The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 23, 2014, 07:48 AM   #126
barnbwt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 704
Them boys only have like three days left before the appeal window is up, hope they can get their ducks in a row in time to get the paperwork in... I also hope those folks have actually been working on their case, half these anti-gun litigators sound like they made up their argument the night before when they get in front of the judges and start talking about muskets and guns being home-bound

"Then he goes on to say the city just asked the court for 6 more months to rewrite it's gun laws. Why would they do this if He is going to appeal?"
Probably just keeping his options open in case the appeal is denied, or something causes the actual authority to not kick it up the chain.

TCB
__________________
"I don't believe that the men of the distant past were any wiser than we are today. But it does seem that their science and technology were able to accomplish much grander things."
-- Alex Rosewater
barnbwt is offline  
Old August 23, 2014, 11:30 AM   #127
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 1,325
Sounds like they're trying the IL tactic--delay, delay, delay.
raimius is offline  
Old August 23, 2014, 12:20 PM   #128
TDL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2013
Posts: 172
Quote:
Self Defense has to be sufficient reason for obtaining a permit by law-abiding citizens, see the 1st underlined section. If DC tries to craft a may-issue scheme ala MD/NJ/MA/NY, I would imagine some swift action will be taken under the District ruling without having to start a new case. Just my .02 worth.

Gotta love the caveat for non-residents of DC as well.

Reminder that the District has 30 days to Appeal to Circuit. That will happen by next Thursday, 8/28. IF DC does Appeal by then, they will likely ask for, and get, a Stay of Mandate while the case spends the next year or two going through Appeals.

How this will all shake out depends on the next move, which belongs to DC.
Again: And?

There is nothing whatsoever stopping them from copying already upheld stringent "may issue" regimes. In Maryland for example your carry can specific places you carry after you prove need to carry at those places

As far as the non residents, they can allow it without reciprocity but instead with forcing a DC issued "non resident DC carry permit" scheme, just as non-residents today have to get a DC ownership permit to keep a firearm in their non resident second home in DC or their place of business in DC.

They will drag it out, promulgate the most stringent de facto no issue possible, and drag it out some more. There is no actual supreme court ruling on right to carry.

Don't mistake my realistic pessimism on this as support for any of DC's positions on this.

Lastly, Emily Miller is always not the best source on DC gun issues. Yes she is photogenic, but she very often spins it wrong.

Last edited by TDL; August 23, 2014 at 12:30 PM.
TDL is offline  
Old August 25, 2014, 01:03 AM   #129
62coltnavy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 215
I would think that, with the Court having stayed its judgment, the clock on the time to appeal has not yet begun to run. If the trial court declines to extend the stay after issuance of its judgment, the District will have the right to petition the Circuit Court of Appeals for a stay (which I think will likely be granted.) I think it is questionable whether the trial court will allow more than 90 days to enact a carry law--after all, the Seventh Circuit gave Illinois 180 days, and that was for a whole state, while Chicago managed to pass a law within days of the issuance of the McDonald decision. further, I would think that the passage of a carry ordinance would moot the case. About the only exception I could think of would be where, as suggested above, the law was so restrictive that it was obvious none of the plaintiffs would qualify for a carry license, or in the alternative, the trial court concludes that "self-defense" is sufficient justification for carry, and may be willing to continue his jurisdiction if the proposed law does not so provide (as mandated by the Ninth Circuit decision in Peruta, upon which the judge so heavily relied.)
62coltnavy is offline  
Old August 25, 2014, 03:23 AM   #130
steve4102
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by 62coltnavy
I would think that, with the Court having stayed its judgment, the clock on the time to appeal has not yet begun to run.
This is from page 4 of this thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Norris
Normally, in a civil case (such as this), the losing party has 30 days to file their NOTICE of Appeal, from the date that the entry of Judgment is made by the court clerk (Rule 4(a)(1)(A)).

Because the defendant (D.C.) is a Federal Agency, they come under Rule 4(a)(B)(ii), which gives them 60 days to file their NOTICE of Appeal.

