VICTORY IN PALMER!!!!

[swinokur]

So DC is going to gamble on a circuit stay, let the legislation expire and hope for a reversal of Sculin? wow.

Brass balls.?

 

[swinokur]

What if the circuit issues a stay on Sculin's original order, and the he grants a PI to Gura. Does DC then have to appeal that separately?

I need a score card.

 

[FrankZ]

My wondering lies in this sort of direction:

DC knows they have lost. They really don't expect to get it back, but if they can make it look like they "fought" tooth and nail and were forced into something from outside then they get to keep their jobs. They said it when they passed the emergency legislation "we didn't want to do this but we were forced into it".

They are playing the game to make it as restrictive as possible, even if it goes shall issue they are already putting in high fees for the permit and for the the ability to be a trainer. In the end I think they are trying to make people who vote from sound bites think they did their best and were bullied into this.

 

[Patrick]

So DC is going to gamble on a circuit stay, let the legislation expire and hope for a reversal of Sculin? wow.

Brass balls.?

no, its the most rational step they can take. this is not a purely legal issue and thus far DC has performed the most rational steps they can given the hand they have been dealt. just because we here view this as a constitutional question does not mean political calculus is outside then realm of the real.

What if the circuit issues a stay on Sculin's original order, and the he grants a PI to Gura. Does DC then have to appeal that separately?

I need a score card.

I am not a lawyer but can answer this one: any PI would be based on the original decision. if that ruling is held, then so to are any sub sequent orders related to it.

My wondering lies in this sort of direction:

DC knows they have lost. They really don't expect to get it back, but if they can make it look like they "fought" tooth and nail and were forced into something from outside then they get to keep their jobs. They said it when they passed the emergency legislation "we didn't want to do this but we were forced into it".

They are playing the game to make it as restrictive as possible, even if it goes shall issue they are already putting in high fees for the permit and for the the ability to be a trainer. In the end I think they are trying to make people who vote from sound bites think they did their best and were bullied into this.

this assumes DC agrees with you and is intentionally working to entrench a position they agree to be wrong, just to be evil.
assuming that your opponent thinks the way you think means that opposition to our views requires evil intent. I think DC believes itself fighting the good fight, even though we know they are wrong.

DC does not have the upper hand, but is acting rationally (defined as doing the thing most likely to further their interests). they want a stay, which they will get. beyond that, for every smart person here speaking of the neutrality of jurists, there are a dozen US senators who talk about how great it was to neuter filibuster rules specifically to pack the DC Circuit with Obama appointees who would prevent wrong-minded decisions from taking hold. DC is playing odds here and taking the risks that make sense for them.

the best, most likely outcome for us is DC being forced to make their current temp laws permanent. that gives Gura a solid target in may issue territory and also causes a review from congress. I think the chance a gop Congress ignores a new and restrictive may issue law in DC to be inversely proportional to the amount of support they want from their core base in 2016.

 

[kcbrown]

If the cynic is right, Peruta would have been a waste of time to pursue. O'Scannlain is not the only judge like that out there. Read Moore, written by Judge Posner, who was sharply critical of Heller, but nonetheless adhered faithfully to its logic and reasoning. Differing approaches and, yes, judicial resistance all fall comfortably within the bell curve of normal.

This is something you may find of interest: http://www.culturalcognition.net/bl...tive-illiberalism-what-is-it-what-does-i.html

 

[kcbrown]

Thanks much. People are impatient. I get that totally. And I don't guarantee anything from the DC Circuit, one way or another, as judges are human and KC has a point in his cynicism as he points to the courts that refuse to recognize the right, as defined in Heller and McDonald. But cynicism is too convenient and easy to be accepted as it allows the cynic the excuse to stop thinking and stop pushing (it is hopeless after all).

I am cynical because experience and observation force me to be. I would be ignoring reality otherwise. I am a realist first and foremost.

And were this a garden variety issue, my advice might well be to stop pushing because the cost/benefit calculus would be so strongly against us. But this is no garden variety issue. This is liberty and, indeed, is a fundamental requirement for the rest of it (if we haven't even the right to effective self-defense, then it's not liberty we have).

 

[Brooklyn]

I am cynical because experience and observation force me to be. I would be ignoring reality otherwise. I am a realist first and foremost.

And were this a garden variety issue, my advice might well be to stop pushing because the cost/benefit calculus would be so strongly against us. But this is no garden variety issue. This is liberty and, indeed, is a fundamental requirement for the rest of it (if we haven't even the right to effective self-defense, then it's not liberty we have).

