VICTORY IN PALMER!!!!

[Haides]

Don't underestimate the fervor of the anti-gun crowd. Appealing is the only way to keep the "No-Issue" policy in place for the next year or two.

Such blind fervor on the part of DC & Chicago got us somewhere in the past...

True. We can only hope things continue to go in our favor, and that the Circuit gives us a pleasant surprise.

 

[Brooklyn]

The notice of appeal is I think all they need. This tells me they may be under pressure not to appeal. Just like Chicago. Given that the original decision went into immediate effect and the world did not end I think they risk much by playing cute with thus judge...

It's in fighting I think.

 

[Maestro Pistolero]

Don't underestimate the fervor of the anti-gun crowd. Appealing is the only way to keep the "No-Issue" policy in place for the next year or two.

Such blind fervor on the part of DC & Chicago got us somewhere in the past...

It is almost always their overreach that is their undoing.

For example, I see the California roster falling due to the Micro stamping requirement. In this case the stupid, blind overreach is that they are requiring a feature on every new handgun model that, for all practical purposes, doesn't even exist in the marketplace and that is being openly rejected by all major manufacturers and the gun owning public.

Guns without this 'unicorn' feature are banned from being placed on the approved list. It's sort of the opposite of the common use test, where only non-existant arms fall under the protection of the 2nd amendment.

 

[Elliotte]

So you're saying they could be appealing in the hopes that the Circuit actually rules against them, but eliminates all of Scullin's "self-defense" and "non-resident" language, opening the door to may-issue and at the same time keeping SAF from appealing, since they technically "won."

Damn. That's smart. And would also suck. Seems like a gamble to me though.

IANAL, but I thought that any party in a case could appeal it to the next level, even if they "won" the case, but weren't happy with some part of the outcome. By doing so, though you toss out your victory and are at risk for losing the case.

 

[Haides]

IANAL, but I thought that any party in a case could appeal it to the next level, even if they "won" the case, but weren't happy with some part of the outcome. By doing so, though you toss out your victory and are at risk for losing the case.

I am not the one to ask about that. Lol. Good to know if true though.

 

[krucam]

Lyle Denniston of SCOTUSblog writes about DC's Motion for Reconsideration.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/08/new-plea-to-limit-gun-rights-in-d-c/

 

[EL1227]

It's a 'lawyer thing' ...

Lyle Denniston of SCOTUSblog writes about DC's Motion for Reconsideration.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/08/new-plea-to-limit-gun-rights-in-d-c/

TownHall.com & WashingtonFreeBeacon.com -
Surprise! D.C. Lawyers Want To Reinstate Carrying Ban

"The District, in addition to being the seat of the federal government and home to the President, is host to thousands of foreign dignitaries each year and the site of many mass demonstrations,” the city argues. “The potential for armed mischief is thus perhaps greater in the District of Columbia than in any other American city.”

D.C. Tries to Reinstate Overturned Handgun Ban

Armed mischief ??? Is that what they call the unsolved homicides in DC now ?

What are they REALLY afraid of ??? Rhetorical question ...

 

[CrueChief]

Armed mischief ??? Is that what they call the unsolved homicides in DC now ?

With all those African-American faces I'm sure al Sharpton will be along shortly to demand the killers be brought to justice right??

 

[danb]

Hmmm.... it seems like the court filings might merely be a delay for more time:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...e071f8-2a30-11e4-958c-268a320a60ce_story.html

Officials involved in the case but not authorized to publicly discuss it said there is dismay that Scullin did not acknowledge that the District, as the national capital, has special security interests that might justify more thorough restrictions on weapons. But given the state of Second Amendment jurisprudence after the Supreme Court’s rulings striking down handgun bans in D.C. and Chicago, they said, a flat prohibition on carrying firearms is unlikely to be restored by a higher court.

While the city has asked Scullin for a longer stay of his ruling, Mendelson and Wells said they are moving to get a new law in place before the original stay expires. They expect to have an emergency bill crafted in time for the D.C. Council’s next meeting on Sept. 23, with more carefully considered permanent legislation to follow.

I added the emphasis.

very interesting, if true...

 

[Mr H]

I'd be happy with CC on any valid permit (with logical TPM, of course)

 

[krucam]

As long as they go Shall-Issue (ala IL) this can probably "slide".

If they go May-Issue, then they're going against Judge Scullin's Order. It said:

Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and enjoins Defendants from enforcing the home limitations of D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4) and enforcing D.C. Code § 22-4504(a) unless and until such time as the District of Columbia adopts a licensing mechanism consistent with constitutional standards enabling people to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.4
Furthermore, this injunction prohibits the District from completely banning the carrying of handguns in public for self-defense by otherwise qualified non-residents based solely on the fact that they are not residents of the District.

The first bolded sentence offers a bit of gray area:

...adopts a licensing mechanism consistent with constitutional standards enabling people to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.​

The 2nd bolded sentence takes it a bit further when referencing non-residents:

prohibits the District from completely banning the carrying of handguns in public for self-defense by otherwise qualified non-residents based solely on the fact that they are not residents of the District.​

That sentence uses the words that take May-Issue off the table IMHO. For self-defense by otherwise qualified individuals.

DC may (could) try to separate residents from non-residents in a may-issue vs shall-issue manner. I don't think that will fly.

May-issue for ALL will quickly invite a fight from SAF under the existing ruling.

 

[swinokur]

May-issue for ALL will quickly invite a fight from SAF under the existing ruling.

Gura said as much. May issue is a non starter for SAF

From the Post article:

Alan Gura, the gun-rights attorney who represents the Palmer plaintiffs, said if the District models its new law on Maryland’s, “That would guarantee further litigation.”

 

[Mr H]

So... being somewhat math-challenged today...

If nothing is filed today, what happens?

 

[swinokur]

Sculin needs to rule on DC's motion to reconsider. When that's done, the 30 day appeal clock starts if I understand the rules as outlined.

 

[jonnyl]

My favorite is that the city argued both that the district is too dangerous to allow more guns on the streets, and also that the police do such a good job protecting people that no one needs to be armed.

 

[Inigoes]

Sculin needs to rule on DC's motion to reconsider. When that's done, the 30 day appeal clock starts if I understand the rules as outlined.

Nah

He should hold onto it, leaving the 90 day stay expire. Judge Scullin would still be able to smack down the DC counsel for passing any overzealous ordnance.

Let DC file writ of Mandamus on him to the SCOTUS

 

[swinokur]

I was only commenting on the procedure, not what the Judge might do.

But that's an excellent idea.

 

[Maestro Pistolero]

Nah

He should hold onto it, leaving the 90 day stay expire. Judge Scullin would still be able to smack down the DC counsel for passing any overzealous ordnance.

Let DC file writ of Mandamus on him to the SCOTUS

Yep. 4-5 years should suffice. At least it would default on the side of liberty.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

Desk Drawer Veto of an appeals, mean while, freedom wins!

 

[TxAggie]

Nah



He should hold onto it, leaving the 90 day stay expire. Judge Scullin would still be able to smack down the DC counsel for passing any overzealous ordnance.



Let DC file writ of Mandamus on him to the SCOTUS

I'm trying to catch up on this: if Sculin doesn't announce a decision on reevaluating his ruling today (or in the "near" future) can DC still file an appeal? From how I've interpreted what everyone has said, DC cannot file an appeal now because they requested a review by the judge and are now forced to wait for his decision on review before they can file an appeal. Am I even close to having this right?