Wrenn PI Granted (DC Shall Issue)

[swamplynx]

I meant MPDC can delay applications for 180 days


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This also gets interesting regarding the injured parties, if a stay isn’t granted by SCOTUS. DC law requires MPD to fully adjudicate applications, completing the background checks, etc., even if they know they are going to just deny you on G&S at the end. Since all of the complainants have fully adjudicated applications it wouldn’t be unreasonable for a judge to order the District to grant those permits, and hopefully also anyone else similarly sitiuated, or at least previously denied SAF or Pink Pistol members. After Wrenn round one, DC just said you can reapply for free. I personally think that is ******** and they should be compelled to issue a permit immediately to anyone who has applied and was denied on G&S alone.

 

[swinokur]

Apparently he’s not gone be on. Bummer


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[esqappellate]

So what are the possibilities of a stay of next week's mandate in the meantime? I hear they are sitting on a LOT of applications. Can any judge or SCOTUS issue a stay, and allow DC with that 90 day approval effectively block those, and what at the considerations on that?

The procedure is for the losing party to ask the court of appeals for a stay of mandate pending the filing of a petition for cert. under Rule 41 FRAP. Very common and probably would be granted in this case. They have to do that fast though as the mandate will be issued in 7 days and that stay is only for 90 days or until the SCT acts on the petition, if filed. Generally considered bad form to file that motion unless you really intend to seek cert. If that is denied by the court of appeals, the losing party may ask the SCT to grant a stay.

 

[wjackcooper]

From news provided by the Second Amendment Foundation: “not a single judge on the court requested a hearing.”

From the Volokh Conspiracy: “Instead of affirming the right to carry in public, the court linked arms and quickly took a knee. Draw what conclusions you will.”

My conclusions:

The denial of a rehearing was not on the merits as perceived by Henderson and the Democrats. None of these judges is apt to have agreed with the lower court. Their game plan appears to be . . . get this case before the Supreme Court while their anti Second Amendment views might still prevail. Look for our adversaries to proceed on an expedited basis . . . if they do not, the Democrat appointees on the court and Henderson have misread the situation and / or had faulty inside information.

Regards
Jack

 

[CurlyDave]

...From the Volokh Conspiracy: “Instead of affirming the right to carry in public, the court linked arms and quickly took a knee. Draw what conclusions you will.”...

As much as I like Eugene, I think he is wrong on this point. The court had already affirmed the right to carry in public. What purpose would be served by reviewing and affirming a decision already made? Especially when there was not even enough support for further review to even write a dissent.

Does anyone else think the Volokh Conspiracy seems to have become more liberal over the years?

 

[motorcoachdoug]

All i know is that i have already taken the DC Class with the MD One as well. Will be applying unless they appeal for cert and request a stay.

 

[wjackcooper]

“Especially when there was not even enough support for further review to even write a dissent.” Seems to me to be an indication that the decision was to expedite the case.

Regards
Jack

 

[swinokur]

Remember training is only good for 2 years,including the law course. One of our trainers has agreed to reteach the law portion ONCE


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Peaceful John]

“Especially when there was not even enough support for further review to even write a dissent.” Seems to me to be an indication that the decision was to expedite the case.

Can't two play that game? Have we no options?

The matter doesn't need to be delayed very long, if J. Kennedy remembers his promise to retire at the end of the 2017 session. One more conservative Justice and our hopes elevate.

And didn't EsqAppellate mention that orals would need to be heard prior to mid-January for the Court to decide the matter this session? That could be done, but it's already October. It would not take much on our behalf to push the orals into February or possibly even March. If that happened, and if J. Kennedy honors his word, the Court would be very different next year.

J. Ginsberg was born in 1933 and J. Breyer in 1938. The drum beats.

 

[rbird7282]

AFAIK, DC has a legal right to prohibit them.

stupid? yes?

It's DC, MD's ugly assed sister.

What I find astonishing is that government can simply redefine what a word means in the English language. When D.C. Says ammunition means any cartridge, case, bullet, yada, yada, yada...when it clearly does not mean that. Even worse, they actually prosecuted somebody with it.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rascal]

J. Ginsberg was born in 1933 and J. Breyer in 1938..

Yeah I thought so too initially, but looking at the stats, Ginsburg, has 7.5 years more to go in life expectancy on average, and since she almost certainly has access to higher level health care than average and probably has never smoked, perhaps a couple more. Breyer would have ten more years. I don't see either of them retiring while a GOP president can replace them.

The actuary tables over the short, mid and long term are actually favorable to the Democrats on the court. There is even a chance we may lose the Senate, a slim chance but not a slim as it was. If the Democrats get the senate, I bet they will not pass a singe Trump scotus nom for the last two years of this presidential term. Obama appointed a couple of relatively younger women, who live longer, odds are they will be there a very very long time

The matter doesn't need to be delayed very long, if J. Kennedy remembers his promise to retire at the end of the 2017 session. One more conservative Justice and our hopes elevate...

