VICTORY IN PALMER!!!!

[swinokur]

The precedent is not binding but I bet they think that since SCOTUS denied cert for Woollard, Drake and Kachalsky that may-issue is safe from being struck down by SCOTUS.

But the Circuit upheld Heller didn't it?

 

[rem87062597]

The precedent is not binding but I bet they think that since SCOTUS denied cert for Woollard, Drake and Kachalsky that may-issue is safe from being struck down by SCOTUS.

That's why I'm excited about this case. Since we're fighting against no-issue here I could see SCOTUS taking the case and ruling it unconstitutional, whereas ruling may-issue unconstitutional might make the court a little more uncomfortable and that's why they don't want to touch it. I can still see us getting in the opinion though that the right to carry exists outside of the home, and from there attacking restrictive may issue should be easy based on equal protection.

 

[danb]

I think they will wait to see if Peruta goes en banc before deciding next steps. Part of the Palmer opinion relied on Peruta. It's premature to guess what they might attempt.

They cannot change the law without mooting the case. If Peruta (Baker, et al) goes to the 9th en banc panel they will appeal, that's my guess.

We should know the fate of Peruta in two weeks.

 

[redeemed.man]

Hence why I said delay the decision for a year and train the cops.

I think the idea of delaying for another year is absurd. A right delayed is a right denied. It has been delayed long enough.

Are you aware of instances of harassment by MPD officers of lawful gun carriers in the few days that it was legal? If MPD officers were able to behave properly during those few days why would an additional year of delay be required? Even the Chief said MPD officers deal with lawfully armed individuals on a daily basis. DC likely has more per capita law enforcement than any place on earth. You guys aren't shooting each other in plain clothes every day. Why should the law abiding citizen have his rights stomped on any further? This has been addressed since the beginning of our country in the Constitution. If upholding that sacred document is part of the oath sworn to by MPD officers it would seem to me that there shouldn't be issues. Just as there were no issues reported that I am aware of in the few days of lawful carry recently. If some MPD officers can't adapt to finally being able to see the Constitution honored perhaps they should seek another line of work. Of course I am not lumping you in with that statement as I am aware you are a strong 2A supporter.

 

[StantonCree]

I think the idea of delaying for another year is absurd. A right delayed is a right denied. It has been delayed long enough.

Are you aware of instances of harassment by MPD officers of lawful gun carriers in the few days that it was legal? If MPD officers were able to behave properly during those few days why would an additional year of delay be required? Even the Chief said MPD officers deal with lawfully armed individuals on a daily basis. DC likely has more per capita law enforcement than any place on earth. You guys aren't shooting each other in plain clothes every day. Why should the law abiding citizen have his rights stomped on any further? This has been addressed since the beginning of our country in the Constitution. If upholding that sacred document is part of the oath sworn to by MPD officers it would seem to me that there shouldn't be issues. Just as there were no issues reported that I am aware of in the few days of lawful carry recently. If some MPD officers can't adapt to finally being able to see the Constitution honored perhaps they should seek another line of work. Of course I am not lumping you in with that statement as I am aware you are a strong 2A supporter.

Wrong....we don't deal with lawfully armed people everyday unless we pull over another cop.

Right....a right delayed is dented.....however for a CCWer a cop can be a best friend or a worst enemy.....I'd prefer the roll out to be one that is so positive its roll model worthy for states to say, ". Wow that violent hell hole had zero issues with carry!"

As far as the interaction between MPD and carriers I can't tell you how it went.....I work in SE

 

[Inigoes]

Wrong....we don't deal with lawfully armed people everyday unless we pull over another cop.

There should be no difference, just sayin

 

[redeemed.man]

Wrong....we don't deal with lawfully armed people everyday unless we pull over another cop.

Right....a right delayed is dented.....however for a CCWer a cop can be a best friend or a worst enemy.....I'd prefer the roll out to be one that is so positive its roll model worthy for states to say, ". Wow that violent hell hole had zero issues with carry!"

As far as the interaction between MPD and carriers I can't tell you how it went.....I work in SE

SE, yeah likely no lawful carriers there. 7-D? I get your preferences and I'd prefer that liberals had no 1-A and voting rights but our preferences shouldn't negate the Constitution.

Anyway lots of lawful carry happens successfully without issues in large and violent cities as noted below. Now that many of the 86-89 crowd is or will soon be retiring MPD has a large stable of intelligent, educated, and highly qualified LEO's. There should be no reason for there to be major issues when more violent places like Detroit, St. Louis, Birmingham, and Cleveland can deal with every day successfully.

2012 FBI stats 10 most violent US cities (DC is not on the list):

1. FLINT, MICH. shall issue
2. DETROIT, MICH. shall issue
3. OAKLAND, CALIF. (may become shall issue)
4. ST. LOUIS, MO. shall issue
5. MEMPHIS, TENN. shall issue
6. STOCKTON, CALIF. (may become shall issue)
7. BIRMINGHAM, ALA. shall issue
8. NEW HAVEN, CONN. shall issue
9. BALTIMORE, MD. (may never become shall issue )
10. CLEVELAND, OHIO shall issue

 

[ryan_j]

But the Circuit upheld Heller didn't it?

Of course. But remember Heller has that "the right is not unlimited" stuff, which has been used as a catch all by anti judges to uphold restrictive may-issue.

 

[StantonCree]

SE, yeah likely no lawful carriers there. 7-D? I get your preferences and I'd prefer that liberals had no 1-A and voting rights but our preferences shouldn't negate the Constitution.

Anyway lots of lawful carry happens successfully without issues in large and violent cities as noted below. Now that many of the 86-89 crowd is or will soon be retiring MPD has a large stable of intelligent, educated, and highly qualified LEO's. There should be no reason for there to be major issues when more violent places like Detroit, St. Louis, Birmingham, and Cleveland can deal with every day successfully.

2012 FBI stats 10 most violent US cities (DC is not on the list):

1. FLINT, MICH. shall issue
2. DETROIT, MICH. shall issue
3. OAKLAND, CALIF. (may become shall issue)
4. ST. LOUIS, MO. shall issue
5. MEMPHIS, TENN. shall issue
6. STOCKTON, CALIF. (may become shall issue)
7. BIRMINGHAM, ALA. shall issue
8. NEW HAVEN, CONN. shall issue
9. BALTIMORE, MD. (may never become shall issue )
10. CLEVELAND, OHIO shall issue

6-D vice and I totally agree with your assessment and I can't say your wrong.....except its the 89-91 crowd ........I just want to see this work on all sides. I don't want anything the media can spin in a negative manner. As I said previously, I want this roll out to be the poster child for CCW.......my actual guess, they will adopt MD laws.

 

[TxAggie]

Wrong....we don't deal with lawfully armed people everyday unless we pull over another cop.



Right....a right delayed is dented.....however for a CCWer a cop can be a best friend or a worst enemy.....I'd prefer the roll out to be one that is so positive its roll model worthy for states to say, ". Wow that violent hell hole had zero issues with carry!"



As far as the interaction between MPD and carriers I can't tell you how it went.....I work in SE

While it doesn't make me happy to delay it, you make a valid point for more reasons than you just mentioned.

I know we are all feeling a sense of victory, and damnit, we should move on that victory, right? Perception is reality, and after decades of a gun free DC, I think it would do us all good in the public eye to move moderate pace. We got a victory in this battle, let's not spoil it by ripping down the goal posts.

My proposal: as has been mentioned, there are what, 41 states with shall issue? Surely one of them has a sensible solution to offer. I've already stated that I'm in favor of the Texas laws: background check, fingerprints, class training, live fire. If that is the final law, I think it would be a great center ground between those who want restrictive issue, training, and proof of knowledge, vs those that want a form of Constitutional Carry. In DC, I don't think they will EVER allow shall issue without a live fire requirement. Since there are no ranges in DC, that will be a way they will use to try and reduce the number of licenses.

 

[rem87062597]

Of course. But remember Heller has that "the right is not unlimited" stuff, which has been used as a catch all by anti judges to uphold restrictive may-issue.

It's annoying that that specific line is used by the other side to completely disregard Heller. If they're going to throw something like that into the opinion they should spend the rest of the opinion discussing what they mean by it.

 

[ryan_j]

It's annoying that that specific line is used by the other side to completely disregard Heller. If they're going to throw something like that into the opinion they should spend the rest of the opinion discussing what they mean by it.

They didn't exactly help by saying that historically restrictions on concealed weapons have been upheld.

That part may have been part of any "Kennedy compromise" which is highly rumored.

 

[Southwest Chuck]

They didn't exactly help by saying that historically restrictions on concealed weapons have been upheld.

That part may have been part of any "Kennedy compromise" which is highly rumored.

That part of the ruling however quoted or cited cases that said that concealed carry bans/restrictions only applied when other methods were available to exercise the right (Open Carry). No?

 

[swinokur]

Was it in the ruling or dicta? I can't remember.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

I think they will wait to see if Peruta goes en banc before deciding next steps. Part of the Palmer opinion relied on Peruta. It's premature to guess what they might attempt.

They cannot change the law without mooting the case. If Peruta (Baker, et al) goes to the 9th en banc panel they will appeal, that's my guess.

We should know the fate of Peruta in two weeks.

You forgot the alternative, Peruta gets no intervener status, Harris gets told to take a hike, CA9 rejects her appeal of en banc, and they summarily deny Baker as well.

Who then plays the game of cert chicken? HI? or DC?



Notice, I don't give any of this odds, because I still think Harris gets her status.

 

[Inigoes]

You forgot the alternative, Peruta gets no intervener status, Harris gets told to take a hike, CA9 rejects her appeal of en banc, and they summarily deny Baker as well.

Who then plays the game of cert chicken? HI? or DC?



Notice, I don't give any of this odds, because I still think Harris gets her status.

HI

DC has not appealed yet, CA and HI were already at the 3 judge en banc appellate level.

 

[redeemed.man]

6-D vice and I totally agree with your assessment and I can't say your wrong.....except its the 89-91 crowd ........I just want to see this work on all sides. I don't want anything the media can spin in a negative manner. As I said previously, I want this roll out to be the poster child for CCW.......my actual guess, they will adopt MD laws.

You are right 89-91' I stand corrected. As far as adopting MD type G&S goes I think there is zero chance of that. 1) DC will either fight carry all together and win or 2) they come up with a law similar to IL. Lots of time, place, and manner restrictions, lengthy and expensive training, and high licensing fees. Anything less than shall issue will be an unacceptable response to the ruling. As we all know MD is NOT shall issue. With the latest comments from the Chief and other city leaders I am beginning to question whether they want to keep fighting. Could just be a ploy of course.

 

[ryan_j]

Was it in the ruling or dicta? I can't remember.

Dicta. But that didn't stop judges from citing it.

 

[swinokur]

Remember, as MD'ers, we also need to try to figure out the impact of Sculin's 14A decision on inclusion for out of state residents and what DC might do as far as out of state resident carry. To me that's every bit as important as what DC might do for their own residents, if indeed the decide to craft anything.

 

[danb]

You forgot the alternative, Peruta gets no intervener status, Harris gets told to take a hike, CA9 rejects her appeal of en banc, and they summarily deny Baker as well.

Who then plays the game of cert chicken? HI? or DC?



Notice, I don't give any of this odds, because I still think Harris gets her status.

There are lots of alternatives. I merely meant that DC will very likely wait to hear from the 9th before they decide a course. If the 9th grants en banc, DC will more than likely pursue an appeal. If en banc is denied, regardless of Harris' petition, appeal looks unlikely IMO.