VICTORY IN PALMER!!!!

press1280 · Jul 30, 2014

Cold Steel said:
Won't the D.C. court decision affect Maryland and other states?

Only if it reaches the SCOTUS and we win.

press1280 · Jul 30, 2014

CypherPunk said:
My guess is DC politicians are dumb enough to drag this to the end without agreeing on any legislation and the court will intervene by lifting it's stay.

The decision will not be appealed for the reasons stated above.

The DC counsel will wash their hands of it, blame the court and George Bush, and hope the low information voters lose interest.

I don't put anything past them but remember they did fold on certain aspects of their registration scheme and their handgun roster. They also have Congress looking over their shoulder, and the Democrats do not want a gun vote right before the elections.

Inigoes · Jul 30, 2014

ryan_j said:
I keep hearing the population density and "sensitive places" argument being bandied about. They're doing as if shall-issue states don't have cities and downtown areas. Miami also has "sensitive places" like foreign consulates.

Fyi,

Foreign consulates, and embassies are not US soil. DC's authority ends at the beginning of their gate.

Tomcat · Jul 30, 2014

Interesting link from one of the earlier WaPo references http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/colbert-king-guns-galore-on-the-streets-of-dc/2013/05/03/65a748f4-b373-11e2-9a98-4be1688d7d84_story.html over a year old but some really good points

The national debate over gun control, such as it is, can rage in all directions. The focus in Washington should be on curbing the flow of illegal firearms in our city and on arresting and convicting those who would use them.

Jim12 · Jul 30, 2014

"Sensitive places" is just doublespeak code language for "important politicians."

zich6 · Jul 30, 2014

"Important Politicians?" Isn't that a non sequitur?

abean4187 · Jul 30, 2014

zich6 said:
"Important Politicians?" Isn't that a non sequitur?

“Important Politician”? That’s an oxymoron if I’ve ever heard one.

jc1240 · Jul 30, 2014

danb said:
Judges actual order is here:

http://images.politico.com/global/2014/07/29/palmergunstay.pdf

Note that this is not a stay pending appeal... that is being argued separately. This is a stay to allow the DC city council time to enact legislation.

I'm confused about some of this legal stuff. If a law is deemed unconstitutional, how can it be allowed to stand temporarily to give the government time to make a new law?

Jim12 · Jul 30, 2014

abean4187 said:
“Important Politician”? That’s an oxymoron if I’ve ever heard one.

Look at the people who are using the term to distinguish DC from everywhere else in the country. They think they're important.

Probably more descriptive to call them, "self-important."

Klunatic · Jul 30, 2014

Does the 90 day stay start from Saturday's decision or Monday? What date does it expire?

Jim12 · Jul 30, 2014

10/22.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/235396297/Palmer-v-DC-Order-to-Stay-Decision

swinokur · Jul 30, 2014

zich6 said:
"Important Politicians?" Isn't that a non sequitur?

Not to mention mutually exclusive.

Tomcat · Jul 30, 2014

Klunatic said:
Does the 90 day stay start from Saturday's decision or Monday? What date does it expire?

As others have said, it will expire just before elections, everyone will be watching so they can't sweep it under the carpet.

GTOGUNNER · Jul 30, 2014

Klunatic said:
Does the 90 day stay start from Saturday's decision or Monday? What date does it expire?

ORDERS that Defendants' motion for a stay is GRANTED to the extent that the Court'sJuly 24, 2014 Order is stayed nunc pro tunc for 90 days, i.e., until October 22, 2014; and theCourt further ORDERS that Plaintiffs shall file their opposition to Defendants' motion for a stay pending appeal on or before August 4, 2014; and the Court further ORDERS that Defendants may file a reply in further support of their motion for a stay The Court notes that it sees no need to clarify its decision. The only issue before the1Court was whether the District of Columbia's complete ban on the carrying of handguns in public was unconstitutional. Thus, the Court's injunction clearly applied only to handguns andnot any other type of deadly dangerous weapon

ryan_j · Jul 30, 2014

Inigoes said:
Fyi,

Foreign consulates, and embassies are not US soil. DC's authority ends at the beginning of their gate.