Agreed. Really if timing is a factor in this case, the one that matters is Kennedy. Either it get's denied cert, or makes it onto the current docket with the current court, or we get the advantage of a chance he will retire and be replaced by trump.

 

[CurlyDave]

The life expectancy of an 84 yo woman is 7.4 years, a 79 yo man is 8.6 years.

 

[rascal]

The procedure is for the losing party to ask the court of appeals for a stay of mandate pending the filing of a petition for cert. under Rule 41 FRAP. Very common and probably would be granted in this case. They have to do that fast though as the mandate will be issued in 7 days and that stay is only for 90 days or until the SCT acts on the petition, if filed. Generally considered bad form to file that motion unless you really intend to seek cert. If that is denied by the court of appeals, the losing party may ask the SCT to grant a stay.

Thanks. So it is likely that they would get a stay even though this makes several losses in a row on this? And DC MPD can deny any applications lacking provable G/R for a year if the docket or other timing pushes it to next term?

I think it would be helpful for us to have some practical advice as to the procedural/timing implications I want to recommend to several friends to apply. Already I have serious doubts as to current validity of the "under 600 applications as of july." I wonder if that is an answer to the press question in july reflecting an earlier period, moreover, I would think a lot of applications came in after late july panel decision. I gave sp/rs a call and for what it is worth he indicated his classes have been full up.

For example

pros/cons of taking classes now, and applying now declining to assert good cause.

pros and cons of waiting a week to see maneuvers related

pros and cons of waiting to see if cert or cert is granted and for which term.

pros/cons of not turning in good cause form, or turning it signed and blank, or singed and citing the decision,

I see there is a ten day limit on appeal, but what I do not see is anything in the code or emergency rulemaking on re-application based on material changes to either a persons life or court decisions. (lets leave the $75 downside out as this is not a significant portion of expenses). I mean presumably if you were declined and then a year later you had two documented MS13 threats including one where they shot at you, the answer can't be: "sorry you applied once, and that is it." So what is path for people who maybe declined before a possible denial of cert or SCOTUS affirmation?

In terms of expiration of training, would not a reapplication training be the more truncated 4 hours safety plus two hours range that is sufficient for renewal? My guess is if that is the case we would see the dozen trainers offer that package an appropriate rate.

Not asking that anyone promulgate a formal decision tree, but rather that informal thoughts might be shared for everyone's benefit on timing and tactics for non good cause people. I've helped about a dozen friends get firearms. You may now how it is, they are certain it is impossible and with bit of guidance on the allowed list, what they will need for sykes, the online test, they at generally surprised at it being easier than they thought.

 

[rascal]

The life expectancy of an 84 yo woman is 7.4 years, a 79 yo man is 8.6 years.

it is 9.3 more years for a male born August 15 1938 on the latest calculators.
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/population/longevity.html
he probably has at least two years over that given pictures of him young show him fit and I don't see any smoking. obese people, smokers, and people who do not exercise are in those averages. he also certainly has access to better the average health care which is a supported presumption for a member of the supreme court.

 

[rascal]

It’s even dumber in DC, which criminalizes possession of even a spent .22 rimfire case. Hard to reuse one of those, after the rim has been crushed by the firing pin. That reality escapes DC, or more likely, it doesn’t care.

And ironically is is the "good cause" for getting a carry permit... some additional protection against insane laws designed to put law abiding citizens at risk of felonies!

Reason for application: Because you will arrest me for spent brass

 

[wjackcooper]

Peaceful John wrote:

“Can't two play that game? Have we no options?”

Sure, look for Gura to delay as much as is reasonably feasible in the hope that the composition of the Supreme Court changes. His joining in the request for cert is not going to speed up the operation of the rules, on the other hand under the rules he can take the maximum times allocated as well as apply for extensions of time.

In the meantime he is sitting on a win.

Regards
Jack

 

[Peaceful John]

Jack,

My fault. I wasn't clear. The intent of the opening two questions was to suggest that we indeed have delaying options.

 

[swinokur]

Another option MPDC might use for original denials is telling denied applicants to go to the appeals board rather than just allowing you to reapply with your original reasons. That process is at least codified. They can drag that out for another year and MPDC doesn't get an increased workload of reviewing applicants with already denied applications.

Just musing.

 

[press1280]

“Especially when there was not even enough support for further review to even write a dissent.” Seems to me to be an indication that the decision was to expedite the case.

Regards
Jack

A wild guess is that DC and the dissent (Henderson) went so hard core that the other circuit judges didn't want to go there.
Even though Henderson is a reject when it comes to 2A cases, she does hold firm on the circuit's precedent to not go en banc.

 

[danb]

I don't see any advantage to either side delaying hoping for a better court composition. There's only nine justices who know their retirement plan, and they aren't telling. There's no guarantee the next Supreme Court Justice will be better or worse than Kennedy. At best, its a coin flip.

The only advantage of more time is that it gives one more time to polish the argument. Anything I've ever written I take the maximum possible time, regardless of who's reading it.