View Single Post
Old March 8, 2012, 11:05 AM   #65
Al Norris
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,541
The Court issued its decision (on multiple motion for MSJ), last Friday (Mar. 2) but did not publish it until Monday (Mar. 5). In that order, the court did not include any specific relief.

Such orders are, as a general rule, issued at the same time as the decision, but not always. We expected the Judge to file orders by the end of the week.

MD AG Gansler publically stated that MD would appeal.

Yesterday, Mar. 7th, the defendants (MD) filed a motion to clarify (FRCP Rule 59(e)) the injunctive relief and a motion to stay (FRCP Rule 62(c)) the relief.

The motion for clarification ( is a legal tactic to force the Judge to declare the specific relief he intends to provide the Plaintiff, by way of further litigation.

The Plaintiff now has a right to respond to this motion.

The Defendants wanted the Plaintiff to respond by Monday, Mar. 12, but the Plaintiffs have consented to responding by Friday, Mar. 16, provided that the Defendants filed their motion by Wednesday, Mar. 7. The Defendants have so filed.

Immediately, the Defendants also filed a motion for expedited briefing ( on the two motions filed above.

Normally, the Defendants would have 28 court days to file their appeal. This stops the clock for as long as these motions remain unanswered by the court.

It is interesting to note that in their Motion to Stay, the defendants articulate the very same "Public Safety" claims that the Judge has ruled unconstitutional in administering the licensing scheme chosen by the Legislature.

For those that have not followed closely, What the State is claiming is the same thing that all the States have claimed so far: "We cannot trust guns in the hands of the law-abiding public. It is a danger to the public safety that such citizens be allowed to roam the streets with guns."
Al Norris is offline  
Page generated in 0.03421 seconds with 7 queries