Time starts the day after the court clerk files the Judgment. The clerk entered the judgment yesterday, the 29th. So today counts as the first day. Therefore, D.C. has until Friday the 26th of Sept. to file their NOTICE of Appeal. The current stay runs out on Oct. 27th. This allows D.C. to request a 30 day extension of time to file.
steve4102 is offline  
Old August 26, 2014, 09:38 PM   #131
TDL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2013
Posts: 172
Had dinner with someone on staff of DC council last night.


It is safe to say they are going two track. They will continue to fight the decision and also already have emergency legislation on stringent carry in drafts which will be ready to pass emergency session at last minute if they need to. Other aspects of DC gun laws may be revised at the same time
TDL is offline  
Old August 26, 2014, 09:48 PM   #132
steve4102
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,214
Does Judge Scullin have any say in whether or not this New legislation meets his "Constitutional" requirements?
steve4102 is offline  
Old September 4, 2014, 10:47 PM   #133
TDL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2013
Posts: 172
Quote:
Does Judge Scullin have any say in whether or not this New legislation meets his "Constitutional" requirements?
What can he say if it includes a bucket of all the limits not successfully challenged in other jurisdictions?
TDL is offline  
Old September 5, 2014, 04:50 PM   #134
Jim March
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,321
Well as one example, the judge said that DC could not screw over people visiting from other jurisdictions.

I don't know of a single "may issue" jurisdiction that treats visitors from other states reasonably well.
__________________
Jim March
Jim March is offline  
Old September 7, 2014, 02:57 AM   #135
Intune
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 24, 2001
Location: H'ville TN
Posts: 117
We'll probably see more hoops than Ringling Bro's ever presented but it's still progress. Lead or drag them down the path kickin' & screamin' just never let go of their collars.
__________________
Shoot straight & often.
Proud TFL Alumnus!
Molon Labe
Intune is offline  
Old September 18, 2014, 05:36 PM   #136
Segerrik
Junior Member
 
Join Date: July 27, 2011
Posts: 10
Motion for Stay pending appeal is denied.

“Having reviewed the parties’ submissions in support of and in opposition to Defendants’ motion for a stay pending an appeal, the Court hereby ORDERS that Defendants’ motion is DENIED; however, the Court will entertain a motion to extend the stay beyond October 22, 2014. If Defendants wish to make such a motion, they must file papers in support of that motion on or before October 3, 2014, setting forth in detail what, if any, progress they have made to comply with the Court’s decision. Plaintiffs may file any opposition that they have to Defendants’ motion on or before October 10, 2014. If Defendants file such a motion, the Court will hear oral argument in support of, and in opposition to, said motion on October 17, 2014, at 10:30 a.m.; and the Court further ORDERS that the Court will hear oral argument in support of, and in opposition to, Defendants’ motion for reconsideration on October 17, 2014, at 10:30 a.m.”
Segerrik is offline  
Old September 18, 2014, 05:44 PM   #137
TDL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2013
Posts: 172
Quote:
Well as one example, the judge said that DC could not screw over people visiting from other jurisdictions.
I don't know of a single "may issue" jurisdiction that treats visitors from other states reasonably well.
And may issue with no reciprocity been not been successfully challenged.
TDL is offline  
Old September 18, 2014, 07:51 PM   #138
motorhead0922
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 507
Quote:
And may issue with no reciprocity been not been successfully challenged.
Actually it has, in San Diego, although that's not final yet.
__________________
NRA, SAF, ACLDN, IDPA

"Give me liberty or give me death." - Patrick Henry
motorhead0922 is offline  
Old September 19, 2014, 02:05 AM   #139
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,090
Peruta didn't touch reciprocity.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old September 20, 2014, 12:34 PM   #140
press1280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 221
Proposed legislation here: http://www.dccouncil.us/files/user_u...0of%202014.pdf

Basically an attempt at keeping the status quo. May-issue modeled after NY, NJ, and MD. Even if you do manage to get a permit, you'll be running the gauntlet of off-limits areas,exc.
press1280 is offline  
Old September 20, 2014, 02:18 PM   #141
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,388
Holy schmoley, Batman! That's an awful law.

Here are some of the provisions:

"The Chief may limit the geographic area, circumstances, or times of the day, week, month, or year in which the license is effective."

The pistol to carry must be the one registered in the District. The pistol must be concealed.

Applicants must demonstrate "a good reason to fear injury" and "a special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community." Applicants must provide evidence of this fear.

Applicants have to complete a course certified by the Chief that includes at least 16 hours of training. The course must cover "situational awareness, conflict management, and moral and ethical decisions on the use of deadly force." How much will something like that cost, and how many instructors are there in the District to conduct it?

The license is good for two years.

Licensees may not carry in the following places:
  • Any building owned or under the control of the District
  • Any public transportation vehicle, including the Metrorail transit system
  • Any public gathering or special event conducted on property open to the public that requires issuance of a permit from the District or federal government
  • Within 1,000 feet, or other lesser distance designated by the Chief or his or her designee, when a dignitary or high ranking official of the United States or a state, local, or foreign government is under the protection of the Metropolitan Police Department, or other law enforcement agency
  • Any prohibited circumstance that the Chief determines by rule

The first four provisions cover pretty much every part of the District. Just for good measure, the Chief has the ability to extend the prohibition by fiat.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old September 20, 2014, 02:21 PM   #142
TXAZ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: TEXAS!
Posts: 1,430
So legal eagles, does this mean it's likely going back to court?
__________________
!أنا لست إرهابي
TXAZ is offline  
Old September 20, 2014, 02:36 PM   #143
HarrySchell
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 553
Whew.

Every bad idea there is, plus anointing the Chief as Lord and Master of all citizens, Seer of the Future.

I don't think Scullion is going to buy this bag of night soil.

I could be wrong.
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will.
— Mark Twain
HarrySchell is offline  
Old September 20, 2014, 05:41 PM   #144
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,126
Oh, for pity's sake, that law's ridiculous!

An applicant must have 16 hours of training to get a permit and 4 hours of training to renew. Such training must include "firearms nomenclature?!?" How esoteric are they gonna make that section?

Anyone traveling with a CC-er is required to comply with a patdown?

A roving, 1000-ft (or less) "dignitary bubble" where cc is prohibited?

Private residences are presumed to prohibit CC?
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old September 20, 2014, 06:08 PM   #145
mehavey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,940
Quote:
Applicants must demonstrate "a good reason to fear injury" and "a special need
for self-protection distinguishable from the general community." Applicants must
provide evidence of this fear.
When I read that two days ago, I knew thing was DOA.
The rest of the claptrap is just eyewash after that.
mehavey is offline  
Old September 21, 2014, 12:47 AM   #146
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 1,325
So, does the general community of DC not have a need for self-protection?

...and here I thought the right to life was inalienable!

That's the exact kind of ridiculous proposal I'd expect from DC. "What, we can't ban it?!...Make it as stupid, difficult, expensive, intrusive, and insulting as possible!" (That's how one "respects the 2nd Amendment" in our nation's capital, apparently.)
raimius is offline  
Old September 21, 2014, 05:12 AM   #147
publius42
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,888
...the right of the people who have a special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

There we go. Fixed it.
publius42 is offline  
Old September 21, 2014, 05:41 AM   #148
Davey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 369
Quote:
Oh, for pity's sake, that law's ridiculous!
I thought Cook County's, where Chicago is located, proposed legislation was ridiculous.

DC wants to be able to prohibit how much ammo and what ammo one can carry. They also want to specify what holsters one can use.

They will probably say all holsters are prohibited and any handgun must be enclosed in a case.

I love all the bits where the chief of police can do whatever the hell he/she wants.
Davey is offline  
Old September 21, 2014, 07:48 AM   #149
steve4102
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,214
As this is clearly not what Scullion had in mind, what is the Next step?
steve4102 is offline  
Old September 21, 2014, 12:27 PM   #150
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,812
Quote:
Applicants must demonstrate "a good reason to fear injury" and "a special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community." Applicants must provide evidence of this fear.
And there is the hook - if you are in such fear for your life, you may need mental health screening. Instead of a permit, you get committed.
__________________
http://czfirearms.us/ same original CZForum, new location.
armoredman is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

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 -5. The time now is 07:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14185 seconds with 9 queries