Wrenn PI Granted (DC Shall Issue)

[GTOGUNNER]

Is Wrenn not an SAF member? Wasn't SAF named as co-plaintiff in Palmer? Thus, by extension Wrenn is covered under Palmer's injunction?

Yes, Wrenn is a SAF member. Says so here. http://ia902603.us.archive.org/27/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.170040/gov.uscourts.dcd.170040.1.0.pdf

Not sure about the second part of the question. But interesting thought.

 

[esqappellate]

Is Wrenn not an SAF member? Wasn't SAF named as co-plaintiff in Palmer? Thus, by extension Wrenn is covered under Palmer's injunction?

You're right, I had forgotten that SAF was a party to both suits. There is thus full mutuality as to SAF and res judicata as to those parties.

 

[GTOGUNNER]

So since I am a member of SAF as well and have a pending application does this help me?

 

[fightinbluhen51]

Yes, Wrenn is a SAF member. Says so here. http://ia902603.us.archive.org/27/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.170040/gov.uscourts.dcd.170040.1.0.pdf

Not sure about the second part of the question. But interesting thought.

Thanks. That's what I seemed to remember.

You're right, I had forgotten that SAF was a party to both suits. There is thus full mutuality as to SAF and res judicata as to those parties.

We will give you a pass on forgetting this minor (major) detail; I think you've more than earned it. (you've trained us well).

So since I am a member of SAF as well and have a pending application does this help me?

Yes...I've let my SAF membership lapse lately (dues that is). Next year I need to renew and join as a life member (a lot of stuff going on life wise at the moment).

 

[GTOGUNNER]

And yet comes another, Grace v. District of Columbia, No. 15-2234-RJL Richard J. Leon presiding

MATTHEW GRACE
and
PINK PISTOLS

This is a G&S type suit. Looking for the link.

But I do have this.

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Grace-v.-District-of-Columbia_Exhibit-1-Memorandum-to-Application-for-A-Preliminary-and-or-Permanent-Injunction_12.28.2015.pdf
and this.

 

[CrueChief]

Nothing like using their own words against them. If only it mattered.

 

[wolfwood]

And yet comes another, Grace v. District of Columbia, No. 15-2234-RJL Richard J. Leon presiding

MATTHEW GRACE
and
PINK PISTOLS

This is a G&S type suit. Looking for the link.

But I do have this.

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Grace-v.-District-of-Columbia_Exhibit-1-Memorandum-to-Application-for-A-Preliminary-and-or-Permanent-Injunction_12.28.2015.pdf
and this.

I was wondering if the NRA would file a case. It seems like every case Gura files that has a good shot the NRA files a case soon after. Charles Cooper is the attorney here and is one of the NRA's attorneys.

 

[HaveBlue]

Link to Opposing Amicus Brief

Filed by the "Anytown for Anything But Gun Safety" sheeple on 1-15.

http://guptawessler.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Grace-v.-DC-Amicus-TO-FILE.pdf

 

[GTOGUNNER]

U.S. District Court Judge Kollar-Kotelly has ruled that the plaintiffs seeking to bar the District from enforcing its concealed-carry regulations "have not met their burden of showing a likelihood of success on the merits" in a motion for a preliminary injunction. The ruling in effect upholds—for now—D.C.'s "good reasoning" licensing scheme.

 

[Kharn]

Well, at least she didn't waste any time.

 

[MJD438]

And the Second Amendment protections of fundamental civil rights die another death...

 

[wolfwood]

U.S. District Court Judge Kollar-Kotelly has ruled that the plaintiffs seeking to bar the District from enforcing its concealed-carry regulations "have not met their burden of showing a likelihood of success on the merits" in a motion for a preliminary injunction. The ruling in effect upholds—for now—D.C.'s "good reasoning" licensing scheme.

its not that bad the judge is essentially waiting to rule on the merits later in the case

 

[motorcoachdoug]

I knew the fix was in and DC was going to go Judge shopping. Why am I not surprised?

 

[wjackcooper]

Judge Kollar-Kotelly was first appointed to the bench by Reagan (which per KcBrown’s numbers indicates about a 50% chance of a favorable ruling) but considering that she found the lack of an environmental impact assessment of sufficient importance to rule against concealed carry in parks and after reading her ruling on the request for an injunction it looks to me like the odds of a favorable final ruling in her court are less than 50% by a considerable margin.

Regards
Jack

 

[HaveBlue]

If this PI had been granted?

Based on what I have seen so far. If she had granted the PI, she would have immediately lost control of the case (at least for a while) because DC would have immediately appealed that ruling anyway. If the PI were to remain in effect during that appeal, it would have been heard quickly and only delayed things for weeks. If the PI were not allowed to remain in effect during the appeal, it would have just delayed things that much longer.

At least this way, she's keeping the case on track. Where that track is headed, I don't know.

I read her ruling on the EIS requirement. While I may be a pessimistic engineer by day, I am a manic optimist by night. It was a dumb technicality but it was a technicality that was written in by the legislature. Ruling based on the clear text of the law could actually be a good sign. If the plaintiffs had only brought a case against the silly notion that an EIS could ever take precedent over a fundamental right, who knows.

 

[press1280]

It is good that the judge is moving this case along, but highly disappointing that we know even if this goes to trial that Kachalsky will essentially be the law of the land in this case, and not Heller/McDonald.

Now the question is go to trial or appeal to the Circuit? And will the Circuit panel be the same one that reassigned the case (hopefully yes)?

EDIT: Gura is appealing to the DC Circuit.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

It is good that the judge is moving this case along, but highly disappointing that we know even if this goes to trial that Kachalsky will essentially be the law of the land in this case, and not Heller/McDonald.

Now the question is go to trial or appeal to the Circuit? And will the Circuit panel be the same one that reassigned the case (hopefully yes)?

EDIT: Gura is appealing to the DC Circuit.

1) Kachalsky is in a different circuit; sure there is other circuit precedent, but it should not be binding here.
2) Makes sense, at least get as many bites at the apple as possible
3) Better strategy until we get to have a full court (with hopefully another originalist in Scalia's stead).

 

[wolfwood]

It is good that the judge is moving this case along, but highly disappointing that we know even if this goes to trial that Kachalsky will essentially be the law of the land in this case, and not Heller/McDonald.

Now the question is go to trial or appeal to the Circuit? And will the Circuit panel be the same one that reassigned the case (hopefully yes)?

EDIT: Gura is appealing to the DC Circuit.

I hope he does not feel like he was to do that because the NRA might in their D.C. carry case. It seems a little risky to appeal a preliminary injunction because those appeals are reviewed on an abuse on discretion standard rather than on de novo review if it was review of an appeal on the merits. Recently the NRA was admonished by the Ninth in Fyock for filing a PI appeal for the obvious purpose of getting early appellate review. However if I were him I'd be worried that the NRA gets lucky and and steals his glory by taking their preliminary injunction up on appeal first.

 

[press1280]

1) Kachalsky is in a different circuit; sure there is other circuit precedent, but it should not be binding here.
2) Makes sense, at least get as many bites at the apple as possible
3) Better strategy until we get to have a full court (with hopefully another originalist in Scalia's stead).

I know Kachalsky isn't binding outside CA2, but the leftist judges basically accept it over Heller because they agree with it.

 

[ComeGet]

I know Kachalsky isn't binding outside CA2, but the leftist judges basically accept it over Heller because they agree with it.

They can use a circuit decision to override a SC decision?