We just won Palmer at the DC District Court! - Page 7

maestro pistolero · September 21, 2014, 12:51 PM

Fortunately for us it's usually their overreach which is their undoing. The walls are closing in on the district now. They are in a very weak position politically in my opinion. With the tide quite likely about to turn in the Senate elections, they ought to see the writing on the wall. (But they won't)

If they screw around long enough, a majority control of both houses could make entirely removing their right to regulate guns in the district not impossible.

Striking the new regulation is likely going to take a new lawsuit, but they have handed us we ample, egregiously novel threats to liberty as highlighted here by Spats McGee and Tom Servo:
http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...&postcount=141 AND here: http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...&postcount=144

motorhead0922 · September 21, 2014, 12:54 PM

Quote:

As this is clearly not what Scullion had in mind, what is the Next step?

Good question. The DC counsel will meet Tuesday to discuss this and other legislation, as shown on their schedule:
http://dccouncil.us/news/entry/notic...lative-meeting

Does anyone know if comments will be taken from citizens at that time? If so, will any plaintiffs be there? No info on Larry Gura's web site.

HarrySchell · September 21, 2014, 02:03 PM

Could not Scullin (sp) toss this bag of dung and dictate a minimal system?

maestro pistolero · September 21, 2014, 02:37 PM

Judges can't get any where near dictating law . . . they can merely uphold it or strike it once it is written, and only when a case is properly before them and plaintiffs have standing. Since Palmer had nothing to do with may issue, or for that matter, any of the new overreaching regulations by the City counsel, there is a limit to what the judge can do with his remaining jurisdiction in this case.

jbrown50 · September 22, 2014, 09:39 AM

True, judges can't dictate law but once DC's final version is submitted Judge Scullin can say that it fails to satisfy the injunction. They will then have the options of rewriting it, appealing to the circuit, or totally ignoring the judge and keeping the may issue law.

The problem with the latter for DC is that Congress has the last say whether or not DC's laws become final. How will their supporters in Congress react to their may issue law that is contrary the judge's injunction? This judge is pro-2A, has achieved his seniority, and is about to retire so he has nothing to lose. Will he just sit back and let DC's may issue law go by without a response?

62coltnavy · September 24, 2014, 11:16 PM

Actually, Judge Scullin has already taken senior status, which is as close to retirement as most federal judges get.

Segerrik · October 3, 2014, 01:03 PM

Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...mended_strip_2

TDL · October 8, 2014, 09:39 PM

This was predictable.

Pyrrhus would know this "win."

Bloomberg's bodyguards, DC council members, and a handful of pals get to carry.

Segerrik · November 5, 2014, 02:12 PM

Link: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...Injunction.pdf

steve4102 · November 22, 2014, 05:43 AM

Judge Scullin considering holding DC in contempt for their extremely restrictive "new" carry law.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-contempt-ove/

JimPage · November 22, 2014, 09:20 AM

Good progress, but I won't call it a win until the judge rules in our favor,

maestro pistolero · November 22, 2014, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Judge Scullin considering holding DC in contempt for their extremely restrictive "new" carry law.

Not sure what this means, we have won the case. Do you mean 'rules in our favor on the pending motion for contempt? It is doubtful that this will result in an actual contempt of court charge. What is much less doubtful is that DC has lost and is now desperate.

Jim March · November 22, 2014, 03:42 PM

Well there seems to be two different levels of action going on here.

What's happened so far is that Scullin has ruled that there's a personal "bear arms" right that includes widespread carry. He relied heavily on the logic of the Peruta case in the 9th Circuit.

First, DC is claiming that they're going to appeal that to the DC Circuit.

But second, there's a wrangle going on still in Scullin's court level about what Scullin's ruling means. DC lawyers are trying to claim that extremely limited carry such as withstood three-judge panels in NY (Kachalsky), NJ (Drake) and MD (Woolard) should be OK. But Scullin didn't go with the logic of those cases, he went instead with Peruta (widespread carry instead of "may issue for a few elites").

I *think* Gura is forced now to wrangle with the DC attorneys back before Scullin and get a firm view from Judge Scullin on what his ruling means. If Gura doesn't do that, he may lose the ability to challenge the new heavily restricted permit law without filing a new case and starting the clock all over, which is also what the DC lawyers are saying he needs to do. But if Gura were to fall for that (or Scullin for that matter) then each time Gura "wins" the city can pass a new form of craptastic law (million dollar bonds, massive psych evals, who knows what!) and Gura would have to challenge each one in turn.

