Wrenn PI Granted (DC Shall Issue)

[Elliotte]

With the outcome likely in hand for the DC District level, how likely do folks think it is for the DC Circuit to GVR the eventual ruling like the 4th did?

Also, does anyone know if there's a judge on the DC District who could have been a worse choice? It almost seems too bad to be true that a pro-gun ruling at the District level is overturned on a murky technicality. Then the case is given to a different judge who just so happens to be the political polar opposite of the first judge when it comes to gun rights/

 

[JC92]

With the outcome likely in hand for the DC District level, how likely do folks think it is for the DC Circuit to GVR the eventual ruling like the 4th did?

Also, does anyone know if there's a judge on the DC District who could have been a worse choice? It almost seems too bad to be true that a pro-gun ruling at the District level is overturned on a murky technicality. Then the case is given to a different judge who just so happens to be the political polar opposite of the first judge when it comes to gun rights/

The choice of this judge must have been by design. The best that we can hope for is a quick denial and reasoning that is just as flawed as this judge's anti-gun, irrational thinking.

 

[Boxcab]

Never stop the enemy when they are making a mistake.

Lets hope this new judge goes real "Anti-gun stupid", making a ruling on "Feelings" and not facts. This will make the appeals process so much easier. No need to waste time in the lower courts.



.

 

[esqappellate]

So back to the DC Circuit we go.

It is a mistake to give up so soon. She is not a crazy judge. She vacated her injunction after Congress acted and dismissed the case. See attached.

 

[press1280]

It is a mistake to give up so soon. She is not a crazy judge. She vacated her injunction after Congress acted and dismissed the case. See attached.

Does it really matter? We know this thing ain't ending in the district court.

 

[esqappellate]

Does it really matter? We know this thing ain't ending in the district court.

It always matters what the district court does. That court is the fact finder.

 

[Southwest Chuck]

Lets hope this new judge goes real "Anti-gun stupid", making a ruling on "Feelings" and not facts. This will make the appeals process so much easier. No need to waste time in the lower courts.



.

Yeah, that worked out well in Friedman, right?

 

[motorcoachdoug]

Two things
1) Does anyone remember saying that DC wanted to go judge shopping for this and

2)what is the time line on this before it is heard by her?

 

[Boxcab]

Yeah, that worked out well in Friedman, right?

See Kolbe.



.

 

[JC92]

It is a mistake to give up so soon. She is not a crazy judge. She vacated her injunction after Congress acted and dismissed the case. See attached.

She issued an injunction against carrying firearms in National Parks to allow for an "Environmental Impact Study". I think this validates that she is crazy.

 

[wolfwood]

I don't think she is a crazy judge but as is she has 3 circuits to cite to as to why the law should be upheld.

 

[Master_P]

Despite having his opinion vacated, does the fact that Scullin issued a PI carry any weight whatsoever?

Meaning, if there is an extremely high bar to attain a PI against the government for violating the Constitution, and one judge issues a PI, then it should raise a lot of questions if a different judge reached a *grotesquely* different conclusion from the same set of plaintiffs, facts, and law.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

 

[GTOGUNNER]

Despite having his opinion vacated, does the fact that Scullin issued a PI carry any weight whatsoever?

Meaning, if there is an extremely high bar to attain a PI against the government for violating the Constitution, and one judge issues a PI, then it should raise a lot of questions if a different judge reached a *grotesquely* different conclusion from the same set of plaintiffs, facts, and law.

You trying to put Lawyers out of business?

 

[esqappellate]

Despite having his opinion vacated, does the fact that Scullin issued a PI carry any weight whatsoever?

Meaning, if there is an extremely high bar to attain a PI against the government for violating the Constitution, and one judge issues a PI, then it should raise a lot of questions if a different judge reached a *grotesquely* different conclusion from the same set of plaintiffs, facts, and law.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

Legally? No. But as a practical matter? Yes, if only because the new judge will feel compelled to justify any departure from the former judge's rulings. That is "some" weight. Not much, but some.

 

[esqappellate]

She issued an injunction against carrying firearms in National Parks to allow for an "Environmental Impact Study". I think this validates that she is crazy.

Oh, not really, it means only that the EIS requirements are crazy.

 

[press1280]

Legally? No. But as a practical matter? Yes, if only because the new judge will feel compelled to justify any departure from the former judge's rulings. That is "some" weight. Not much, but some.

Is Palmer of any value here?

 

[fightinbluhen51]

Is Palmer of any value here?

Yes...it's settled case law that some form of "outside the home" exists.

Intellectually honesty and application with strict scrutiny, or even a intermediate scrutiny would likely prevail (provided the first two words in this sentence are allowed to occur).

 

[gre24ene]

Yes...it's settled case law that some form of "outside the home" exists.

Intellectually honesty and application with strict scrutiny, or even a intermediate scrutiny would likely prevail (provided the first two words in this sentence are allowed to occur).

That might be tough with this court/judge

 

[esqappellate]

Yes...it's settled case law that some form of "outside the home" exists.

Intellectually honesty and application with strict scrutiny, or even a intermediate scrutiny would likely prevail (provided the first two words in this sentence are allowed to occur).

Well, *not* settled. Palmer never made it to the court of appeals because DC dismissed its appeal. So there is no binding circuit precedent. One district court decision does not bind another district court judge, even in the same court (D.D.C.). Palmer is at most binding only between the same parties (res judicata) and Wrenn was not a party to Palmer. So DC can reargue Palmer, it so chooses and the new Wrenn judge has an open slate, if she so chooses.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

Well, *not* settled. Palmer never made it to the court of appeals because DC dismissed its appeal. So there is no binding circuit precedent. One district court decision does not bind another district court judge, even in the same court (D.D.C.). Palmer is at most binding only between the same parties (res judicata) and Wrenn was not a party to Palmer. So DC can reargue Palmer, it so chooses and the new Wrenn judge has an open slate, if she so chooses.

Is Wrenn not an SAF member? Wasn't SAF named as co-plaintiff in Palmer? Thus, by extension Wrenn is covered under Palmer's injunction?