VICTORY IN PALMER!!!!

[Afrikeber]

All the citizens from dc have ever seen from guns is the death of their sons......they need time and education.

I 100% agree with you though!!

 

[swinokur]

I agree with you but as I stated, people including the city govt.somehow need to see the issue isn't law abiding citizens. it has and always will be criminals.

The excuse about sensitive places is total BS anyway. Most law abiding citizens follow the TPM rules to the letter. Excluding ignorance, if they are not, I assume criminal intent. The dirtbags never have and never will follow the law.

I see your point about educating the public, but it seems the DC Council is our first obstacle.

 

[krucam]

DC Files Motion for Reconsideration to DC District

Just saw this on PACER....

08/25/2014 62 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CATHY L. LANIER (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Saindon, Andrew) (Entered: 08/25/2014)

08/25/2014 63 MOTION for Reconsideration re 51 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CATHY L. LANIER (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Saindon, Andrew) (Entered: 08/25/2014)

The Motion for Reconsideration #63 is attached. More sour grapes, saying that the Judge got it wrong. See my earlier post in their 180 day Stay proceedings regarding getting more bees with honey.

This being filed in District doesn't stop the 30 day clock ticking away at the Appeals Court, which ends NLT Wed/Thur of this week, depending upon who you talk to.

 

[CrueChief]

So the powers in the DC expect this judge who wrote a well thought out decision to look at this and say "oh DC you're right I screwed up and on second thought the ban IS ok," really? That's their big plan?

 

[press1280]

So the powers in the DC expect this judge who wrote a well thought out decision to look at this and say "oh DC you're right I screwed up and on second thought the ban IS ok," really? That's their big plan?

Apparently yes, and they think the dissenting opinions from other cases should convince Scullin. With this and their public statements, it tells me DC will try to find any way around this and they will not faithfully adhere to the court's order. They might as well just flat out say Scullin is wrong and just appeal already.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

All DC needs to do tomorrow or Thursday is tell the DC Circuit that "we appeal," correct?

I guess they are tossing poo at the wall at district to get things in for appeals process?

These actions seem to me that they are worried about winning at the circuit court level and don't want to risk not having a backup plan.

 

[Maestro Pistolero]

All DC needs to do tomorrow or Thursday is tell the DC Circuit that "we appeal," correct?

I believe they have to actually file the appeal, no?

 

[swinokur]

Must be filed bu Thursday according to Gura.

 

[Inigoes]

All DC needs to do tomorrow or Thursday is tell the DC Circuit that "we appeal," correct?

I guess they are tossing poo at the wall at district to get things in for appeals process?

These actions seem to me that they are worried about winning at the circuit court level and don't want to risk not having a backup plan.

They are doing what lawyers are paid to do. Try every angle to see if you can advance your case without elevating the argument.

With that said, they exhausted their means. DC need's to announce their intent to file an appeal.

It will be interesting to see how the new mayor will try to combat the 2A after Lanier's acceptance per se.

 

[swinokur]

This was posted on OCDO by the President op California Right to Carry. I have no idea if it's correct or not.

FRAP 4(a)(4)(A)(iv) extends the time to file the appeal until the current Rule 59 motion is disposed of. The Defendants can still file notice of an appeal before then but the notice won't become effective until after an order disposing of the motion is entered.

It was kind of silly for DC to file a motion for reconsideration. There is no time limit for the district court to rule on the motion for reconsideration. For all practical purposes, the District has now handed judge Scullin a bazooka. Judge Scullin can let the current 90 day stay expire and if DC hasn't written a new law by then, the injunction goes into effect absent a further stay. If DC writes a new law or amends the current law which is not to the liking of the plaintiffs then they can amend their Complaint to challenge the new/amended law.

In short, if judge Scullin wants to keep this case in his courtroom for another five years, he can.

 

[krucam]

This was posted on OCDO by the President op California Right to Carry. I have no idea if it's correct or not.

Just looked at the referenced Rule 4 in FRAP, I would agree with the quoted. FRAP: http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/rules/appellate-procedure.pdf

 

[swinokur]

So can Scullin issue a ruling tomorrow and then DC still has to appeal by Thursday?

 

[Brooklyn]

So can Scullin issue a ruling tomorrow and then DC still has to appeal by Thursday?

