Wrenn PI Granted (DC Shall Issue)

[tcfan]

I am amazed!!!

 

[Boxcab]

They can use a circuit decision to override a SC decision?

As long as the SC refuses to smack them down... Yes.





.

 

[press1280]

As long as the SC refuses to smack them down... Yes.





.

This is turning into what happened after the US v. Miller case, which in and of itself was a very limited judgement. However right after the circuits ran with the "collective right" theory for decades, a theory not present in Miller. It got to the point where it was almost accepted by all until scholarly research gave momentum to the individual rights interpretation culminating in Heller.

 

[press1280]

http://ia600206.us.archive.org/33/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.170040/gov.uscourts.dcd.170040.59.0.pdf

So I guess they're appealing but asking for a stay in the District court? Not sure how this works exactly.

 

[esqappellate]

I hope he does not feel like he was to do that because the NRA might in their D.C. carry case. It seems a little risky to appeal a preliminary injunction because those appeals are reviewed on an abuse on discretion standard rather than on de novo review if it was review of an appeal on the merits. Recently the NRA was admonished by the Ninth in Fyock for filing a PI appeal for the obvious purpose of getting early appellate review. However if I were him I'd be worried that the NRA gets lucky and and steals his glory by taking their preliminary injunction up on appeal first.

I agree with your point that an appeal from a denial of a PI is tough, but it certainly within the ball park, especially if your theory of the case is a purely legal. As to Gura, I don't think he cares a whit that the NRA has filed a similar case. This is not about glory. I think he would be delighted if the NRA won that case -- it would make his case that much easier.

As to asking for a stay of proceedings in district court while that appeal is pending, that just makes sense. The appeal is a matter of right and it could clarify the legal standard and thus make things clearer and simplier for the trial court proceedings.

 

[HaveBlue]

Any movement?

Just checking to see if there are any new developments or dates. Anyone?

Are the Pink Pistols making progress?

Thanks!

 

[GTOGUNNER]

http://ia600206.us.archive.org/33/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.170040/gov.uscourts.dcd.170040.59.0.pdf

So I guess they're appealing but asking for a stay in the District court? Not sure how this works exactly.

Just checking to see if there are any new developments or dates. Anyone?

Are the Pink Pistols making progress?

Thanks!

The Stay of proceedings was denied 04/15/2016

 

[GTOGUNNER]

Pi day the Pink Pistols did a little foot stomping. Other than that (Intro Quoted below) nothing going on.

"The District’s response to Plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate underscores why the Court
should enter a permanent injunction without further proceedings. The District does not even argue that discovery and further briefing are necessary with respect to the historical scope of the Second Amendment right.
The District claims instead that discovery is necessary so that it may
further explore the social science literature on the link between firearms and public safety. But as Plaintiffs have already demonstrated at length, the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), make clear that the constitutionality of the District’s ban does not turn on the opinion of social scientists. Rather, the constitutionality of the ban turns on the text and history of the Second Amendment, which leave no doubt that the right to bear arms encompasses the right of a typical law-abiding citizen to carry a handgun outside the home for the purpose of self-defense.
Even if social science literature were relevant to this case, the District has failed to
establish that further proceedings are warranted. The District’s proposed areas of discovery are irrelevant to the legal question before this Court, and they seek to draw a distinction between the scope of the Second Amendment in urban and rural areas that is forbidden by binding Supreme
Court precedent. Most importantly, the District provides no analysis whatsoever, beyond
seventy-seven conclusory words in a Declaration from its counsel, about why the new evidence it wishes to present is new and not simply redundant of the hundreds of pages of briefing and appendices the District and its amici have already presented in this and related cases.
Further proceedings will do nothing but further prolong the District’s nullification of its
citizens’ Second Amendment rights. Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter a
permanent injunction now. "

 

[esqappellate]

The Stay of proceedings was denied 04/15/2016

Interesting order. And quite unusual for a court to go to this length to explain its ruling on the stay question. The judge is well within her discretion on this one. It just points out that discovery and expense is part and partial of any litigation. We can expect the same in any HQL litigation.

 

[lonzo]

i like the part where the Judge tells the plaintiffs that they are off base when talking about experts and discovery...

I think judges are off base when they keep getting paid for cases that should be ruled in less than a day.. " This violates the Constitution, the law is thrown out"...what more is there?... a system that makes sure things are drawn out...just like doctors...and both groups wonder why they are hated...

 

[Mike]

i like the part where the Judge tells the plaintiffs that they are off base when talking about experts and discovery...

I think judges are off base when they keep getting paid for cases that should be ruled in less than a day.. " This violates the Constitution, the law is thrown out"...what more is there?... a system that makes sure things are drawn out...just like doctors...and both groups wonder why they are hated...

Martin Luther King, Jr. "Justice too long delayed is justice denied."

The slow-moving judges need a good swift kick in the rear end

 

[press1280]

Gura has asked the DC Circuit to stay the District Court proceedings: http://blog.californiarighttocarry....enn-plaintiffs-emergency-motion-on-appeal.pdf

 

[wjackcooper]

Thank you for posting, looks to me like another great job by a lawyer who is at the very top of the game. Hats off to Mr. Alan Gura!

Regards
Jack

 

[kcbrown]

From the emergency motion:

Notwithstanding the District Court’s surprising departure from the ordinary practice, the proceedings below should be stayed.

Surprising departure?

The district court means to tear the Constitution asunder. What, then, is so surprising about its departure from the norm?

But I suppose Gura has to at least appear to be surprised here. It would not do for him to appear to believe that the very institution he is operating within is corrupt to the core.

 

[ddestruel]

in other words the ruling was written before the briefs were even submitted. its just a matter of having the right amount of time for the right experts to lay out enough BS to unravel and contort things in the direction it should have gone in the first place..... following the 2nd CA’s route

 

[wjackcooper]

From the emergency motion:



Surprising departure?

The district court means to tear the Constitution asunder. What, then, is so surprising about its departure from the norm?

But I suppose Gura has to at least appear to be surprised here. It would not do for him to appear to believe that the very institution he is operating within is corrupt to the core.

Astute commentary and a good catch, or so it seems to me.

“Surprising departure,” in the context of this motion, is legalize for totally unwarranted . . . nothing to be gained here by Gura's being held in open contempt of court.

Regards
Jack

 

[esqappellate]

Gura has asked the DC Circuit to stay the District Court proceedings: http://blog.californiarighttocarry....enn-plaintiffs-emergency-motion-on-appeal.pdf

That motion for a stay was denied yesterday by a vote of 2/1. Clerk was directed to schedule argument on an expedited basis in September.

 

[press1280]

That motion for a stay was denied yesterday by a vote of 2/1. Clerk was directed to schedule argument on an expedited basis in September.

Same 3 judges who sent this case back to the district court?

 

[Elliotte]

Same 3 judges who sent this case back to the district court?

Should be. Even when it comes back after the District Court is done those same 3 judges should get it again I think.

 

[wolfwood]

I think the pi aapeal will be mooted by a ruling on the merits unless the panel rules quick