VICTORY IN PALMER!!!!

[rlc2]

Entertaining read, and useful reference

I found the "old wine into a new bottle" analogy pleasant as well. After enough re-bottling, old wine becomes vinegar. I suspect the DC legislators will be tasting sour grapes soon, though not too soon for me.

May they choke on it.

+1. I defer to the lawyers and others who can evaluate the case law cites, and validity, but From my lay perspective, this was a compelling step by step evisceration of D.C.'s argument, and a very handy reference of legal issues, relevant surveys and studies.

How long until we get judge response?

 

[krucam]

+1. I defer to the lawyers and others who can evaluate the case law cites, and validity, but From my lay perspective, this was a compelling step by step evisceration of D.C.'s argument, and a very handy reference of legal issues, relevant surveys and studies.

How long until we get judge response?

I'm not going to do it, I'm not going to do it....

I would anticipate a few weeks, perhaps into early Jan for a ruling on the 2 Motions still outstanding in the District Court (Permanent Injunction, Contempt). The Holiday will have an impact as well.

The Circuit Court has certainly gotten the message of there being unfinished business at District, and this surely hasn't escaped Judge Scullin.

 

[Viper-Snipe]

Ok it had to be done

2 weeks..........

V-S

 

[rlc2]

Also some good explanation and commentary here by Dean Weingarten at Gun Watch, giving props to krucam and others here.

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2014/12/alan-guras-reply-to-palmer-v-dc.html

 

[GTOGUNNER]

Also some good explanation and commentary here by Dean Weingarten at Gun Watch, giving props to krucam, GTOGUNNER and others here.

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2014/12/alan-guras-reply-to-palmer-v-dc.html

FIFY.

Actually pretty cool seeing my Handle there!

 

[krucam]

In Circuit Court, DC has filed their Reply (final one) Brief regarding holding the Case in Abeyance there while things shake out in the District Court.

Gura, in the Response Brief brought up that the District never responded to his Motion for Affirmation. They shake it off in their Reply...

The SAF Response Brief (re Abeyance) was HERE.

 

[Southwest Chuck]

"Appellees already are enjoying the full relief they sought in the district court, and holding this appeal in abeyance will not affect this relief. "

Ya Riiiight ! Only when the Plaintiffs (and any regular, law abiding Joe) can get a Carry Permit will they be "enjoying the full relief they sought"

 

[rlc2]

preparing the battlefield for SCOTUS end-game

http://www.mdshooters.com/images/smilies/bowdown.gif
Alan Gura

In reality, win or lose this case, surely from my POV, it won't be do to
a sucky Attorney.

Gura should have asked for an extension due to the Brown Grand Jury decision.

+1. If esqappellate is correct that DC will get to the court of appeals, per Rule 65d, see:

http://www.mdshooters.com/showpost.php?p=3539718&postcount=2519

and if "realists" assign weight to the politics/judicial activism of the judges, like kcbrown, or this writer, here ...
noting the DC CA was "packed" specifically for Halbig,

http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/05/harry-reids-court-packing-scheme-pays-off-in-halbig-case/

THEN, surely Michel, Gura, and Clement are well aware of the tactics, and long-term strategy to work around that political disadvantage...

What and how to, I certainly can't opine, lacking the basic legal understanding to see past the first pawn advance, much less knight fork,

but I do see a common thread in all three cases, Jackson, Palmer, and Peruta, in terms of patience and what us.mil war-gamers call "the intel prep of the battlefield..."

too bad it will take until 2016 or 2017 to see if that is true...

kcbrown, was it here or calguns that one poster suggested you setting up the equivalent of a fantasy SCOTUS league, at the CA level, and his willingness to play? And let me hasten to add, before howls of outrage for further OT torture....that "game theory" expansion should have its own thread, here or there, but count me in...should we be setting up teams, blue v. orange?

what else do we have to do, except wait "two more weeks"? :

 

[rlc2]

PS: just heard about this new book, Overruled, out on Amazon about the history of judicial restraint, vs judicial activism..

perhaps useful as some context on 'the battle for the soul of federal judges' in Peruta, and Palmer...

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/11...2&tag=wwwviolentkicom&linkId=B4JT6LP3ALO3ZL6T

h/t Professor Reynolds, who has written on same, at USC...

http://lawreview.usc.edu/index.php/essays-second-amendment-penumbras-some-preliminary-observations/

and a review, at Volokh:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...2014/12/15/review-of-damon-roots-overruled-2/

 

[NY Marksman]

Ok it had to be done

2 weeks..........