You're cynical because you enjoy it.

Experience and obseration force me to that conclusion
I to am a realist

"All progress to due to unreasonable men. For while the reasonable man adapts himself to the world the unreasonable man insists on adapting the world to himself"

G.B. Shaw. ( from memory)

I intend to be unreasonable. You can not be a polite revolutionary. Nor a reasonable one.

So why do the math if it makes no difference? Not very practical...

 

[wjackcooper]

The article referenced below* indicates (at least to me) that Sen. Charles Schumer D-N.Y., Sen. Richard Blumenthal D.-Conn. and Chris W. Cox, NRA-ILA Executive Director are in basic agreement with the opinions of kcbrown about the Federal Judiciary and the impact of ideology on Second Amendment litigation.

What Mr. Cox characterizes as a “fundamental transformation” may have already occurred, or so the evidence (as pointed out by kcbrown and Mr. Cox) appears, in my opinion, to show.

Adverse odds are all the more reason to step up the battle, as Mr. Cox says “[n]ow more than ever, . . . .”

Regards
Jack

*Chris W. Cox, “The Judiciary’s Role in Fundamental Transformation,” American Rifleman, Dec. 2014, p.16.

"Take nothing I post as a personal affront." Lincoln, Abraham: Springfield, Ill. 1858

 

[Brooklyn]

The article referenced below* indicates (at least to me) Sen. Charles Schumer D-N.Y., Sen. Richard Blumenthal D.-Conn. and Chris W. Cox, NRA-ILA Executive Director are in basic agreement with the opinions of kcbrown about the Federal Judiciary and the impact of ideology on Second Amendment litigation.

What Mr. Cox characterizes as a “fundamental transformation” may have already occurred, or so the evidence (as pointed out by kcbrown and Mr. Cox) appears, in my opinion, to show.

Adverse odds are all the more reason to step up the battle, as Mr. Cox says “[n]ow more than ever, . . . .”

Regards
Jack

*Chris W. Cox, “The Judiciary’s Role in Fundamental Transformation,” American Rifleman, Dec. 2014, p.16.

"Take nothing I post as a personal affront." Lincoln, Abraham: Springfield, Ill. 1858

The court has no power. Once they loose legtiamcy no one need heed thier opinions. This is why they must honor the rule of law...self preservation.

The left has no option other that such a subversion. And Mr, Cox and the NRA are quite late to the court fight as compared to SAf, but they are most welcome.

There is still time. And the push back from the states is just getting started.

We all know whats going on ..hell its been going on since Roosevelt. We can win in the courts. But if not we move to Con Con. As long as the court has credibility that will be hard, once they loose it it gets much easier ... they know this..and its a major reason why they will not go to far..

 

[kcbrown]

You're cynical because you enjoy it.

Experience and obseration force me to that conclusion
I to am a realist

LOL!!!

I do enjoy a good debate, and sometimes my cynicism makes such debates possible. I can't deny that.

But I wouldn't say I enjoy being cynical as such. It's more that it's been beaten into me so much that it's now in my nature. I wasn't like this when I was a kid. Life experience has taught me to be this way.

"All progress to due to unreasonable men. For while the reasonable man adapts himself to the world the unreasonable man insists on adapting the world to himself"

G.B. Shaw. ( from memory)

I intend to be unreasonable. You can not be a polite revolutionary. Nor a reasonable one.

No doubt.

But note that when you adapt the world to yourself, you are still forced to operate within the confines of the world, under the rules imposed by the world. The laws of physics are immutable. Hence, when you adapt the world to yourself, you also adapt yourself to the world, at least to the degree necessary to achieve your aims.

So why do the math if it makes no difference? Not very practical...

Because changing the world requires understanding the world. And because this is war. In war, you have to have some kind of idea of what to expect. If you don't, then you are firing blind and are likely to miss your target.

Doing the math reveals what to expect, and makes it possible to plan effectively. Or so the theory goes. While knowing what to expect might not lead to victory, not knowing what to expect will almost certainly lead to defeat.

 

[wjackcooper]

Keeping in mind that it is Mr. Gura who is in the arena:

It seems to me, he tactically retreated when he was likely to lose ( the 90 as opposed to 120 day stay) and has now mounted a strategic attack against which the District must tactically defend. The District must show: (1) why it is not in Contempt of the Circuit Court and (2) why Summary Affirmance should not be granted in the Court of Appeals.

For now, to point out the obvious and ignoring the obscure,* . . . he has shaped and controls the battlefield, i.e., the District must react to his moves.

