Old December 3rd, 2014, 10:51 AM #2501
swinokur's Avatar
swinokur swinokur is offline
In a State of Denial
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nunya County
Posts: 45,322
swinokur swinokur is offline
In a State of Denial
swinokur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nunya County
Posts: 45,322
But they have left the door for a stay open with their request for the stay to be held in abeyance?

How long can they ask the Circuit to do this?
swinokur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 3rd, 2014, 10:58 AM #2502
esqappellate's Avatar
esqappellate esqappellate is offline
President, MSI
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 6,823
esqappellate esqappellate is offline
President, MSI
esqappellate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 6,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by swinokur View Post
But they have left the door for a stay open with their request for the stay to be held in abeyance?

How long can they ask the Circuit to do this?
Holding the case in abeyance is not the same as a stay. Abeyance simply means that the court sits on the case. Judge Scullin's order remains fully in effect. They have not asked for a stay to be held in abeyance.

They can logically wait to ask the DC Circuit for a stay until after Judge Scullin rules on the contempt motion. If they lose that motion, then their odds of getting a stay (from that ruling) increase dramatically as the legal landscape has changed from a total ban (Moore) to draconian license restrictions (Wollard, et al.)
__________________
This may sound like legal advice, but it isn't. Don't rely on it. Hire your own counsel.
esqappellate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 3rd, 2014, 04:40 PM #2503
swinokur's Avatar
swinokur swinokur is offline
In a State of Denial
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nunya County
Posts: 45,322
swinokur swinokur is offline
In a State of Denial
swinokur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nunya County
Posts: 45,322
ok-got it-thanks
swinokur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2014, 06:27 PM #2504
cdstraw's Avatar
cdstraw cdstraw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Frederick County, MD
Posts: 304
cdstraw cdstraw is offline
Member
cdstraw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Frederick County, MD
Posts: 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by esqappellate View Post
The point is moot as there is no way the motion for summary affirmance will be granted. Indeed, the district's abeyance motion makes it more difficult for the motion for summary affirmance to be granted as the court will not want to approach this case piecemeal.

That the district has still not asked for a stay pending appeal from the D.C. Circuit suggests only that they know that (1) can't meet the standard for such a stay in light of the legislation they have passed and the difficulty of demonstrating a likelihood of success on the merits, or (2) that they know that the initial appeal is mooted by the passage of permanent legislation.

Did anyone catch this line in the DC motion for abeyance? "See License to Carry a Pistol Emergency Amendment Act of 2014, D.C. Act A20-447 (effective October 9, 2014), 60 D.C. Reg. 10765 (Oct. 17, 2014), see also License to Carry a Pistol Temporary Amendment Act of 2014, D.C. Act A20-462 (signed by the Mayor October 31, 2014,transmitted to Congress for review Nov. 19, 2014, projected law date Jan. 3, 2015), 61 D.C. Reg. 11814 (Nov. 14, 2014).

Now both the October 9 and the Oct 31 legislation were passed on an emergency basis and expressly limited to 90 days. I note in passing that the District has as an option to pass the same legislation on an emergency basis until such time as the 60 day period for Congressional review passes, at least as to the criminal aspects of the new law. See U.S. v. Alston, 580 A.2d 587 (D.C.,1990).

Anyway, we should know more about the District's strategy when (and if) the District files its response to the motion for summary affirmance. That response is due 12/4/14 and, as of this morning, no extension request has been filed on that motion. I expect them to reiterate that the motion for abeyance should be granted and that the court should hold the motion for summary affirmance. But they also have to address the merits. Or least it would be foolish not to address the merits.

But, let's play it out some. If (and it is a BIG if) Judge Scullin holds that the temporary legislation does not comply with his injunction and finds the District in contempt, DC can appeal that. But that appeal arguably becomes moot when temporary legislation expires after 90 days (unless it is renewed, which would be contemptuous if the renewal is after Judge Scullin so holds). DC has yet to enact permanent legislation and if they do, it arguably moots their first appeal. So, in the absence of permanent legislation, if the new legislation is held to be in violation of the original injunction the district's appeal goes forward along with a new appeal (consolidated) from the court's enforcement order. There could be no enforcement of the carry law in the meantime. So, the district will have to ask for a stay of any enforcement order immediately. And it would get it. If so, the district court would have to re enact the emergency legislation or pass new permanent legislation which they could do if they got a stay.
Sooo.... Anybody know if the District responded????
__________________
________________________________________
"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians."
- George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)
cdstraw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2014, 07:43 PM #2505
rlc2's Avatar
rlc2 rlc2 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: left coast
Posts: 228
rlc2 rlc2 is offline
Member
rlc2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: left coast
Posts: 228
Someone at Calguns.net posted this:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/a...0&d=1417737834
rlc2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2014, 08:08 PM #2506
FrankZ's Avatar
FrankZ FrankZ is online now
Liberty = Responsibility
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,875
FrankZ FrankZ is online now
Liberty = Responsibility
FrankZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlc2 View Post
Someone at Calguns.net posted this:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/a...0&d=1417737834
A login page? Sweet.
__________________
-- The Second Amendment: Not just a right, a responsibility.

-- They had a chance to be hard on criminals, instead they chose to target you.
FrankZ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2014, 08:16 PM #2507
esqappellate's Avatar
esqappellate esqappellate is offline
President, MSI
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 6,823
esqappellate esqappellate is offline
President, MSI
esqappellate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 6,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankZ View Post
A login page? Sweet.
here you go
Attached Images
File Type: pdf Palmer.contempt.response.pdf (233.3 KB, 200 views)
__________________
This may sound like legal advice, but it isn't. Don't rely on it. Hire your own counsel.
esqappellate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2014, 08:23 PM #2508
Inigoes's Avatar
Inigoes Inigoes is offline
Head'n for the hills
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SoMD / West PA
Posts: 41,453
Inigoes Inigoes is offline
Head'n for the hills
Inigoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SoMD / West PA
Posts: 41,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by esqappellate View Post

here you go
Wow

DC is clinging to the court doesnt have jurisdiction

Stating its directive as dicta

Page 12: the court can not tell us what to do! :shock03:
__________________
Life is tough, life is tougher when you are stupid.
Inigoes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2014, 08:51 PM #2509
DC-W's Avatar
DC-W DC-W is offline
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ \_(ツ)_/
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 21,139
DC-W DC-W is offline
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ \_(ツ)_/
DC-W's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 21,139
La la la la la. Can't hear you! La la la la la!
DC-W is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2014, 09:25 PM #2510
Viper-Snipe's Avatar
Viper-Snipe Viper-Snipe is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 464
Viper-Snipe Viper-Snipe is offline
Member
Viper-Snipe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 464
C. This Court does not have jurisdiction to consider or rule on whether the District’s
new law actually satisfies the Second Amendment.

Hummmmmmm!!!!!

V-S
Viper-Snipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Home Page > Forum List > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
2021, Congregate Media, LP Privacy Policy Terms of Service