VICTORY IN PALMER!!!!

swinokur · Dec 3, 2014

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?

esqappellate · Dec 3, 2014

swinokur said:
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.)

swinokur · Dec 3, 2014

ok-got it-thanks

cdstraw · Dec 4, 2014

esqappellate said:
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???? :popcorn:

rlc2 · Dec 4, 2014

Someone at Calguns.net posted this:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=373360&d=1417737834

FrankZ · Dec 4, 2014

rlc2 said:
Someone at Calguns.net posted this:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=373360&d=1417737834

A login page? Sweet.

esqappellate · Dec 4, 2014

FrankZ said:
A login page? Sweet.

here you go

Inigoes · Dec 4, 2014

esqappellate said:
here you go

Wow

DC is clinging to the court doesnt have jurisdiction :clap:

Stating its directive as dicta :shocked:

Page 12: the court can not tell us what to do! :shock03:

DC-W · Dec 4, 2014

La la la la la. Can't hear you! La la la la la!

Viper-Snipe · Dec 4, 2014

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

Robert1955 · Dec 4, 2014

Holy Cow!!!!!!!!!!!! I can see this ending badly for the Kingdom of Obama. Me thinks I just read a big FU to the Federal Court.

FrankZ · Dec 4, 2014

esqappellate said:
here you go

Thank you.

I'll have to read it in a little while. But, of course, any commentary you want to make is welcome.

(then I might not have to read it)

Blacksmith101 · Dec 4, 2014

I'm just a dumb old country boy but that seems about as smart as trying to grab a cops duty weapon through the window of his patrol car. Likely to end badly. "We don't need no stinkin' badges!"

wolfwood · Dec 4, 2014

worst case scenario for D.C. what is the strongest penalty they can receive and who are the persons who can receive that penalty.

Mr H · Dec 5, 2014

Amazing. The gall is simply amazing.

The worst that can happen to DC, IMO, is to lose Home Rule, and everyone in power get booted.

Then, I would hope Congress and/or the Court can see about individual sanctions/contempt.

Inigoes · Dec 5, 2014

Mr H said:
Amazing. The gall is simply amazing.

The worst that can happen to DC, IMO, is to lose Home Rule, and everyone in power get booted.

Then, I would hope Congress and/or the Court can see about individual sanctions/contempt.

Congress is to lazy to do that.

Hell, they don't even read bills anymore becuase it is too much effort.

Peaceful John · Dec 5, 2014

D.C., the gift that keeps on giving.

esqappellate · Dec 5, 2014

I hate to be the wet blanket here, but, legally, the District's arguments are not frivolous. For example, lots of case law supports its Rule 65(d) point that the order was not specific enough to support contempt. Frankly, I agree with that argument and I doubt very much that this judge will find that the District is in contempt for that reason alone. The District is also correct that, normally, a court loses jurisdiction to modify its orders once a notice of appeal has been filed because the effect of the notice is invest jurisdiction upon the court of appeals. Gura is also correct that the court can still enforce its order in the absence of a stay, but the court cannot by that route modify its orders on appeal. It merely can enforce them and any such enforcement order can likewise then be appealed. The District's broader point that the new law is not properly before it is complex. As I have explained before, normally the District would be correct that a new suit (or at least an amended complaint) would be required to challenge a new law for all kinds of reasons basic to Article III of the Constitution, like standing and the like. What is different about this case is that the new law is but a copy of the old law that existed when the suit was originally broader and that the only thing that has changed is that the District keeps presenting a moving target. I am curious as to what Gura will say in Reply.

BTW, it is not disrespectful to a court or to a judge to argue that the court lacks jurisdiction or that there are limits on its authority. Counsel have a duty to bring jurisdictional issues to the attention of the court. This is just normal litigation. I do this sort of thing all the time. Judges are not kings -- when you think they are wrong, you have to stand up in court and say so.

Brooklyn · Dec 5, 2014

Contempt was never going to happen.. I wish I knew what Gura is driving at...he must know contempt was a long shot..

I am struck by the DC claim that the order was to vague...they seam to want the court to isuue an opinion that they will like even less.

Is there any procedural method under which this can happen?

Also if Dc can not even take applications at this time is the new scheme even in place?
I wonder was gura is up to.

Inigoes · Dec 5, 2014

Brooklyn said:
Contempt was never going to happen.. I wish I knew what Gura is driving at...he must know contempt was a long shot..

I am struck by the DC claim that the order was to vague...they seam to want the court to isuue an opinion that they will like even less.

Is there any procedural method under which this can happen?

Also if Dc can not even take applications at this time is the new scheme even in place?
I wonder was gura is up to.

Gura is tying the new law to the old. Painting DC as simply ignoring the courts order.

VICTORY IN PALMER!!!!

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

In a State of Bliss

President, MSI

In a State of Bliss

Active Member

Active Member

Liberty = Responsibility

President, MSI

Attachments

Head'n for the hills

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Liberty = Responsibility

Grumpy Old Man

Ultimate Member

Banana'd

Head'n for the hills

Active Member

President, MSI

I stand with John Locke.

Head'n for the hills

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics