SAF files suit against DC

steve4102 · February 4, 2015, 08:45 AM

The Second Amendment Foundation has filed suit against DC challenging their "Good Reason" or good cause requirement for obtaining a carry permit.

This is the only article I have seen so far. Damn those guys are busy.

http://www.saf.org/?p=5242

krucam · February 5, 2015, 08:17 AM

This is a "related" case to Palmer. Palmer successfully struck the total ban in DC, but is on appeal to Circuit and the District is playing games with Judge Scullins's order in Palmer. The District had even said we "changed the law", and if you don't like the new law, then file another suit....paraphrasing.

SAF & Gura did exactly that with Wrenn. While Palmer will progress into Circuit regarding the total ban, we have a 2nd case in District Ct addressing the may issue aspect. FYI, Judge Scullin is going to be the Judge in the new Wrenn case as well...

Docket: http://ia802603.us.archive.org/27/it...40.docket.html

maestro pistolero · February 5, 2015, 01:58 PM

Is there any chance that an eventual favorable ruling in Palmer could effectively moot this new case? In other words could the Palmer appeal tighten the noose around DC sufficiently to get shall issue, or is it certain that this new case will be necessary?

Jim March · February 5, 2015, 05:08 PM

I think this second case is "plan B". Plan A is to use Palmer as the vehicle to get DC to obey the gist of the original decision from Scullin. DC is claiming that a re-think of may-issue will need a whole new case; this latest case filing seems to be a backup plan in case Scullin agrees.

Nickel Plated · February 6, 2015, 01:50 AM

Hopefully this one gets dragged out to the Supreme Court.
Would finally bring shall issue here to NYC. We have pretty much the exact same problem as DC now. A may-issue system that for all practical purposes is no-issue.

JERRYS. · February 6, 2015, 03:53 AM

new jersey and Maryland have had the good reason clause for decades.... why haven't they been challenged? why is this just focused on wash d.c.?

Librarian · February 6, 2015, 04:41 AM

Quote:

new jersey and Maryland have had the good reason clause for decades.... why haven't they been challenged? why is this just focused on wash d.c.?

Likely for much the same reason Heller was started in DC - the federal district is not itself a state, nor is it in any state, so a lot of 'state's rights' things are avoided.

**Tom Servo** · February 6, 2015, 08:27 AM

Quote:

new jersey and Maryland have had the good reason clause for decades.... why haven't they been challenged?

Actually, the 2nd Amendment Foundation brought suits against both states on just that matter. The Supreme Court has refused to hear the issue.

The cases were Woollard v. Gallagher and Drake v. Jerejian.

JERRYS. · February 6, 2015, 08:43 AM

I understand the part of wash d.c. not being a state, is that the reason the SAF was defeated in nj and md?

krucam · February 6, 2015, 09:47 AM

The losses at Circuit Court in NJ (Drake) and MD (Woollard) was due primarily to the application of Intermediate Scrutiny, and deference to the state legislature's purported interest in promoting public safety.

maestro pistolero · February 6, 2015, 11:40 AM

Kachalsky in NY was a similar disappointment when the SCOTUS declined to hear it. The only good thing to say about these certiorari denials is at least they weren't a loss at the Supreme Court. Meaning it's still an open question. Otherwise it would be game over for court remedies.

Jim March · February 6, 2015, 11:55 AM

Jerry,

So far the idea of discriminatory permit access has been challenged in five states. The NY, NJ and MD cases are all in different circuits (2nd/3rd/4th) and all three lost at the three-judge circuit panel stage - those courts said discriminatory permit issuance was OK. All three were appealed to the US Supreme Court who declined to hear all three.

Three different cases arising in two California counties and Hawaii were heard in the 9th circuit, in the Peruta case. The Peruta panel ruled our way!!! That happened after the NY/NJ/MD cases were declined by The Supremes. (State courts in Puerto Rico also ruled against discriminatory permit issuance.)

Therefore, the Peruta case created a "circuit split" - different federal circuits disagreeing with each other. That increases the odds that the next time the Supremes get a shot at deciding the difference, they will.

But there's a problem: the Peruta case is being appealed "en banc", which basically means we may see an 11-judge panel called to 2nd guess the 3-judge panel. We don't know if that's going to happen or not, or if an en banc panel does reviewed it whether they'll turn against or support the three-judge panel. So the "circuit split" could collapse, which would be bad. Even if it holds, there's no guarantee that either of the losing states (Hawaii or California) will then appeal their final 9th circuit loss to The Supremes.

Another question is, what case could possibly come up to deal with this issue? Outside of the 9th circuit and the 2nd/3rd/4th circuits, most states don't do this kind of BS...can't mount a challenge in the 5th circuit because Texas and the other states that form the 5th don't do this.

There's only two remaining choices: the 1st circuit where Massachusetts does discriminatory permits and the DC Court of Appeals which is it's own "circuit". I think something is slowly progressing in Mass. so that leaves DC as a battleground.

Even if Peruta fails (for our side) en banc and The Supremes decline to hear it, there's a pretty good chance the DC Appellate court will go our way and if so, that would be a case going to The Supremes on a circuit split which is what we want.

We want it quick, too, because the thought of a Supreme Court after President Hillary (ack!) gets ahold of it is too grim for words.

TDL · February 9, 2015, 05:58 PM

Quote:

We want it quick, too, because the thought of a Supreme Court after President Hillary (ack!) gets ahold of it is too grim for words.

Just losing Kennedy is enough to lose all cases that would go to the court. And it is not certain, and in my opinion likely, that Kennedy would go our way on may issue.

Moreover losing any one of the four other Heller votes would likely give the gun control movement another preferred theater (in addition to ballot initiatives and state legislatures) of the judiciary since even justices below the supreme court who ruled in favor of gun control would be more confident of of being upheld

February 4, 2015, 08:45 AM	#1
steve4102 Senior Member Join Date: December 23, 2005 Location: Minnesota Posts: 2,952	SAF files suit against DC The Second Amendment Foundation has filed suit against DC challenging their "Good Reason" or good cause requirement for obtaining a carry permit. This is the only article I have seen so far. Damn those guys are busy. http://www.saf.org/?p=5242

February 5, 2015, 08:17 AM	#2
krucam Member Join Date: September 21, 2010 Posts: 26	This is a "related" case to Palmer. Palmer successfully struck the total ban in DC, but is on appeal to Circuit and the District is playing games with Judge Scullins's order in Palmer. The District had even said we "changed the law", and if you don't like the new law, then file another suit....paraphrasing. SAF & Gura did exactly that with Wrenn. While Palmer will progress into Circuit regarding the total ban, we have a 2nd case in District Ct addressing the may issue aspect. FYI, Judge Scullin is going to be the Judge in the new Wrenn case as well... Docket: http://ia802603.us.archive.org/27/it...40.docket.html __________________ Mark C. DFW, TX

February 5, 2015, 05:08 PM	#4
Jim March Senior Member Join Date: February 14, 1999 Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA Posts: 7,417	I think this second case is "plan B". Plan A is to use Palmer as the vehicle to get DC to obey the gist of the original decision from Scullin. DC is claiming that a re-think of may-issue will need a whole new case; this latest case filing seems to be a backup plan in case Scullin agrees. __________________ Jim March

February 6, 2015, 09:47 AM	#10
krucam Member Join Date: September 21, 2010 Posts: 26	The losses at Circuit Court in NJ (Drake) and MD (Woollard) was due primarily to the application of Intermediate Scrutiny, and deference to the state legislature's purported interest in promoting public safety. __________________ Mark C. DFW, TX

February 6, 2015, 11:55 AM	#12
Jim March Senior Member Join Date: February 14, 1999 Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA Posts: 7,417	Jerry, So far the idea of discriminatory permit access has been challenged in five states. The NY, NJ and MD cases are all in different circuits (2nd/3rd/4th) and all three lost at the three-judge circuit panel stage - those courts said discriminatory permit issuance was OK. All three were appealed to the US Supreme Court who declined to hear all three. Three different cases arising in two California counties and Hawaii were heard in the 9th circuit, in the Peruta case. The Peruta panel ruled our way!!! That happened after the NY/NJ/MD cases were declined by The Supremes. (State courts in Puerto Rico also ruled against discriminatory permit issuance.) Therefore, the Peruta case created a "circuit split" - different federal circuits disagreeing with each other. That increases the odds that the next time the Supremes get a shot at deciding the difference, they will. But there's a problem: the Peruta case is being appealed "en banc", which basically means we may see an 11-judge panel called to 2nd guess the 3-judge panel. We don't know if that's going to happen or not, or if an en banc panel does reviewed it whether they'll turn against or support the three-judge panel. So the "circuit split" could collapse, which would be bad. Even if it holds, there's no guarantee that either of the losing states (Hawaii or California) will then appeal their final 9th circuit loss to The Supremes. Another question is, what case could possibly come up to deal with this issue? Outside of the 9th circuit and the 2nd/3rd/4th circuits, most states don't do this kind of BS...can't mount a challenge in the 5th circuit because Texas and the other states that form the 5th don't do this. There's only two remaining choices: the 1st circuit where Massachusetts does discriminatory permits and the DC Court of Appeals which is it's own "circuit". I think something is slowly progressing in Mass. so that leaves DC as a battleground. Even if Peruta fails (for our side) en banc and The Supremes decline to hear it, there's a pretty good chance the DC Appellate court will go our way and if so, that would be a case going to The Supremes on a circuit split which is what we want. We want it quick, too, because the thought of a Supreme Court after President Hillary (ack!) gets ahold of it is too grim for words. __________________ Jim March

February 5, 2015, 01:58 PM	#3
maestro pistolero Senior Member Join Date: August 16, 2007 Posts: 2,153	Is there any chance that an eventual favorable ruling in Palmer could effectively moot this new case? In other words could the Palmer appeal tighten the noose around DC sufficiently to get shall issue, or is it certain that this new case will be necessary?

February 6, 2015, 01:50 AM	#5
Nickel Plated Senior Member Join Date: January 17, 2010 Location: Brooklyn, NYC Posts: 610	Hopefully this one gets dragged out to the Supreme Court. Would finally bring shall issue here to NYC. We have pretty much the exact same problem as DC now. A may-issue system that for all practical purposes is no-issue.

February 6, 2015, 03:53 AM	#6
JERRYS. Senior Member Join Date: September 23, 2013 Location: Alabama Posts: 2,968	new jersey and Maryland have had the good reason clause for decades.... why haven't they been challenged? why is this just focused on wash d.c.?

February 6, 2015, 08:43 AM	#9
JERRYS. Senior Member Join Date: September 23, 2013 Location: Alabama Posts: 2,968	I understand the part of wash d.c. not being a state, is that the reason the SAF was defeated in nj and md?

February 6, 2015, 11:40 AM	#11
maestro pistolero Senior Member Join Date: August 16, 2007 Posts: 2,153	Kachalsky in NY was a similar disappointment when the SCOTUS declined to hear it. The only good thing to say about these certiorari denials is at least they weren't a loss at the Supreme Court. Meaning it's still an open question. Otherwise it would be game over for court remedies.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search