Of course. I worked on foreign soil (UN HQ) for a little while. Inside the building it was like a different country. They had indoor smoking spaces and some people even smoked in their offices.

However, embassies and consulates were brought up in a discussion on Fox DC or some other station (can't remember) when they were talking about CCW in the district, well before Palmer came down.

ryan_j · Jul 30, 2014

jc1240 said:
I'm confused about some of this legal stuff. If a law is deemed unconstitutional, how can it be allowed to stand temporarily to give the government time to make a new law?

It's basically a grace period to get things in order. It's also stalling time for the losers.

In Illinois they had two stays before they enacted the FCCA and they also took a while to issue permits once it was passed and implemented.

dblas · Jul 30, 2014

Cold Steel said:
Won't the D.C. court decision affect Maryland and other states?

Nope, the DC Circuit is DC and Federal territories, MD is in the 4th Circuit.

dblas · Jul 30, 2014

Brooklyn said:
I assume that's to file the notice of appeal .. after which they can request a stay pending the results and not in fact implement any legislation if they get that stay -- they will not get it from this judge .

If I got this wrong please clarify what 30 day limit you are referring to.

Soda asked " What's to stop them from not doing anything during this 90 day stay and then appealing to the DC circuit for a stay pending appeal? Is that even part of the allowable procedure? This stuff is fascinating."

You answered "Nothing..."

That is blatantly wrong. The timeframe to file an appeal is 30 days from the 26th, not even a notice of appeal, an actual appeal.

fightinbluhen51 · Jul 30, 2014

danb said:
Some people are claiming (I dont know myself) that DC legislation will need a 30 day review and up/down vote in the House and Senate.

Holy yikes if this is true. Reid did not want guns as an issue for the mid terms and killed some bills. Now, every Senator running needs to state their position on DC shall issue because they will need to vote on it. Can you say, national reciprocity? If this is true, seems to me legislation goes to the Senate, where it will need to be shall-issue to get through. Or, they appeal it to the SCT. checkmate either way.

JC92 said:
No, an up or down vote is not required. Yes, a 30-day review period is required before the DC Act becomes a DC Law.

However, a no vote by congress also requires presidential concurrence. This is an interesting part of the process, but I do not think it is the vehicle to National Reciprocity, as Congress can't amend the DC Act.

JC92 said:
EDIT. I was mistaken.

Taken from DC Council:
How many days does Congress have to approve District legislation?

An Act must "lay over" in Congress for 30 legislative days - meaning days when at least one House is in session. An act that amends the criminal code must lay over for 60 legislative days.

Return to the top

Why must an Act enacted by the local elected officials be approved by Congress?

Congress imposed this requirement on the District in the Home Rule Act. Congress must also approve the District's annual budget.

This really puts DC in a bind if they want to pass a law.

1) Congress goes on summer vacation after this week
2) Congress doesn't want to touch the gun issues unless it is grand standing like they plan to do today on the Senate side of things with "hearings." Especially given it's an election year with a lame duck president.
3) DC is going to be pressured to appeal because
a) they can limit it to the DC circuit.
b) Carry already exists for much of the US lands that are controlled by
dept. of the Interior
c) They have little to loose
d) It is their only guaranteed method to delay because
e) Chances are the DC Circuit will grant a stay on their appeal, regardless
of the merits due to the "drastic change, nullification of a statue, and
it is easier to maintain the status quo.
4) This is DC we are talking about and well, they don't have to make sense when you consider one party rule and no "down state" pressure that IL had.

yellowfin · Jul 30, 2014

DC may have one party rule but they're so small their council can't hide behind other layers of local government to evade scrutiny and consequences. Emily Miller has done a great job of making sure they get millions of eyes on their every move.

VICTORY IN PALMER!!!!

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Head'n for the hills

Formerly Known As HITWTOM

Let Freedom Ring

Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Let Freedom Ring

Ultimate Member

Let Freedom Ring

In a State of Bliss

Formerly Known As HITWTOM

IANAL, PATRIOT PICKET!!

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Past President, MSI

Past President, MSI

"Quack Pot Call Honker"

Pro 2A Gastronome

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics