VICTORY IN PALMER!!!!

[Afrikeber]

But I didn't pay anything for it........oh, got it!

So as it stands now at this moment, they have till the end of the 90 day stay to enact legislation, else Constitution Carry is enacted by default.

I'm getting better at interpreting this legal stuff, but it sure is a lot more complicated than giving your word and shaking on it.

I'm liking this very much ..........

 

[Inigoes]

But I didn't pay anything for it........oh, got it!

So as it stands now at this moment, they have till the end of the 90 day stay to enact legislation, else Constitution Carry is enacted by default.

I'm getting better at interpreting this legal stuff, but it sure is a lot more complicated than giving your word and shaking on it.

Depends which seat you are in.

A DC resident will need to have the license to own the handgun.

Nonresidents by their previously advertised regulation must have a carry permit.

 

[TxAggie]

The rabid antigunners are applying tremendous pressure to DC not to appeal. They feel that if the SCOTUS is going to accept any carry case, it will be this one.

So from what you and Brooklyn are saying, I get the feeling that even the antis agree that in its current form, SCOTUS is likely to affirm an individual right outside the home if the question is brought up.

 

[Inigoes]

So from what you and Brooklyn are saying, I get the feeling that even the antis agree that in its current form, SCOTUS is likely to affirm an individual right outside the home if the question is brought up.

Yes

The anti's reasoning is the SCOTUS will be sympathetic due to DC's total ban on carry in public.

 

[swinokur]

Depends which seat you are in.

A DC resident will need to have the license to own the handgun.

Nonresidents by their previously advertised regulation must have a carry permit.

The judge said if an out of state resident was legally allowed to possess, they could carry in DC. His ruling and Chief Lanier's order didn't address permits for non residents

His ruling instructed DC not to enforce the ban. That's it.

 

[swinokur]

Depends which seat you are in.

A DC resident will need to have the license to own the handgun.

Nonresidents by their previously advertised regulation must have a carry permit.

The Judge never said a non resident requires a permit. He said if you could legally possess in your home state, you could carry in DC. neither he or Chief Lanier's order require non residents to have permits.

Furthermore, this injunction prohibits the District from completely banning the carrying of handguns in public for self-defense by otherwise qualified non-residents based solely on the fact that they are not residents of the District.

 

[krucam]

The risk is not minimal.. Scotus is more likely to take a case that is a total ban..vs may issue.

It may even cause them to take the HI case. They need to keep this way from scotus. They know they have been BS ing the lower courts.. I pity the fool that tries that in front of the 9..

The rabid antigunners are applying tremendous pressure to DC not to appeal. They feel that if the SCOTUS is going to accept any carry case, it will be this one.

My thinking on the "risk being minimal" in an Appeal is that worst case (for them) is DC Circuit upholds the District ruling. Nothing lost there.

The DC Circuit upholding the DC District does not cast the net any further either, unlike other Circuits which would encompass additional states.

IF they Appeal and IF the District ruling was upheld, they would then have the option of Petitioning for Cert.

Peruta (if it goes en banc) AND it then Uphold the Panel ruling, would leave the State holding the cards (just as DC would) of whether to Petition.

We would have a clear split among various Circuits without a viable avenue to Petition to the USSC.

Perhaps it is time to fast-track another case through CA1/2/3/4 ??

 

[Inigoes]

The Judge never said a non resident requires a permit. He said if you could legally possess in your home state, you could carry in DC. neither he or Chief Lanier's order require non residents to have permits.

I stand corrected.

I had thought Lanier issued another order that screwed with the first.

 

[swinokur]

She did but IIRC it was a clarification, not a change in the policy. I understand the US Attorney in DC is not going to prosecute handgun violations for now that might end up getting thrown out. Clearly doesn't apply to crimes and or felons. They aren't going to prosecute plain legal carry even with the stay in effect.

 

[TxAggie]

The judge said if an out of state resident was legally allowed to possess, they could carry in DC. His ruling and Chief Lanier's order didn't address permits for non residents

His ruling instructed DC not to enforce the ban. That's it.

The judges wording makes me a little cautious on this. He said "otherwise qualified" but didn't elaborate on what qualified meant. Is it simply someone legally allowed to OWN a firearm, or licensed to carry?

 

[swinokur]

I take rulings at face value. he made no mention of permits. IMO if he intended that, his ruling would have contained that wording. Even Lanier's order states legal possession.

Her words, not mine

..

 

[TxAggie]

I take rulings at face value. he made no mention of permits. IMO if he intended that, his ruling would have contained that wording. Even Lanier's order states legal possession.

Her words, not mine

..

Oh I agree with you, but you know as well as I how "creative" the other side can be when interpreting these things. She's just the police chief and can be overruled by the DA or legislation.

 

[swinokur]

Like SCOTUS in Heller, many rulings are narrowly scrutinized and worded accordingly. It would be hard IMO for anyone to construe the need for a permit when the word is never mentioned by anyone. Legal possession is mentioned however.

I'm going by that. Could be wrong but I don't see the issue of permits even being mentioned for non residents., Not once.

Like I said, IMO and IANAL, that would be a stretch for any prosecutor when the ruling doesn't address it. You can't enforce something that isn't there. You could but I'm guess they won't try that.

In my not so legal opinion, if the Judge didn't address it, it's not required.

who knows. Good thing Federal Judges don't suffer from BGOS yet.

 

[TxAggie]

I'm hoping you're correct and I'm just getting too cynical.

 

[swinokur]

There couldn't be wording for permits in the DC part of the ruling because DC doesn't issue permits yet. There was wording about registration, which is required in DC, hence the additional reference to ammunition as well.

 

[jrosenberger]

Perhaps it is time to fast-track another case through CA1/2/3/4 ??

The CA1 case is awaiting a decision on some intermediate issues at the MA district. http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=106119

 

[TxAggie]

There couldn't b wording for permits in the DC part of the ruling because DC doesn't issue permits yet. There was wording about registration, which is required in DC, hence the additional reference to ammunition as well.

OK, that angle makes perfect sense then, I hadn't even though of that perspective.

 

[Ack Ack]

Interesting article in the Post. It implies that DC will comply rather than appeal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...a30-11e4-958c-268a320a60ce_story.html?hpid=z4

 

[gamer_jim]

Interesting article in the Post. It implies that DC will comply rather than appeal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...a30-11e4-958c-268a320a60ce_story.html?hpid=z4

from the article:

An appeal could carry risks for proponents of gun control, perhaps prompting a higher court to rule broadly — overturning not only the thorough D.C. ban but also state laws that are not quite as restrictive.

I hope they do appeal

 

[swinokur]

DC's institutional memory may be a bit short.

Have they forgotten about a case called Heller?

I agree. Please take your chances and appeal this to the Circuit. They really have nothing to lose by an appeal. They've already lost in the DC.