That just would be so sweet if they missed the deadline.
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
That just would be so sweet if they missed the deadline.
That will not happen unless their is a major emergency going on in the city, then they will ask for more time due to the emergency that was going on...
CrueChief
Cocker Dad/RIP Bella
Yeah no chance this happens "some one" will remind them at the very least.
they will file in the last hour before the COB.
It's what they do
It's what they do
I thought it was 45 days from publication of a circuit court ruling unless otherwise noted or shortened by the court? guess not. hmmm IDK now.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/home.nsf/Content/VL%20-%20RPP%20-%20Circuit%20Rules/$FILE/RulesDecember2016FRAPandDCCirFinalF.pdf
Rule 35 (a)
a)
Time Within Which to File. In all cases in which a party is one of those listed in FRAP 40(a)(1)(A) - (D), the time within which any party may seek panel rehearing or rehearing en banc is 45 days after entry of judgment or other form of decision. In all other cases, any petition for panel rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc must be filed within 30 days after entry of judgment or other form of decision. The time for filing a petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc will not be extended except for good cause shown.
45 days for the Federal Govt. by those who know.
DC is not the Federal Govt.
IANAL
DC is not the Federal Govt.
IANAL
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
Actually, they file electronically so they have until midnight tomorrow (the 24th) to file. I am actually a bit surprised that they did not file for an extension of time.
they will file at 11:59 then
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
Correct. Special rule for the federal government because such appeals and petitions have to be approved by the SG's office and that takes time.
wow 9 hours early.
So, "we're (DC) special"
and "Furthermore, a significant increase in public carrying would force federal law enforcement to step up protection of thousands of high-risk targets, which could interfere with daily life and the exercise of other rights through, for instance, political protest in public spaces."
Because statistics prove that scofflaws would never illegally carry a gun, and licensed permit holders frequently break the law and just up and shoot others????
What, is the argument that it costs too much so we must infringe on the 2A?redeemed.man
Ultimate Member
Disgusting
You'd think that being the seat of Govt., upholding the BOR would be most the important ideal for DC to accomplish
Not to the Bolsheviks running DC
Not to the Bolsheviks running DC
9
II
"We begin by asking if Grace and Wrenn have met their burden to show their Second Amendment challenges are likely to prevail. That question has several components in this case. In many areas of constitutional law, regulations that impose on rights are subject to one of three tests that are more or less stringent depending on the right and the burden at stake. So-called rational-basis review requires the challenged law to bear a rational link to a legitimate public interest. Intermediate scrutiny looks for a substantial link to an important interest. And strict scrutiny demands that a law be narrowly tailored to a compelling public interest. See generally Richard H. Fallon, Jr., Strict Judicial Scrutiny, 54 U.C.L.A. L. Rev. 1267 (2007).
Whether we need that three-tiered framework here is one issue we will address. Grace and Wrenn hope we can consider their challenge without bothering to decide which level of scrutiny to apply to the District’s regulation. In fact, the District shares that hope. For their part, Grace and Wrenn argue that we should deem the good-reason regulation invalid without applying tiers of scrutiny because this regulation is analogous to the “total ban” that the Supreme Court struck down in Heller I without pausing to weigh its benefits. The District, by contrast, thinks the law warrants no particular scrutiny because it does not burden protected rights at all.
The parties split on what we should do if we ultimately decide to apply tiers of scrutiny. Under our precedent, if we apply tiers of scrutiny at all, the proper level to apply would turn on whether a gun law imposes “substantial[ly]” on the Second Amendment’s “core.” Heller v. District of Columbia (Heller II), 670 F.3d 1244, 1257 (D.C. Cir. 2011); see also id. at 1253, 1256-57. The plaintiffs say the good-reason law does so, thus inviting strict scrutiny."
So is DC espousing that any level of "scrutiny" is not warranted because carry permits are not part of a Constitutional right? Then just what do the words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" mean if "bear arms" does not mean "to carry"?
II
"We begin by asking if Grace and Wrenn have met their burden to show their Second Amendment challenges are likely to prevail. That question has several components in this case. In many areas of constitutional law, regulations that impose on rights are subject to one of three tests that are more or less stringent depending on the right and the burden at stake. So-called rational-basis review requires the challenged law to bear a rational link to a legitimate public interest. Intermediate scrutiny looks for a substantial link to an important interest. And strict scrutiny demands that a law be narrowly tailored to a compelling public interest. See generally Richard H. Fallon, Jr., Strict Judicial Scrutiny, 54 U.C.L.A. L. Rev. 1267 (2007).
Whether we need that three-tiered framework here is one issue we will address. Grace and Wrenn hope we can consider their challenge without bothering to decide which level of scrutiny to apply to the District’s regulation. In fact, the District shares that hope. For their part, Grace and Wrenn argue that we should deem the good-reason regulation invalid without applying tiers of scrutiny because this regulation is analogous to the “total ban” that the Supreme Court struck down in Heller I without pausing to weigh its benefits. The District, by contrast, thinks the law warrants no particular scrutiny because it does not burden protected rights at all.
The parties split on what we should do if we ultimately decide to apply tiers of scrutiny. Under our precedent, if we apply tiers of scrutiny at all, the proper level to apply would turn on whether a gun law imposes “substantial[ly]” on the Second Amendment’s “core.” Heller v. District of Columbia (Heller II), 670 F.3d 1244, 1257 (D.C. Cir. 2011); see also id. at 1253, 1256-57. The plaintiffs say the good-reason law does so, thus inviting strict scrutiny."
So is DC espousing that any level of "scrutiny" is not warranted because carry permits are not part of a Constitutional right? Then just what do the words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" mean if "bear arms" does not mean "to carry"?
I found it interesting that a major complaint from D.C. is that there wasn't enough historical analysis. I re-read the decision. It seemed as though the court did spend a lot of time analyzing the history of firearms law and they decided that it supported plaintiffs case or was addressed by Heller*.
Any guidance on how long the Circuit will ponder whether a full en banc is warranted is this case?
If DCC declines en banc, does the PI take immediate effect? Or does the current scheme remain in place until SCOTUS makes a Cert decision? Of course D.C. takes any unfavorable decision to SCOTUS.
Based on reading the "appeal", any experienced hands have any post happy hour predictions?
If DCC declines en banc, does the PI take immediate effect? Or does the current scheme remain in place until SCOTUS makes a Cert decision? Of course D.C. takes any unfavorable decision to SCOTUS.
Based on reading the "appeal", any experienced hands have any post happy hour predictions?
W2D
Ultimate Member
"It's for the children."
What a load of crap.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
What a load of crap.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Users who are viewing this thread
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
-
Suggestions for a low powered, large objective rifle scope? (2 Viewers)- Started by E.Shell
- Replies: 10
-
-
Timonium Gun Show April 27-28 (Timonium Fairgrounds Exhibition Hall)
- Started by joro55
- Replies: 1
-
-
