to use as a boiler plate rejection.
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT--

Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association

Last edited by sholling; 08-12-2013 at 8:48 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-12-2013, 12:33 AM
coryhenry's Avatar
coryhenry coryhenry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,283
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

I'm expecting this to be drug out for many more years.
__________________
Cory

"Every man dies, not every man really lives!"

Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-12-2013, 12:35 AM
Rossi357's Avatar
Rossi357 Rossi357 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sandy Eggo County
Posts: 1,229
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ziegenbock View Post
Did you read heller?
Of course I did.
See post #8 by chatterbox.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-13-2013, 10:39 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,317
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I hope this works and they don't have to go w/a PI at this stage of the game....

Amazing how federal judges are against securing our RKBA that is supposed to not be "infringed" upon acc to the 2nd A. I used to hold federal judges in higher esteem than state judges -- not anymore.

I've got a feeling these next 12 months are going to be an emotional roller coaster with all the 2nd A cases in play.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-13-2013, 11:11 PM
RRangel RRangel is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,161
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rossi357 View Post
I am expecting a rational basis decision.
Rational basis is not involved when fundamental rights are concerned.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-13-2013, 11:36 PM
Gunsmith Dan's Avatar
Gunsmith Dan Gunsmith Dan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: San Diego County
Posts: 1,447
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Yes Heller took awhile before it got to the SCOTUS because it had to go up the line of courts to get there.

This case after 5 years in the courts, sitting in front of 2 district court judges has not gone anywhere, basically after 5 years this case has not even crossed the STARTING line let alone run in the race. If either side appleals and it does go up to SCOTUS as this rate might be 15+ years to get there.

What troubles me is that this case, which is for DC was reassigned from a DC district court Judge to a NY district court judge who I have no idea if he liberal leaning or not.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-13-2013, 11:42 PM
Apocalypsenerd's Avatar
Apocalypsenerd Apocalypsenerd is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 922
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Liberal leaning or not, a judge should be impeached for sitting on a case for 2 years with no movement.
__________________
Let me handle your property needs and I will donate 10% of the brokerage total commission to CG.
Buy or sell a home.
Property management including vacation rentals.
We can help with loans and refi's. 10% of all commissions will be donated to CG.

Serving the greater San Diego area.

Aaron Ross - BRE #01865640
CA Broker
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-14-2013, 12:09 AM
SemperFi1775's Avatar
SemperFi1775 SemperFi1775 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 718
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

where can we find a Shira Scheindlin to review the case?
__________________
"What the hell happened to land of the free and home of the brave???"
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-14-2013, 12:09 AM
anthonyca anthonyca is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,189
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ziegenbock View Post
Did you read heller?
Too bad many lower court judges didn't.
__________________
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Union...70812799700206

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wherryj View Post
I am a physician. I am held to being "the expert" in medicine. I can't fall back on feigned ignorance and the statement that the patient should have known better than I. When an officer "can't be expected to know the entire penal code", but a citizen is held to "ignorance is no excuse", this is equivalent to ME being able to sue my patient for my own malpractice-after all, the patient should have known better, right?
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-14-2013, 4:41 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,775
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RRangel View Post
Rational basis is not involved when fundamental rights are concerned.
In CA, if that fundamental right is incorporated via the 2nd, even strict scrutiny is equivalent to rational basis.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-17-2013, 12:37 PM
krucam krucam is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Dallas/Ft Worth, TX
Posts: 333
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Supplemental Authority (re: People v. Aguilar in IL) was submitted by Gura last week in Palmer.

http://www.archive.org/download/gov....37887.45.0.pdf

With IL turning Shall-Issue, DC is rightfully called out as the sole jurisdiction with no Carry provision whatsoever.
__________________
Mark C.
DFW, TX
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-17-2013, 1:19 PM
Kestryll's Avatar
Kestryll Kestryll is offline
Head Janitor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Occupied Reseda, PRK
Posts: 20,863
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
It's very likely that Judge Scullin will require an additional 1-2 years to ponder the Motion To Expedite, plus a year or two to ponder each of the notices of supplemental authorities that will pile up while he ponders the Motion To Expedite, and still more years to get back to pondering the original case once he rejects the motion to expedite.
What is he, a freakin Ent!?!?!

Can a judge be sued for intentionally delaying a case to deprive people of civil rights?
__________________
NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA Life Member / SAF Life Member
Calguns.net an incorported entity - President.
The Calguns Shooting Sports Assoc. - Vice President.
The California Rifle & Pistol Assoc. - Director.
DONATE TO NRA-ILA, CGSSA, AND CRPAF NOW!
Opinions posted in this account are my own and unless specifically stated as such are not the approved position of Calguns.net, CGSSA or CRPA.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-17-2013, 1:23 PM
bussda's Avatar
bussda bussda is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,182
iTrader: 44 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
What is he, a freakin Ent!?!?!

Can a judge be sued for intentionally delaying a case to deprive people of civil rights?
Not an Ent. And no, they cannot be sued, Which has been cited several times on other threads where cases have gotten bogged down...
__________________
I don't care what you call me, just don't call me late for dinner. Stupid Idiot will suffice, after all, it's only words.

You must define something before you can understand it.

Want to Sell: SW357V - (LA)
Magazines (AR-15 Kits), Contender Barrels and other I am selling
.22 WMR
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-17-2013, 1:30 PM
p7m8jg's Avatar
p7m8jg p7m8jg is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Modesto
Posts: 1,496
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apocalypsenerd View Post
Liberal leaning or not, a judge should be impeached for sitting on a case for 2 years with no movement.
Good luck getting rid of any federal judge. Once they're appointed for life, they're god in their courtroom. Only politicians can remove them and we know how hard they work on the people's business. NOT..
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-17-2013, 3:59 PM
Paul S's Avatar
Paul S Paul S is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 1,796
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RRangel View Post
Rational basis should not be involved when fundamental rights are concerned.
FIFY..that is certainly a main part of the problem. Although it should not be... it is...and no one not even the Supreme Court seems able to do anything about it.
__________________
Paul S
“Cogito, ergo armatum sum: I think, therefore I am armed.” - Collection of Quotes - Lt. Col. Dave Grossman
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-17-2013, 4:36 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,775
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RRangel View Post
Rational basis is not involved when fundamental rights are concerned.
Currently, in CA, there is no difference between rational basis and strict scrutiny when it comes to firearms legislation.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-17-2013, 10:33 PM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,327
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
What is he, a freakin Ent!?!?!
No self respecting Ent is that slooooooow. No, he's just stubbornly stalling his decision for as long as humanly possible to delay Gura's appeal of his eventual rational basis rejection of carry as a right until after Obama or Hillary appoint two more antis to the SCOTUS. I figure he can get away with it for at least another 2-3 years.
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT--

Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-18-2013, 7:52 AM
speedrrracer speedrrracer is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,082
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
I figure he can get away with it for at least another 2-3 years.
Why only 2-3 years? Why not forever?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-18-2013, 8:25 AM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,327
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer View Post
Why only 2-3 years? Why not forever?
Remember he's the 2nd judge to ponder the case, the first was replaced for his endless pondering. The supervising justice will eventually get tired of the 2nd judge's endless stalling but will also be well aware that switching judges yet again will add still more years of catch up pondering before the new judge renders a verdict, so he'll let the current judge stall another 2-3 years in the hope that he eventually reaches a verdict before giving up and replacing him with a 3rd judge. That judge will of course need 2-3 years of catch-up pondering before rendering a verdict in favor of the government.
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT--

Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association

Last edited by sholling; 09-18-2013 at 8:29 AM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 1:30 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.