VICTORY IN PALMER!!!!

esqappellate said:

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).

Click to expand...

Remember? The federal prosecutor in DC had stopped bringing charges against people who were arrested for carrying without a permit because of the injunction against the original law even though Judge Scullin had granted a 90 day stay. The main reason DC enacted emergency legislation was to get the feds back to formally charging people for carrying without a permit. It certainly looks as though Scullin will declare them to be in contempt and issue a PI so DC will likely be forced to request that stay somewhere around Dec 4th. Until then they're very happy to have the federal prosecutor charging people under their temporary law for as long as it lasts.

esqappellate said:

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......

Click to expand...

Cynicism is a virtue if it is accurate. It is clearly not a virtue if it is not.

Bob A said:

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.

Click to expand...

You've described our situation rather eloquently.

kcbrown said:

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.


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.


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.

Click to expand...

And yet I am all ready working on plan c. What good is knowing what to expect if it does not change your course of action?. We are not going to abandon the court based on projections. Not even you advocate that. We are not going to move to a con con based on what the court has not yet done.

and we e are not going to skip the con con assuming it might fail...


Meanwhile.. folks who have inside information think your model does not capture essense of how the court works and thus is not acturate...

Unless your prediction causes you to recommend another course of action I am at a loss as to its utility in this case. You see, I assume both success and failure for every move and I have at least once plan for each branch..

So prehaps you might help me with plan B since you think plan A is no go..

Maestro Pistolero said:

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.

Click to expand...

I completely agree.

This is why it is not enough for me to observe, I must predict on the basis of those observations, and tune my operative hypotheses on the basis of the match (or lack thereof) between the predictions and actual subsequent events. It is the use of predictive hypotheses that grounds me in reality, not merely the fact that I'm observing reality. I'm all too aware of the possibility of observer bias. I do what I can to mitigate it, but in the end, I am human. I'll never get it right 100% of the time.


If there were an actual trend towards liberty, we would see the rate of repeal of laws exceeding the rate at which new ones are passed. We see quite the opposite. Hence, it follows that the trend towards liberty you speak of is illusory. It may be that we've slowed the headlong plunge towards authoritarianism, but that is not the same thing as an actual trend towards liberty, though it is certainly a necessary step in that direction.

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?

Click to expand...

Probably. I was naive and trusting as a kid. I tended to believe what people told me, to believe that the world was a good place, that people in positions of authority were generally selfless, etc. Really, all the things kids generally tend to believe (probably because they're wired that way. There is evolutionary advantage in that). Experience and observation, both as a child and as an adult, has shown that none of that is really true. People are selfless when they can easily afford to be and when they are not in positions of great power. But rare is the person who is given great power and subsequently refuses to abuse that power.

Note the way I stated that last, because it's crucial. I'm not saying that the average person would abuse their power were they given large amounts of it, though there is some evidence (e.g., the Stanford prison experiment) that they would. But the people who acquire great power tend to be the people who crave it, because that motivates them to attempt to acquire it.

And the judges who sit in judgment over us are people who are there because they want the power they have.


Rare, too, is the person who is selfless in the face of great adversity to themselves. That, too, isn't surprising because being selfless under those conditions is likely to be a survival disadvantage.


There is a wide spectrum of people out there, but there are some more or less universal truths to be learned from observing them and observing history. One of them is that people in power tend to abuse that power, so power must be ceded as sparingly as possible. The numerous abuses of power at the hands of the Obama Administration exist because the Administration has that power to abuse in the first place.

I have only once ever encountered such a monochromatically negative orientation, and it is in a dear friend who battles severe depression.

Click to expand...

I am something of an anomaly that way. I am far from depressed. I actually lead a very happy life. The reason I lead a happy life is that I am generally able to manipulate my world to make it the way I want it to be, precisely because I am able to make accurate predictions about how things can and/or will go down, and therefore prevent the negative things from happening. When one can prevent negative things from happening, one is left with the positive things.

It is why, for instance, I carry two sets of keys instead of one. While I have never locked myself out of my car before, there have been instances where I have locked my keys in my car (it's rare, and hasn't happened in a very long time, but it has happened). It is precisely because I carry two sets of keys that locking my keys in my car didn't result in me being locked out of my car. That is but one example of logically deducing a potential negative consequence, predicting that it will happen sooner or later, taking an action to prevent it, and thereby avoiding the negative consequence that would otherwise inevitably result.

The approach I take to life in general is similar to that. It is precisely because I use that approach that I lead a happy life. If I didn't, then my life would be much worse, because I would then be entrusting my fate to chance, and I know from experience that chance does not favor me (and my experience has taught me to distrust luck greatly).

Perhaps kcbrown is mearly a carrier for depression.

