|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
August 23, 2014, 07:48 AM | #126 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 1,085
|
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 |
August 23, 2014, 11:30 AM | #127 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,199
|
Sounds like they're trying the IL tactic--delay, delay, delay.
|
August 23, 2014, 12:20 PM | #128 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 25, 2013
Posts: 317
|
Quote:
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. |
|
August 25, 2014, 01:03 AM | #129 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 356
|
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.)
|
August 25, 2014, 03:23 AM | #130 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,955
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
August 26, 2014, 09:38 PM | #131 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 25, 2013
Posts: 317
|
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 |
August 26, 2014, 09:48 PM | #132 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,955
|
Does Judge Scullin have any say in whether or not this New legislation meets his "Constitutional" requirements?
|
September 4, 2014, 10:47 PM | #133 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 25, 2013
Posts: 317
|
Quote:
|
|
September 5, 2014, 04:50 PM | #134 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,417
|
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 |
September 7, 2014, 02:57 AM | #135 |
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 |
September 18, 2014, 05:36 PM | #136 |
Junior Member
Join Date: July 27, 2011
Posts: 11
|
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.”
|
September 18, 2014, 05:44 PM | #137 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 25, 2013
Posts: 317
|
Quote:
|
|
September 18, 2014, 07:51 PM | #138 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 635
|
Quote:
__________________
SAF, ACLDN, IDPA, handgunlaw.us My AmazonSmile benefits SAF I'd rather be carried by 6 than caged by 12. 2020: It's pronounced twenty twenty. |
|
September 19, 2014, 02:05 AM | #139 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Peruta didn't touch reciprocity.
|
September 20, 2014, 12:34 PM | #140 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 228
|
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. |
September 20, 2014, 02:18 PM | #141 |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
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:
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 |
September 20, 2014, 02:21 PM | #142 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: McMurdo Sound Texas
Posts: 4,322
|
So legal eagles, does this mean it's likely going back to court?
__________________
Cave illos in guns et backhoes |
September 20, 2014, 02:36 PM | #143 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 566
|
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 |
September 20, 2014, 05:41 PM | #144 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
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?
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
September 20, 2014, 06:08 PM | #145 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,896
|
Quote:
The rest of the claptrap is just eyewash after that. |
|
September 21, 2014, 12:47 AM | #146 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,199
|
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.) |
September 21, 2014, 05:12 AM | #147 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
|
...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. |
September 21, 2014, 05:41 AM | #148 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 394
|
Quote:
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. |
|
September 21, 2014, 07:48 AM | #149 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,955
|
As this is clearly not what Scullion had in mind, what is the Next step?
|
September 21, 2014, 12:27 PM | #150 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,299
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|