Gura would *like* to progress the fight up to the DC Circuit and then The Supremes I suspect, but he can't yet - DC passing this law has kept him wrangling before Scullin. Which is a bummer because DC is hoping the Peruta case gets overturned en banc (a genuine risk) so that the core of the logic of Scullin's DC ruling gets discredited. We can of course try to appeal Peruta to the Supremes but...they may or may not take it.

Scullin can help by doing a rapid and broadly worded slapdown of DC's ongoing restrictions, forcing DC to bounce higher to the DC Appeals court and a step closer to The Supremes.

TDL · November 26, 2014, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Not sure what this means, we have won the case. Do you mean 'rules in our favor on the pending motion for contempt? It is doubtful that this will result in an actual contempt of court charge. What is much less doubtful is that DC has lost and is now desperate.

Uhm, no. If that is a win I would hate to see what a loss looks like. It is a pyrrhic victory more damaging than helpful. Bloomberg's body guards, some retired cops, family members of cops, politicians, and people who can document a police reported and credible -- and current -- threat will get to carry. no on else.

And in case you guys missed it DC has tightened things even more since the contempt appeal was filed. I believe they now have all private property presumptive no gun zone unless posted otherwise

62coltnavy · December 1, 2014, 12:50 AM

"And in case you guys missed it DC has tightened things even more since the contempt appeal was filed. I believe they now have all private property presumptive no gun zone unless posted otherwise ."

I'd like to see a link to this. Chicago tried to pull the same stunt when the Illinois carry law was enacted. Nice of the City to conclude that everyone in town agrees that DC should be a gun free zone.

gc70 · December 1, 2014, 02:08 AM

DC bill B20-0930 is still under consideration (last action November 25, 2014). See page 178 starting at line 285 for presumptions that private residences and places of worship are prohibited. The bill initially also presumed that other private property was prohibited for a 90-day transition period after September 23, 2014 (the date of passage of the emergency bill).

62coltnavy · December 2, 2014, 12:58 AM

Bill wouldn't load. Bummer. I must wonder why they think that this is constitutional. Would this bill mean that if you are a gun owner who keeps a firearm in city limits, you have to post that guns are permitted, or you will be in violation of the ordinance? This really is nothing more than a re-enactment of the gun ban overturned by Heller, attached to a "virtual no issue" carry bill.

gc70 · December 2, 2014, 02:19 AM

Following is the relevant language from the current version of B20-0930. Interestingly, the PDF file was changed from when I linked to it yesterday.

Quote:

(b)(1) Any private residence shall be presumed to prohibit the presence of concealed pistols unless otherwise authorized by the property owner or person in control of the premises and communicated personally to the licensee in advance of entry onto the residential property.
(2) Any church, synagogue, mosque, or other place where people regularly assemble for religious worship shall be presumed to prohibit the presence of concealed pistols unless the property is posted with conspicuous signage allowing concealed pistols, or the owner or authorized agent communicates such allowance personally to the licensee in advance of entry onto the property; provided, that such places may not authorize concealed pistols where services are conducted in locations listed in subsection (a) of this section.
(3) Any private property not a residence, the owner or person in control of the private property shall be presumed to permit a licensee carrying a concealed pistol to enter the owner's property unless the property is posted with conspicuous signage prohibiting concealed pistols, or the owner or authorized agent communicates such prohibition personally to the licensee.

motorhead0922 · December 5, 2014, 10:50 PM

Meanwhile, DC citizens apply for permits and wait...

Quote:

It has been exactly one month since the city of Washington, D.C., began accepting applications for its new concealed carry permit, and the city does not know how long it will take to process those requests.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...-applications/

Dreaming100Straight · December 7, 2014, 03:37 PM

Would the District Court order be met if the District of Columbia revised its regulations to provide for the registration of handguns to be carried loaded, but not concealed, in public? Loaded Open Carry. Unless my memory further fails me, Peruta turned on the failure of California's statutory scheme to permit LOC.

press1280 · December 9, 2014, 07:45 AM

I would say yes, it would satisfy the order according to the judge and to the plaintiffs. But DC will NEVER allow open carry over concealed.

sharpe15 · December 10, 2014, 10:24 AM

Supposedly the city has filed its latest reply (as of 12/4), but it's not up on the Internet Archive. Does anyone have Pacer access to pull it and post a link?

gc70 · December 11, 2014, 07:26 AM

12/4/2014 Defendants’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Hold Defendants in Contempt

raimius · December 12, 2014, 01:56 AM

So, those who speak law around here, how strong is that argument?