All kinding aside I think he is immune to diapointment..and takes active measures to prevent it.

Funny though I was much more cynical as a kid.. much more. I assumed I would be consumed in nuclear fireball. Sometimes I wish I had been right

My life is a disapointment precisely because I neither ingnore reality nor accept it.

Lucky for me I am stubborn, and I also don't mind being disapointed...even about that nuclear fireball thing.

Many have survived far worse..all I had to deal with is fear... granted it was fear of the end of the world...but it was just fear..it never happened.

So onward blunder we.

Brooklyn said:

And yet I am all ready working on plan c. What good is knowing what to expect if it does not change your course of action?. We are not going to abandon the court based on projections. Not even you advocate that. We are not going to move to a con con based on what the court has not yet done.

Click to expand...

It informs you of the likelihood that you'll need your plan C in the first place, and how much preparation you should be putting into it.

and we e are not going to skip the con con assuming it might fail...

Click to expand...

No. But if we had every reason to believe that we were going to win in the courts, then the math would show that we would be better off withholding expenditure on con con preparations, and directing more towards the courts.

But as it is, if we're not already expending substantial resources towards making a con con happen, then we are reducing our chances of winning. It is the math that informs us of this.

Meanwhile.. folks who have inside information think your model does not capture essense of how the court works and thus is not acturate...

Click to expand...

That may be. But keep in mind that most of their experience relates to issues where, firstly, the jurisprudence is already well-established and, secondly, the right/issue in question is not one which is widely loathed by those being asked to decide on it.

So prehaps you might help me with plan B since you think plan A is no go..

Click to expand...

I would be most interested in knowing how I can help with that. I've been wondering for some time how individuals can possibly assist with making a con con both possible and successful.

Brooklyn said:

Perhaps kcbrown is mearly a carrier for depression.

Click to expand...

Just the same defeatist attitude as people who said IL and MD would never elect GOP governors. We have elections and litigation precisely because things are not predetermined.

esqappellate said:

All of these judges would be greatly offended by the very notion that they serve as partisan advocates for a given President or his party.

Click to expand...

OK, maybe that specific court's judges...others, well, let's just say they don't mind doing it, even if maybe not so willing to admit it. The 2nd Circuit for example are blatant stooges of NY's anti gun slimebags and they make no effort not to be thought otherwise.

Brooklyn said:

Perhaps kcbrown is merely a carrier for depression.

Click to expand...

One wonders if he has a major futures contract position in antidepressant medications and is looking to drum up demand. With investment yields these days being as low as they are, we've all gotta make a buck or two however we can.

yellowfin said:

One wonders if he has a major futures contract position in antidepressant medications and is looking to drum up demand. With investment yields these days being as low as they are, we've all gotta make a buck or two however we can.

Click to expand...

You guys are certainly making my night!

danb said:

Just the same defeatist attitude as people who said IL and MD would never elect GOP governors. We have elections and litigation precisely because things are not predetermined.

Click to expand...

Since IL has elected a GOP governor, we should now see changes to the IL carry legislation to remove the "may issue" aspects of it, like the ability of police departments to object to someone's application, and all the time/place/manner restrictions. After all, the prior governor was the only thing standing in the way of "shall issue" legislation in the first place, and was the reason the legislation was so watered down in the first place.

Right?

kcbrown said:

It informs you of the likelihood that you'll need your plan C in the first place, and how much preparation you should be putting into it.


No. But if we had every reason to believe that we were going to win in the courts, then the math would show that we would be better off withholding expenditure on con con preparations, and directing more towards the courts.

But as it is, if we're not already expending substantial resources towards making a con con happen, then we are reducing our chances of winning. It is the math that informs us of this.


That may be. But keep in mind that most of their experience relates to issues where, firstly, the jurisprudence is already well-established and, secondly, the right/issue in question is not one which is widely loathed by those being asked to decide on it.


I would be most interested in knowing how I can help with that. I've been wondering for some time how individuals can possibly assist with making a con con both possible and successful.

Click to expand...

First since con con is a very long process. It starts now with word of mouth. But...

You can't argue that its needed because the courts have failed on 2a...that's much to far much to fast for it to work.. people need to get talked into the truth bit by bit.


Right now think about the Presidential power grab. It even has many liberals unnerved... use that.. but for God sake don't talk about plan C. Btw Mark Levin has been on this for awhile..
I started talking about a con con over 20 years ago.. not because I thought we would need it but because I knew we might..and more importantly talking to folks about con con reminded them of the principles of limited Gov.

Talk about principles... ask them if they think our Gov is limited in any way..

Mention how the King called out the Jutices over Citizens United, just because the king did not like the result. Point out that not even Nixion was willing to openly defy congress.

Etc.. do not provide anwers.. get them thinking..

That's phase 1. Phase 2. Involves state legislatures.. for us behind the iron curtain ift means other states, it may mean emigration ... but for now phase 1.

Making it safe to talk about is useful in many ways...and will I believe help make it unessary .

Just don't go to far..and don't use 2a as the prime motivation.. the 2a types are already on our side..


But realise that folks can only take so much so fast.. let them drive the process.. let them come to you with answers if they can...

We are still years way from end game so don't push faster than they can accept.

kcbrown said:

Since IL has elected a GOP governor, we should now see changes to the IL carry legislation to remove the "may issue" aspects of it, like the ability of police departments to object to someone's application, and all the time/place/manner restrictions. After all, the prior governor was the only thing standing in the way of "shall issue" legislation in the first place, and was the reason the legislation was so watered down in the first place.

Right?

Click to expand...

A bill has to get to him first. Since there's no court order hanging over their heads, watch any legislation go to the committee chairperson (who will probably be an anti in a safe district) and be desk drawer vetoed.
There is a non-resident lawsuit recently filed, so perhaps certain aspects may get changed.

jbrown50 said:

Remember? The federal prosecutor in DC had stopped bringing charges against people who were arrested for carrying without a permit because of the injunction against the original law even though Judge Scullin had granted a 90 day stay. The main reason DC enacted emergency legislation was to get the feds back to formally charging people for carrying without a permit. It certainly looks as though Scullin will declare them to be in contempt and issue a PI so DC will likely be forced to request that stay somewhere around Dec 4th. Until then they're very happy to have the federal prosecutor charging people under their temporary law for as long as it lasts.

Click to expand...

Sure, that is one way to continue to charge. The other way is to get an emergency stay so as to leave the old law in effect, which is what they say they want. They just didn't want to have a hiatus in enforcement pending a stay. That's a stupid decision where they wish to keep the old law and not moot out their appeal. Either they actually believe that blood will run in the streets or they can't think beyond the end of their collective noses. Or both. So now they have a problem. The 90 days approaches and they have not asked for a stay pending appeal and for every day they delay, the risk of an enforcement hiatus increases. The emergency legislation makes irreparable injury difficult to argue as does the possibility of permanent legislation. For the district, this is a self-made difficult situation created by their own anti-gun ideology and hubris. Dumb.

IIRC, the emergency legislation expires 1/8/2015.

No, the emergency legislation was passed in late September, (22nd?), and will expire in December, 90 days later.

JC92 said:

No, the emergency legislation was passed in late September, (22nd?), and will expire in December, 90 days later.

Click to expand...

Gray signed it 10/10/2014

Inigoes said:

Gray signed it 10/10/2014

Click to expand...

I think that may be correct. If so, then the 90 days expire on 1/09/2015. But, if they don't want an enforcement hiatus, they needed to pass permanent law (or obtain a stay) 60 days prior to that date (oops too late). Under DC law, civil laws don't become effective until after 30 days (60 days for criminal statutes), after submission to Congress. See D.C.Code Ann. § 1–206.02(c)(1) ("Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, such act shall take effect upon the expiration of the 30-calendar-day period (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, and any day on which neither House is in session because of an adjournment sine die, a recess of more than 3 days, or an adjournment of more than 3 days) beginning on the day such act is transmitted by the Chairman to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate, or upon the date prescribed by such act, whichever is later, unless during such 30-day period, there has been enacted into law a joint resolution disapproving such act." D.C.Code Ann. § 1–206.02(c)(2) ("In the case of any such act transmitted by the Chairman with respect to any act codified in Title 22, 23, or 24 of the District of Columbia Code, such act shall take effect at the end of the 60-day period beginning on the day such act is transmitted by the Chairman to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate unless, during such 60-day period, there has been enacted into law a joint resolution disapproving such act.").

Since any permanent legislation will be criminal in nature (at least in part), DC cannot now avoid an enforcement hiatus by passing permanent legislation. The only rational policy for DC would thus be to NOT pass permanent legislation and seek a stay if they want to avoid mooting their appeal and preserve the old law. Otherwise blood will surely run deep in the streets of DC as law abiding citizens become free to carry on January 10, 2015, a day that will surely be remembered.

press1280 said:

A bill has to get to him first. Since there's no court order hanging over their heads, watch any legislation go to the committee chairperson (who will probably be an anti in a safe district) and be desk drawer vetoed.
There is a non-resident lawsuit recently filed, so perhaps certain aspects may get changed.

Click to expand...

Funny, I thought the IL legislature was generally pro-RKBA except for the Cook County delegation (which was supposedly not large enough to change the balance). What gives?