VICTORY IN PALMER!!!!

[Ack Ack]

If DC passes a "may-issue" scheme, would it need to be challenged in court with a new case or can Judge Scullin nullify the law based on the fact that it doesn't satisfy the requirements of his ruling?

 

[CypherPunk]

I'm hoping that because of this case, and directly due to DC's stated purpose of restricting individual rights, the courts find "may issue" arbitrary, discriminatory and unlawful...

That the higher courts will affirm that decision and it will apply equally to all states...

And that we will owe the perpetually corrupt DC politicians a debt of gratitude for protecting individual liberty for being unable to restrain their arrogance and elitism.

 

[CharlieFoxtrot]

And that we will owe the perpetually corrupt DC politicians a debt of gratitude for protecting individual liberty for being unable to restrain their arrogance and elitism.

Ha! Well said!

 

[CypherPunk]

I don't understand how we got to the point where its such common knowledge it's not even discussed or mentioned, but...

Mayor Grey is standing there proclaiming that more guns will increase the danger, while he is surrounded by his protective detail, security and the Chief and her staff.

Then, he proclaims that his govt will decide if you can exercise your rights...

All while everyone knows that Mr Mayor is going to be indicted any day now for corruption and bribery.

We truly get the govt we deserve.

 

[Mr H]

So...

Since he will become a Prohibited Person...

If he can't have guns, then no one can?!

Got it.

 

[esqappellate]

If DC passes a "may-issue" scheme, would it need to be challenged in court with a new case or can Judge Scullin nullify the law based on the fact that it doesn't satisfy the requirements of his ruling?

My educated guess is that a new law would take a new lawsuit with, potentially, new plaintiffs. Judge Scullin's leverage here is limited. He extended his stay a little bit pending what DC comes up with, but even if the DCT refused to stay the ruling further, DC can easily do what MD did and run to the court of appeals and get an emergency stay pending appeal. Of course, you can only do that if you actually appeal, and it appears that DC is reluctant to do that (for good reasons, the DC Cir will be reluctant to go into direct conflict with the 7th Circuit in Moore). So, the path for DC is easy. Get this new law passed before the stay expires and argue to Judge Scullin that plaintiffs have to file a new lawsuit to challenge it. That argument may well be successful. If so, Gura will have to start over.

 

[vgplayer]

What if DC's proposed new law wouldn't allow even the plaintiffs to receive a carry permit? Wouldn't Judge Scullin have to say sorry try again.

 

[esqappellate]

What if DC's proposed new law wouldn't allow even the plaintiffs to receive a carry permit? Wouldn't Judge Scullin have to say sorry try again.

Nope, not in the absence of a challenge to the new law. Remember the provisions struck down were a complete ban. Court never got into may issue.

 

[FrankZ]

My educated guess is that a new law would take a new lawsuit with, potentially, new plaintiffs. Judge Scullin's leverage here is limited. He extended his stay a little bit pending what DC comes up with, but even if the DCT refused to stay the ruling further, DC can easily do what MD did and run to the court of appeals and get an emergency stay pending appeal. Of course, you can only do that if you actually appeal, and it appears that DC is reluctant to do that (for good reasons, the DC Cir will be reluctant to go into direct conflict with the 7th Circuit in Moore). So, the path for DC is easy. Get this new law passed before the stay expires and argue to Judge Scullin that plaintiffs have to file a new lawsuit to challenge it. That argument may well be successful. If so, Gura will have to start over.

If DC puts out a law the judge doesn't like can he stay it pending plaintiff appeal?

 

[vgplayer]

Nope, not in the absence of a challenge to the new law. Remember the provisions struck down were a complete ban. Court never got into may issue.

 

[Inigoes]

Nope, not in the absence of a challenge to the new law. Remember the provisions struck down were a complete ban. Court never got into may issue.

DC has been directed by the court to allow for the MD plaintiff to exercise his 2A right.

If DC creates this new law, counter to the decision, what happens?

This is looking like Chicago gun-range deja-vu to me.

 

[DC-W]

This is exciting stuff. The implications towards may-issue schemes across the country will be huge if things stay the current course

 

[ryan_j]

As much as I respect esqappellate I have to disagree with him... but bear in mind that he is well above my pay grade so I might be wrong!!!

I thought that for the case to be mooted that the plaintiffs had to be made whole, or something like that. May-issue won't make them whole, unless they get permits. This is why SAF has been including regular ordinary people in addition to outrageously wronged plaintiffs. Take for example Drake - they included two LEOs and a kidnap victim, a guy who carries cash, and another who just wanted a permit for protection.

 

[eruby]

How much more will I hate Maryland if I am able to legally carry in D. C. and not in my home state.

 

[Maestro Pistolero]

Ha! Well said!

Yep, it is almost always their overreach that is their undoing.

 

[Maestro Pistolero]

The current 90 day stay expires ~ Oct 22nd. By then, they must have developed legislation that falls in line with the ruling, or have an appeal in place AND then request a Stay from the Court of Appeals.

A small point: I don't believe DC can appeal while there is still business before the district court.

 

[esqappellate]

As much as I respect esqappellate I have to disagree with him... but bear in mind that he is well above my pay grade so I might be wrong!!!

I thought that for the case to be mooted that the plaintiffs had to be made whole, or something like that. May-issue won't make them whole, unless they get permits. This is why SAF has been including regular ordinary people in addition to outrageously wronged plaintiffs. Take for example Drake - they included two LEOs and a kidnap victim, a guy who carries cash, and another who just wanted a permit for protection.

The scope of being made whole is defined by the allegations and claims set forth in the complaint. You will recall that the court enjoined two specific provisions of the DC Code that basically imposed an absolute ban on outside the home carry. Those provisions were the subject of the claims in the complaint. Now, if DC were to amend those provisions so as to NOT impose a complete ban, then plaintiffs would have a *new* claim that those new provisions were in violation of the 2A. Plaintiffs would be free to file a new suit. Take a look at Judge Posner's analysis in Shepard v. Madigan
734 F.3d 748, 752 C.A.7 (Ill.),2013, concerning Illinois' new law passed in response to the court's ruling in Moore:

We do not mean to belittle the plaintiffs' complaint about delays built into the new law. But if they don't like the new law, and wish to invalidate it, they must bring a new suit. Their only basis for complaining about the district court's refusal to enjoin the old law immediately—and thus allow them (if they have a FOID card) to start carrying guns in public without complying with the new law—is that we ordered it and therefore the district court has violated our order. That is incorrect. We made no order regarding relief except to specify a deadline for the state to enact a new law. It met the deadline. Thus the district court did not violate our mandate and so there is no basis for the relief that the plaintiffs sought. The denial of that relief is therefore Affirmed.

 

[esqappellate]

A small point: I don't believe DC can appeal while there is still business before the district court.

They can't appeal while there is a pending motion for reconsideration. Once that is ruled upon, the time for appeal starts to tick.

 

[esqappellate]

If DC puts out a law the judge doesn't like can he stay it pending plaintiff appeal?

Again, it probably would take a new suit. If filed, the court can, upon motion, issue a preliminary injunction. Folks need to understand the role of courts. They don't sit as roving adjudicators. They can only hear challenges brought to them by proper parties with standing to complain.

 

[swinokur]

Did the judge rule on the request for reconsideration by his denial? If so has the request for reconsideration been adjuducated and is DC now free to appeal within 30 days?