Even better.. he can lift the stay and reconsider for a long time. Yes they get to stall the appeal but at a very high price. Unless I am missing something thus is beyond stupid.

 

[swinokur]

he agreed to 90 days so I assume DC is good til Oct 22?

 

[Brooklyn]

he agreed to 90 days so I assume DC is good til Oct 22?

He agreed to let them fix the law. And he did not grant a stay pending appeal. At best they are testing the courts patience. This is just another way to stall.. to get the stay pending appeal they were denied....beyond stupid...

 

[krucam]

I mulled this over in my mind (whats left of it) trying to SWAG as to what they're up to. I see 3 possible scenarios.

1) They want to appeal, but need more than 30 days. This new Motion while guaranteed to fail when asking the original Judge to admit his ruling was wrong, DOES appear to buy time in the game against the clock to file their Notice of Appeal to Circuit.

2) IF they were going to Appeal, it is a simple Notice of Appeal to Circuit (not the actual Brief that is needed. Why are they buying more time (through the Motion to Reconsider)? Unless they want to keep that option open while they craft new legislation...

3) IF they are going to go with the "craft new legislation" route & NOT Appeal, then the 90-day (or 180-day) Stay is their best route for dragging things out. This new Motion for Reconsideration will likely be resolved well before late-October. It therefore does nothing in this scenario.

 

[press1280]

I mulled this over in my mind (whats left of it) trying to SWAG as to what they're up to. I see 3 possible scenarios.

1) They want to appeal, but need more than 30 days. This new Motion while guaranteed to fail when asking the original Judge to admit his ruling was wrong, DOES appear to buy time in the game against the clock to file their Notice of Appeal to Circuit.

2) IF they were going to Appeal, it is a simple Notice of Appeal to Circuit (not the actual Brief that is needed. Why are they buying more time (through the Motion to Reconsider)? Unless they want to keep that option open while they craft new legislation...

3) IF they are going to go with the "craft new legislation" route & NOT Appeal, then the 90-day (or 180-day) Stay is their best route for dragging things out. This new Motion for Reconsideration will likely be resolved well before late-October. It therefore does nothing in this scenario.

You would think though, that if they intend to appeal it would mean that they are going to fight for a home-bound 2A, but public statements keep pointing toward appeal as nothing more than extra time to craft a restrictive may-issue scheme.
On a related note, perhaps they will appeal hoping for a sympathetic DC Circuit panel who will likely not rule for them (without risking the case going to SCOTUS), but who will go out of their way to essentially show DC the road toward a may-issue scheme. Look at the Moore dissent to see what I'm talking about. I'm pretty sure this would be outside of the question being asked in this case, but the antis on the DC Circuit (like Henderson) know they're between a rock and a hard place on this case but they do not want shall-issue above all.

 

[Inigoes]

I mulled this over in my mind (whats left of it) trying to SWAG as to what they're up to. I see 3 possible scenarios.

1) They want to appeal, but need more than 30 days. This new Motion while guaranteed to fail when asking the original Judge to admit his ruling was wrong, DOES appear to buy time in the game against the clock to file their Notice of Appeal to Circuit.

2) IF they were going to Appeal, it is a simple Notice of Appeal to Circuit (not the actual Brief that is needed. Why are they buying more time (through the Motion to Reconsider)? Unless they want to keep that option open while they craft new legislation...

3) IF they are going to go with the "craft new legislation" route & NOT Appeal, then the 90-day (or 180-day) Stay is their best route for dragging things out. This new Motion for Reconsideration will likely be resolved well before late-October. It therefore does nothing in this scenario.

The DC city counsel is on summer recess. It appears the first legislative meeting is 9/23.

http://dccouncil.us/calendar

 

[Haides]

You would think though, that if they intend to appeal it would mean that they are going to fight for a home-bound 2A, but public statements keep pointing toward appeal as nothing more than extra time to craft a restrictive may-issue scheme.
On a related note, perhaps they will appeal hoping for a sympathetic DC Circuit panel who will likely not rule for them (without risking the case going to SCOTUS), but who will go out of their way to essentially show DC the road toward a may-issue scheme. Look at the Moore dissent to see what I'm talking about. I'm pretty sure this would be outside of the question being asked in this case, but the antis on the DC Circuit (like Henderson) know they're between a rock and a hard place on this case but they do not want shall-issue above all.

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.

 

[krucam]

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.

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...