I, for one, stand (with my hat off) in awe.

Regards
Jack

*"Litigation, like war, presents endless fog and complexities." Clausewitz, Carl von. On War: Berlin, Germany, 1832.

 

[Kharn]

I really would like to see Congress get pissed at DC's shenanigans, and include 50-state reciprocity in their legislative solution.

 

[esqappellate]

we are getting closer...

question: why must DC pass anything new if the circuit were to stay the decision?

that's what everyone here is missing. DC does not intend go change anything for good. they want to eke in under the clock and avoid permanent legislation.

so is Gura stretching the timetable with his latest motion? will it cause DC to make an permanent change they'd rather avoid?

I honestly don't know and will leave it others to say.

but DC has shown zero inclination to make permanent change. doing so opens possible issues they would rather avoid and makes it more likely congress will intervene (though Congress can intervene anyway, politically it would be more difficult without a new DC law).

Ok, I'll bite. First, motion for summary affirmance does not affect, at all, DC's right to move for an emergency stay pending appeal. DC can file it tomorrow and ask for it to be acted on before the emergency legislation lapses. And the Court would probably consider such a request. Why DC haven't done that is simply beyond me -- the more they delay in filing such a stay motion the more difficult it is for the court to act on it before the 90 days expire. That increases the need for permanent legislation, as we all know that DC would plunge into a massive bloodletting in the absence of a carry ban. But permanent legislation will effectively hand on a platter to Gura a strong mootness argument on their present appeal, which DC doesn't want. This is either really bad lawyering or a paralyzed DC government (I think the latter).

 

[esqappellate]

This is something you may find of interest: http://www.culturalcognition.net/bl...tive-illiberalism-what-is-it-what-does-i.html

From the article: "The primary implication of our study— the main message we are trying to get across—is that constitutional theorists have paid too much attention to explicating the normative content of various free speech standards and too little to the psychology of enforcing them."

I couldn't agree more. Thanks for the link.

 

[esqappellate]

What if the circuit issues a stay on Sculin's original order, and the he grants a PI to Gura. Does DC then have to appeal that separately?

I need a score card.

The PI motion is really a motion for enforcement, viz., that the new legislation does comply with the 2A. An order on that motion would require a new notice of appeal. That appeal would be consolidated with the existing appeal.

 

[esqappellate]

I am cynical because experience and observation force me to be. I would be ignoring reality otherwise. I am a realist first and foremost.

And were this a garden variety issue, my advice might well be to stop pushing because the cost/benefit calculus would be so strongly against us. But this is no garden variety issue. This is liberty and, indeed, is a fundamental requirement for the rest of it (if we haven't even the right to effective self-defense, then it's not liberty we have).

Definition of a cynic: "a faultfinding captious critic; especially : one who believes that human conduct is motivated wholly by self-interest" Cynism is not a virtue......

 

[swinokur]

thank you as always Esq.

 

[Maestro Pistolero]

I am cynical because experience and observation force me to be. I would be ignoring reality otherwise. I am a realist first and foremost.

I wonder if you are over-observing the negative, and under-observing the overall trend toward liberty. If so, that is not realism in my view, it is a skewed negative outlook. It is so interesting to me that you said you weren't like that as a kid. Were there repetitive disappointing experiences you had as a child that could have manifested later as a negative mental pattern? I have only once ever encountered such a monochromatically negative orientation, and it is in a dear friend who battles severe depression.

 

[Bob A]

I wonder if you are over-observing the negative, and under-observing the overall trend toward liberty. If so, that is not realism in my view, it is a skewed negative outlook. It is so interesting to me that you said you weren't like that as a kid. Were there repetitive disappointing experiences you had as a child that could have manifested later as a negative mental pattern? I have only once ever encountered such a monochromatically negative orientation, and it is in a dear friend who battles severe depression.

I would submit that the chronic repetitive disappointments brought to us by the MD GA could be sufficient to induce a monochromatic negative outlook, as it subjects the populace to a seemingly endless series of negative outcomes. This is exacerbated by witnessing the freedoms extant in much of the rest of the nation.

Of course, those freedoms have been serially recognised by the legislatures of 80% of the states, including Illinois, which always seemed to be even a more restrictive state than MD.

It's not just children that are negatively impacted by chronic disappointment. Battered Gun Owner Syndrome may be unrecognised medically, but it surely exists, and not without cause.

 

[Mr H]

I like it...

Although, however depressing, it's more like 95% of states...