62coltnavy · December 17, 2014, 02:00 AM

Well, you have to read Gura's (typically well written) brief to get a good idea, but there are some pretty valid procedural points asserted, even though the newly enacted emergency measure is designed to allow carry by only a select view and not the average citizen, a result that flies in the face of the trial court's extensive reliance on Peruta for the proposition that we ALL have the same Second Amendment right to bear arms, and that the State must provide some method whereby the averages citizen is allowed the right to carry, whether openly or concealed, not a select few who have "special reasons" for desiring to be armed.

September 21, 2014, 02:03 PM	#153
HarrySchell Senior Member Join Date: March 30, 2007 Location: South CA Posts: 566	Could not Scullin (sp) toss this bag of dung and dictate a minimal system? __________________ Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will. — Mark Twain

September 21, 2014, 02:37 PM	#154
maestro pistolero Senior Member Join Date: August 16, 2007 Posts: 2,153	Judges can't get any where near dictating law . . . they can merely uphold it or strike it once it is written, and only when a case is properly before them and plaintiffs have standing. Since Palmer had nothing to do with may issue, or for that matter, any of the new overreaching regulations by the City counsel, there is a limit to what the judge can do with his remaining jurisdiction in this case. Last edited by maestro pistolero; September 24, 2014 at 02:48 AM.

October 3, 2014, 01:03 PM	#157
Segerrik Junior Member Join Date: July 27, 2011 Posts: 11	Gura appealing the new may issue law Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...mended_strip_2

November 5, 2014, 02:12 PM	#159
Segerrik Junior Member Join Date: July 27, 2011 Posts: 11	Gura response to Defendants opposition to Gura MPI Link: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...Injunction.pdf

November 22, 2014, 09:20 AM	#161
JimPage Senior Member Join Date: February 21, 2010 Location: Rome, NY Posts: 941	Good progress, but I won't call it a win until the judge rules in our favor, __________________ Jim Page Cogito, ergo armatum sum

September 21, 2014, 12:51 PM	#151
maestro pistolero Senior Member Join Date: August 16, 2007 Posts: 2,153	Fortunately for us it's usually their overreach which is their undoing. The walls are closing in on the district now. They are in a very weak position politically in my opinion. With the tide quite likely about to turn in the Senate elections, they ought to see the writing on the wall. (But they won't) If they screw around long enough, a majority control of both houses could make entirely removing their right to regulate guns in the district not impossible. Striking the new regulation is likely going to take a new lawsuit, but they have handed us we ample, egregiously novel threats to liberty as highlighted here by Spats McGee and Tom Servo: http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...&postcount=141 AND here: http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...&postcount=144

September 22, 2014, 09:39 AM	#155
jbrown50 Member Join Date: December 4, 2004 Posts: 96	True, judges can't dictate law but once DC's final version is submitted Judge Scullin can say that it fails to satisfy the injunction. They will then have the options of rewriting it, appealing to the circuit, or totally ignoring the judge and keeping the may issue law. The problem with the latter for DC is that Congress has the last say whether or not DC's laws become final. How will their supporters in Congress react to their may issue law that is contrary the judge's injunction? This judge is pro-2A, has achieved his seniority, and is about to retire so he has nothing to lose. Will he just sit back and let DC's may issue law go by without a response?

September 24, 2014, 11:16 PM	#156
62coltnavy Senior Member Join Date: February 1, 2011 Posts: 356	Actually, Judge Scullin has already taken senior status, which is as close to retirement as most federal judges get.

October 8, 2014, 09:39 PM	#158
TDL Senior Member Join Date: January 25, 2013 Posts: 317	This was predictable. Pyrrhus would know this "win." Bloomberg's bodyguards, DC council members, and a handful of pals get to carry.

November 22, 2014, 05:43 AM	#160
steve4102 Senior Member Join Date: December 23, 2005 Location: Minnesota Posts: 2,955	Judge Scullin considering holding DC in contempt for their extremely restrictive "new" carry law. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-contempt-ove/