V-S

but that would be Christmas... this time of year, i will give them 3. nd forgive a few spelling errors from hungover clerks.

 

[wjackcooper]

rlc2, thanks for post #2550.

Good reads, especially for those who wish to appreciate what, in important part, drives the odds calculated by kcbrown.

Regards
Jack

 

[kcbrown]

kcbrown, was it here or calguns that one poster suggested you setting up the equivalent of a fantasy SCOTUS league, at the CA level, and his willingness to play? And let me hasten to add, before howls of outrage for further OT torture....that "game theory" expansion should have its own thread, here or there, but count me in...should we be setting up teams, blue v. orange?

LOL. That would be pretty cool, actually.

The problem is that the primary betting pool would be on whether or not they grant cert to any given case, rather than how they'll decide the case that is being appealed to them, since they've been ignoring all 2A cases since McDonald.

what else do we have to do, except wait "two more weeks"? :

Pretty much.

 

[pcfixer]

Seems to me the Scotus and The District lawyers play "pattycake" with motions etc....

 

[danb]

I did not see this posted here:

D.C. Council Approves Bill Allowing Residents To Carry Concealed Handguns

http://wamu.org/news/14/12/17/dc_co...carry_concealed_handguns#.VJMUqxfKqxM.twitter

Permanent legislation passed. I am a little unclear about the timing. Does this get approved / disapproved by the next Senate?

 

[swinokur]

Congress has 60 days to act on it after they come back IIRC. Criminal laws get 60 days for approval, civil gets 30 days. I think Jan 4th or 5th. of January Congress returns

From the DC Council web page

http://dccouncil.us/pages/how-a-bill-becomes-a-law

.. the final steps to enactment.
Although at this point the Bill has effectively become an Act, its journey to becoming a law that must be obeyed by the populace is not yet complete. Unique to the District of Columbia, an approved Act of the Council must be sent to the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate for a period of 30 days before becoming effective as law (or 60 days for certain criminal legislation). During this 30-day period of congressional review, the Congress may enact into law a joint resolution disapproving the Council’s Act. If, during the 30-day period, the President of the United States approves the joint resolution, the Council’s Act is prevented from becoming law. If, however, upon the expiration of the 30-day congressional review period, no joint resolution disapproving the Council’s Act has been approved by the President, the Bill finally becomes a Law and is assigned a law number.

I was not aware the POTUS was involved in the process as they outline.

 

[danb]

I wonder if the resolution has to be "stand alone" or if disapproval can be tucked into another bill that would be hard for Obama to veto.

 

[swinokur]

I am not sure. I wonder if the R's can muster the votes to override a veto in the new congress.

 

[danb]

When reciprocal carry came up last time, we had 57 votes. I have not busted out that spreadsheet, but if I had to guess based on recall, I'd say we now have 59 or 60 votes (some seats changed hands, but some of the Ds voted for it). There are some squishy Ds up for re-election in 2016 not sure which way the wind will blow, that might now only vote as part of some larger package including "background checks." Whatever that means.

So, based on that, its not even clear we have enough to overcome a filibuster. Definitely not a veto override.

It'll be interesting what happens here in Jan. I strongly suspect there is a deal to be had. DC carry, national carry, in return for _____? It would not be horrible to throw in something to neutralize these ballot initiatives. The question is what is ____?

 

[Bob A]

I did not see this posted here:

D.C. Council Approves Bill Allowing Residents To Carry Concealed Handguns

http://wamu.org/news/14/12/17/dc_co...carry_concealed_handguns#.VJMUqxfKqxM.twitter

Permanent legislation passed. I am a little unclear about the timing. Does this get approved / disapproved by the next Senate?

From the article:

"public transportation, schools, government buildings, bars, stadiums, and hospitals are off limits, as are protests and an area around the White House. Individuals carrying a handgun will have to remain 1,000 feet away from U.S. or foreign dignitaries."

Pretty much impossible to carry. How are you supposed to know about the very vague "dignitaries", or avoid them when a caravan of DC police and Secret Service vehicles comes careening past you?

If the article is correct, a de facto ban seems to exist. As it was intended to, no doubt.

 

[swinokur]

I'm not defending the law, but DC is more than just downtown. There are plenty of places you could carry in the many neighborhoods of DC where carry would be great because of street crime. and not be in violation of the law, even as restrictive as it is. I do agree the intent of the law is to restrict carry by law abiding citizens. Hopefully Judge Sculin will agree as well.