VICTORY IN PALMER!!!!

Brooklyn · Oct 3, 2014

Mr H said:
In glancing, do I see that Gura is saying that if the Court allows this, then they are just as incorrect as CA4 in Woollard?

Seems odd...

Well we want a circuit split after all...

jrosenberger · Oct 3, 2014

esqappellate said:
This gets tricky. The City can pass a new statute and claim the case is now moot. An amended complaint, if accepted, effectively starts a new lawsuit, as the claims are brand new. That is effectively what happened in Ezell. Whether to accept an amended complaint is discretionary with the court. He could make them file a separate lawsuit. Either way, you start over from ground zero with new claims and discovery and delay. An amended complaint just keeps the case with this Judge. Which is a big advantage. Now, it may not may not be available in this case, as standing will rear its ugly head. Generally, to have standing to challenge a may issue statute, you have to submit an application and have it denied. That has to happen BEFORE a suit is filed as standing must be established at the outset of the complaint and maintained throughout the litigation. So an amended complaint may not be an option. In Ezell, in contrast, IIRCC, such standing issues were not such a probem becasue of the nature of the claim itself. It gets tricky

It looks like we both forgot that DC was may issue at the time the complaint was originally filed and the plaintiffs applied for carry permits and were denied. The new temporary law is actually the same as the one when the complaint was filed. (Discussed in the new motion for injunction linked above.)

I'd love to read your thoughts in light of that.

press1280 · Oct 3, 2014

jrosenberger said:
It looks like we both forgot that DC was may issue at the time the complaint was originally filed and the plaintiffs applied for carry permits and were denied. The new temporary law is actually the same as the one when the complaint was filed. (Discussed in the new motion for injunction linked above.)

I'd love to read your thoughts in light of that.

The Chief's authority to issue licenses was repealed in late 2008, so they were technically no-issue when the lawsuit was filed. I do wonder how it'll play out considering they just put into place the old law. That was cited in a DC Circuit case recognizing that the licenses were "virtually unobtainable".

esqappellate · Oct 3, 2014

jrosenberger said:
It looks like we both forgot that DC was may issue at the time the complaint was originally filed and the plaintiffs applied for carry permits and were denied. The new temporary law is actually the same as the one when the complaint was filed. (Discussed in the new motion for injunction linked above.)

I'd love to read your thoughts in light of that.

Gura pleading for a perm injunction makes the same point, arguing that the new is a copy of the old one under which plaintiffs were denied thereby not rendering the case moot Quite interesting and it might well make a difference in light of the judges order

Decoy · Oct 4, 2014

Washington post article

danb · Oct 4, 2014

Decoy said:
Washington post article

I did not realize that. Very interesting turn.

krucam · Oct 4, 2014

Decoy said:
Washington post article

As hoped, SAF/Gura is unhappy with DC's May-Issue legislation which isn't in line with Scullin's guidance and have submitted a Motion for Permanent Injunction against enforcement of the new legislation.

:thumbsup:

See: http://ia902305.us.archive.org/14/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.71.1.pdf

Straightshooter · Oct 4, 2014

I am developing a man crush for Alan Gura.

swinokur · Oct 4, 2014

The line gets longer every day.

Nuts to butts.

DC-W · Oct 4, 2014

Straightshooter said:
I am developing a man crush for Alan Gura.

swinokur said:
The line gets longer every day.

Nuts to butts.

http://youtu.be/1dkWqf1Ikz8?t=16s

knownalien · Oct 5, 2014

yes. most of us have had our manhood tested against alan who nearly appears as a god among men.

yellowfin · Oct 5, 2014

knownalien said:
yes. most of us have had our manhood tested against alan who nearly appears as a god among men.

I'll think a little more of his demi-god status when the wins actually sink in and make NYC, NJ, and MD shall issue and those permits are in the tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands verifiably in individual hands, and Peruta actually gets enforced against San Francisco and L.A.

Let's not forget that Lindberg was who he was not because he flew but because he landed safely--we don't know how many people crashed while trying and technically achieved something because they flew past Iceland for the first time.

Brooklyn · Oct 5, 2014

yellowfin said:
I'll think a little more of his demi-god status when the wins actually sink in and make NYC, NJ, and MD shall issue and those permits are in the tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands verifiably in individual hands, and Peruta actually gets enforced against San Francisco and L.A.

Let's not forget that Lindberg was who he was not because he flew but because he landed safely--we don't know how many people crashed while trying and technically achieved something because they flew past Iceland for the first time.

Tough crowd. Having met the man I can assure you he is not in it for glory. Neither are most of us.

Which is good.,

. Leave that to Bloomberg.

PJDiesel · Oct 5, 2014

The Marion Barry quote is special. :mad:

yellowfin · Oct 5, 2014

I've met Alan as well and attended 3-4 of his presentations. Again, I like and respect him and what he's doing, I'm just saying results really are what matter, and baby steps while substantially better than nothing are in fact baby steps--we're just used to bad news so less bad but still not optimal seems like much more than it really is. I know he's not in it for the glory, and thank goodness for that or it would probably make him not make good decisions.

But I'm a little sick of calling a single chicken wing, no matter how excellent and tasty it may be, a full chicken dinner and sitting still being hungry, ya know?

krucam · Oct 5, 2014

esqappellate said:
Gura pleading for a perm injunction makes the same point, arguing that the new is a copy of the old one under which plaintiffs were denied thereby not rendering the case moot Quite interesting and it might well make a difference in light of the judges order

I would think that if all 4 Plaintiffs (Tom G. Palmer, George Lyon, Edward Raymond, Amy McVey) apply and any are denied, the case is alive and well...

I don't know if they can do this yet, however. Certainly not before the 10/17/14 Argument/Meeting.

2014-09-17 66 0 ORDER: The Court hereby ORDERS that Defendants' # 52 MOTION to Stay is DENIED; however, the Court will entertain a motion to extend the stay beyond October 22, 2014. If Defendants wish to make such a motion, they must file papers in support of that motion on or before 10/3/0214, setting forth in detail what, if any, progress they have made to comply with the Court's decision. Plaintiffs may file any opposition that they have to Defendants' motion on or before 10/10/2014. If Defendants file such a motion, the Court will hear oral argument in support of, and in opposition to, said motion on 10/17/2014 at 10:30 AM. The Court further ORDERS that the Court will hear oral argument in support of, and in opposition to, Defendants' # 63 MOTION for Reconsideration on 10/17/2014 at 10:30 AM. Signed by Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr. on 9/17/2014. (Scullin, Frederick) (Entered: 09/17/2014)

On the plate
- Potential Additional Stay (pending progress toward Judge's order). I haven't seen the requisite motion for additional Stay that was due 10/3/14.
- Motion for Reconsideration from Defendants

now we have...

- Motion for Permanent Injunction from Plaintiffs

The 30 days to Appeal starts when the business of pending Motions are resolved (FRAP Rule 4), I'm assuming whether from either party.

Very muddy waters right now.

Brooklyn · Oct 5, 2014

yellowfin said:
I've met Alan as well and attended 3-4 of his presentations. Again, I like and respect him and what he's doing, I'm just saying results really are what matter, and baby steps while substantially better than nothing are in fact baby steps--we're just used to bad news so less bad but still not optimal seems like much more than it really is. I know he's not in it for the glory, and thank goodness for that or it would probably make him not make good decisions.

But I'm a little sick of calling a single chicken wing, no matter how excellent and tasty it may be, a full chicken dinner and sitting still being hungry, ya know?

No.... what matters is fighting with everything you have. Sorry life sucks. Good men die. The quilty are often not punished. You don't allways get what you want......

Men and women of priniple fight on, and they encourage others to do so.

danb · Oct 5, 2014

yellowfin said:
I'll think a little more of his demi-god status when the wins actually sink in and make NYC, NJ, and MD shall issue and those permits are in the tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands verifiably in individual hands, and Peruta actually gets enforced against San Francisco and L.A.

Let's not forget that Lindberg was who he was not because he flew but because he landed safely--we don't know how many people crashed while trying and technically achieved something because they flew past Iceland for the first time.

I disagree with your premise. Lindberg was successful precisely because others crashed and burned. He was not ignorant of previous attempts. You have have to know what doesnt work as much as what does. Like wine, Gura's briefs get better with time.

yellowfin · Oct 6, 2014

I wasn't saying that Lindberg didn't know who crashed before he succeeded, I'm saying his first place finish was what counted, that second through tenth place were all a fiery or watery grave. He may have known their names, but we don't.

Applying it to the present, we've substantially won in Illinois, where there are carry permits in the hands of individuals in a state where there previously weren't any. A few counties in CA are turning around. But we need to win in big population areas and really cut the heart out of the anti gun political complex, and so far, they've farted in our faces for the most part. We have yet to REALLY hit them where it cuts them off at the knees or the neck.

Dogabutila · Oct 6, 2014

I wasn't aware that having the right to keep firearms recognized was a baby step. I'm not sure people realize how BIG a thing this is for the judicial system.

VICTORY IN PALMER!!!!

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

I stand with John Locke.

Active Member

Ultimate Member

President, MSI

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

In a State of Bliss

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Pro 2A Gastronome

I stand with John Locke.

Banned

Pro 2A Gastronome

Ultimate Member

I stand with John Locke.

dont be a dumbass

Pro 2A Gastronome

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics