VICTORY IN PALMER!!!!

[GTOGUNNER]

Doesn't this mean that Mr Gura gets paid by the District now$? For Palmer anyway?
I guess the Fat Lady has to sing via the contempt part.

 

[esqappellate]

]Doesn't this mean that Mr Gura gets paid by the District now$? For Palmer anyway[/B]?
I guess the Fat Lady has to sing via the contempt part.

Yes, he has prevailed, he gets fees from DC Probably will wait to file a fee petition until all the enforcement proceedings have concluded.

 

[Ack Ack]

Yes, he has prevailed, he gets fees from DC Probably will wait to file a fee petition until all the enforcement proceedings have concluded.

Finally, my tax dollars going to good use!

 

[Patrick]

I agree with Esq - there is a certain poetic harmony if DC ends up being used to define the right to bear, after Heller established the right to keep. As MP replied, 'DC would be the cause of an epidemic in accessibility to a certain right.'

Poetic.

 

[CypherPunk]

I thought I heard the the plaintiff concurred with the motion to dismiss AND each party agreed to assume their own costs.

How one separates the costs of litigating against the old law, with the costs litigating against the new old law... I cannot fathom

 

[esqappellate]

I thought I heard the the plaintiff concurred with the motion to dismiss AND each party agreed to assume their own costs.

How one separates the costs of litigating against the old law, with the costs litigating against the new old law... I cannot fathom

Easy: "Costs" is a term of art here. The "costs" at issue on this appeal dismissal are very limited, basically, the costs of printing the briefs and the like in the court of appeals IN THIS APPEAL. Chicken feed, comparatively. The costs and fees associated with the litigation at district court are not at issue. The "fees" associated with the appeal are also not at issue. Gura will get fees for any time he spent on this appeal that DC has now dismissed.

 

[press1280]

Looks to me like Mr. Gura (hats off) continues to see the whole field.

Acquiescing in the dismissal of the appeal has repositioned Palmer to run in tandem with Wrenn, before the same Republican judge and has refocused Palmer on “the only question” in the cases, i.e., the Second Amendment “guarantee” of the right to “bear” which, of course, is the “fundamental” issue in each case. The odds of an unfavorable ruling in both cases are now likely substantially less, or so it seems to me. The most he gave up, if anything, was a few months pending in the appellant court.

Regards
Jack

Filed in the lower court on April 2:
file:///C:/Users/Owner/Downloads/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.88.0%20(4).pdf

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Defendants, the District of Columbia and its Police
Chief, Cathy Lanier, have moved to voluntarily dismiss their appeal in this case (D.C. Cir. No.
14-7180).
With that, Defendants have not only acquiesced in this Court’s judgment—they have
abandoned their various objections to the outstanding motion for permanent injunction (Dkt. 71)
and motion to hold Defendants in contempt (Dkt. 83) that were based on allegations that their
notice of appeal had divested this Court of jurisdiction.
There is no question but that this Court has full jurisdiction to enforce its order and
judgment of July 29, 2014, either by holding Defendants in contempt, or again enjoining the
enforcement of D.C. Code § 22-4504(a) because the District has failed to enact a licensing
scheme consistent with constitutional standards.
Plaintiffs urge this Court to act expeditiously. Defendants’ appeal proved to be nothing
more than an elaborate stalling tactic. First, they moved to hold their own appeal in abeyance.
1
Case 1:09-cv-01482-FJS Document 88 Filed 04/02/15 Page 1 of 2
Having failed at that, they sought an extension on their opening brief (in and of itself, a routine
move), and finally, within two weeks of that brief being due at the extended deadline, Defendants
decided they did not wish to have the appeal heard after all—having used the appeal as an excuse
to delay enforcement for nearly five months.
This Court should now determine whether the District’s “new” old law complies with its
judgment of last July. Nearly six years after bringing this litigation, Plaintiffs remain deprived of
a fundamental constitutional right, without a remedial order that the Defendants would follow,
and without a means of accessing or triggering appellate review.
Dated: April 2, 2015 Respectfully

Need a link that works, thanks.

That's fine and dandy but as we all know, it doesn't matter that we win at the district court. The ruling will be stayed by either Scullin or the DC Circuit. Once the DC Circuit(which may be difficult) rules for us, maybe, then maybe, average people will be able to obtain CCWs in DC.

 

[randian]

That's fine and dandy but as we all know, it doesn't matter that we win at the district court.

Yep, exactly like the district court didn't matter in Peruta, other than to give the naive false hope.

 

[Kharn]

Yep, exactly like the district court didn't matter in Peruta, other than to give the naive false hope.

I think you mean Woollard.

 

[wjackcooper]

A guess is that the Supreme Court will rule (or not) before Palmer / Wrenn is finalized - in the meantime winning would seem to be a good thing.

Regards
Jack

 

[danb]

Yes, the Supreme Court will either rule or not before Palmer is final.

My personal view is that this is a much bigger victory than it appears. D.C. has in essence conceded there is a right to bear arms, and now we are debating how strictly they can restrict the right. Maybe we only got a foot in the door, but the door is now open.

 

[MDFF2008]

I'm just concerned the court has shown that almost anything other than a ban is acceptable.

 

[rlc2]

where and what case, pls?

Yes, the Supreme Court will either rule or not before Palmer is final.

My personal view is that this is a much bigger victory than it appears. D.C. has in essence conceded there is a right to bear arms, and now we are debating how strictly they can restrict the right. Maybe we only got a foot in the door, but the door is now open.

Thanks danb, and poster above him-
just out of curiousity- in which case(s) do you see SCOTUS taking up cert?

Jackson on "in home" infringement from safes, vs trigger locks in Heller?
Peruta/Richards on outside the home, intermediate scrutiny for public safety?
both in the 9th?

IANAL so I dont have a good hands on for how long those can be stretched out, and I dont have great confidence in the 9th to rule on the law-
so will I expect those to be best cert candidates, per Esqappellates explanation of what SCOTUS looks for as issues to resolve, square contradictions of state law or circuit ruling vs settled and binding SCOTUS precedent.

BUT I dont want to get my hopes up for seeing those being resolved real soon- given all the monkey wrenches and delay possible in the 9th - some are saying 2017 earliest. I am hoping I am wrong, but I recall how Nordyk got delayed a very long time- most in lower courts, but I recall how Palmer's delay before Scullen got put in charge, was notorious. Is there a huge difference in how things can get delayed or not at federal district level vs circuit of appeals level?

What else is in the pipeline for SCOTUS review?

 

[CrueChief]

I'm just concerned the court has shown that almost anything other than a ban is acceptable.

What he said, I don't think scotus will take a carry case until the balance has tilted far enough one way or another to guarantee to win/loss.

 

[randian]

I'm just concerned the court has shown that almost anything other than a ban is acceptable.

It's worse than that. They've shown that it's ok to have a complete ban so long as you don't call it one. If credible death threats don't qualify for "enhanced need" (as is the case in NJ) then the term is meaningless, it's a garden variety absolute ban gussied up to please fools and liars.

 

[Kharn]

I'm just concerned the court has shown that almost anything other than a ban is acceptable.

If the SC doesn't act once Palmer and Peruta/Richard/Baker have completed their appeals proceedings, then I'll be inclined to agree with you.

But the SC waiting for both the DC and 9th Circuits to weigh in on an issue before they grant cert is perfectly reasonable IMO.

 

[Elliotte]

What he said, I don't think scotus will take a carry case until the balance has tilted far enough one way or another to guarantee to win/loss.

I think this is a bigger part of why cert keeps getting denied. The extremes on bith ends of the Court are worried that if they take a case that they think should go their way, it could end up going against them and they don't want to lose any ground. With that worry in mind, cases get denied cert b/c both sides are more worried about the long term effects of taking a case and losing than they are the short term losses of rights.

 

[press1280]

I think this is a bigger part of why cert keeps getting denied. The extremes on bith ends of the Court are worried that if they take a case that they think should go their way, it could end up going against them and they don't want to lose any ground. With that worry in mind, cases get denied cert b/c both sides are more worried about the long term effects of taking a case and losing than they are the short term losses of rights.

They do have Jackson waiting for cert right now. If your theory is correct, Jackson is so close to Heller that the odds are much greater for a win; thus Jackson should get cert.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

If the SC doesn't act once Palmer and Peruta/Richard/Baker have completed their appeals proceedings, then I'll be inclined to agree with you.

But the SC waiting for both the DC and 9th Circuits to weigh in on an issue before they grant cert is perfectly reasonable IMO.

I wouldn't think SCOTUS would care too much about the 9th Circus, especially considering how much of what the 9th does has to be overturned (often times unanimously) because most of those judges were absent the day they taught law at law school.

However, the DC circuit does seem to have captured the interest of the Supreme Court on this topic in a way few others have. I can definitely see them waiting patiently for a good case coming out of DC. Having rulings from the other circuits is nice as well because it puts a lot of legal opinions in front of them before a hearing even begins.

 

[Kharn]

The Circus is always good for entertainment, and their en banc opinion can usually serve as a starting point for the dissent.