November 22, 2014, 03:42 PM	#163
Jim March Senior Member Join Date: February 14, 1999 Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA Posts: 7,417	Well there seems to be two different levels of action going on here. What's happened so far is that Scullin has ruled that there's a personal "bear arms" right that includes widespread carry. He relied heavily on the logic of the Peruta case in the 9th Circuit. First, DC is claiming that they're going to appeal that to the DC Circuit. But second, there's a wrangle going on still in Scullin's court level about what Scullin's ruling means. DC lawyers are trying to claim that extremely limited carry such as withstood three-judge panels in NY (Kachalsky), NJ (Drake) and MD (Woolard) should be OK. But Scullin didn't go with the logic of those cases, he went instead with Peruta (widespread carry instead of "may issue for a few elites"). I think Gura is forced now to wrangle with the DC attorneys back before Scullin and get a firm view from Judge Scullin on what his ruling means. If Gura doesn't do that, he may lose the ability to challenge the new heavily restricted permit law without filing a new case and starting the clock all over, which is also what the DC lawyers are saying he needs to do. But if Gura were to fall for that (or Scullin for that matter) then each time Gura "wins" the city can pass a new form of craptastic law (million dollar bonds, massive psych evals, who knows what!) and Gura would have to challenge each one in turn. Gura would like to progress the fight up to the DC Circuit and then The Supremes I suspect, but he can't yet - DC passing this law has kept him wrangling before Scullin. Which is a bummer because DC is hoping the Peruta case gets overturned en banc (a genuine risk) so that the core of the logic of Scullin's DC ruling gets discredited. We can of course try to appeal Peruta to the Supremes but...they may or may not take it. Scullin can help by doing a rapid and broadly worded slapdown of DC's ongoing restrictions, forcing DC to bounce higher to the DC Appeals court and a step closer to The Supremes. __________________ Jim March

December 1, 2014, 12:50 AM	#165
62coltnavy Senior Member Join Date: February 1, 2011 Posts: 356	"And in case you guys missed it DC has tightened things even more since the contempt appeal was filed. I believe they now have all private property presumptive no gun zone unless posted otherwise ." I'd like to see a link to this. Chicago tried to pull the same stunt when the Illinois carry law was enacted. Nice of the City to conclude that everyone in town agrees that DC should be a gun free zone.

December 1, 2014, 02:08 AM	#166
gc70 Senior Member Join Date: May 24, 2005 Location: North Carolina Posts: 2,903	DC bill B20-0930 is still under consideration (last action November 25, 2014). See page 178 starting at line 285 for presumptions that private residences and places of worship are prohibited. The bill initially also presumed that other private property was prohibited for a 90-day transition period after September 23, 2014 (the date of passage of the emergency bill). Last edited by gc70; December 2, 2014 at 02:08 AM.

December 2, 2014, 12:58 AM	#167
62coltnavy Senior Member Join Date: February 1, 2011 Posts: 356	Bill wouldn't load. Bummer. I must wonder why they think that this is constitutional. Would this bill mean that if you are a gun owner who keeps a firearm in city limits, you have to post that guns are permitted, or you will be in violation of the ordinance? This really is nothing more than a re-enactment of the gun ban overturned by Heller, attached to a "virtual no issue" carry bill.

December 7, 2014, 03:37 PM	#170
Dreaming100Straight Senior Member Join Date: February 3, 2013 Posts: 1,235	Would the District Court order be met if the District of Columbia revised its regulations to provide for the registration of handguns to be carried loaded, but not concealed, in public? Loaded Open Carry. Unless my memory further fails me, Peruta turned on the failure of California's statutory scheme to permit LOC.

December 9, 2014, 07:45 AM	#171
press1280 Senior Member Join Date: May 17, 2012 Posts: 228	I would say yes, it would satisfy the order according to the judge and to the plaintiffs. But DC will NEVER allow open carry over concealed.

December 10, 2014, 10:24 AM	#172
sharpe15 Junior Member Join Date: August 12, 2010 Posts: 8	Supposedly the city has filed its latest reply (as of 12/4), but it's not up on the Internet Archive. Does anyone have Pacer access to pull it and post a link?

December 11, 2014, 07:26 AM	#173
gc70 Senior Member Join Date: May 24, 2005 Location: North Carolina Posts: 2,903	12/4/2014 Defendants’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Hold Defendants in Contempt

December 12, 2014, 01:56 AM	#174
raimius Senior Member Join Date: January 27, 2008 Posts: 2,199	So, those who speak law around here, how strong is that argument?

December 17, 2014, 02:00 AM	#175
62coltnavy Senior Member Join Date: February 1, 2011 Posts: 356	Well, you have to read Gura's (typically well written) brief to get a good idea, but there are some pretty valid procedural points asserted, even though the newly enacted emergency measure is designed to allow carry by only a select view and not the average citizen, a result that flies in the face of the trial court's extensive reliance on Peruta for the proposition that we ALL have the same Second Amendment right to bear arms, and that the State must provide some method whereby the averages citizen is allowed the right to carry, whether openly or concealed, not a select few who have "special reasons" for desiring to be armed.