D.C. announces intent to make permitting system “as restrictive as possible”

Yes, but with people who have no intention of doing so, how does one move from acceptance of a licensing system to pushing for recognition of a RIGHT? (in or out of court)

Click to expand...

Grapeshot said:

Become active by joining and supporting local organizations like VCDL and national orgs such as SAF, GOA, JPFO.

Add to that to lobby your legislature and educate the public.

Click to expand...

Already done, but that wasn't my point - with people like Gura who seems bent on accepting licensing a RIGHT, how do we persuade such "luminaries" that they need to fight for more?

Gura and others are sending the wrong message, IMHO, that 1) carrying guns ought to be done solely for self-defense, and 2) licensing is acceptable. Those are the things to change - and since according to many the NRA accepts licensing a right (or speaks out of both sides of its mouth about OC), what can we really do?

Hit the freaking lottery and spend all that money on hiring Gura to reject a 90 stay. He had constitutional carry in DC handed to him on a silver platter it seems...though, I am no legal beagle.

BB62 said:

Hmmm. How do you explain his apparent acceptance of turning a RIGHT into a privilege? (in Woollard, Moore v Madigan, and this case)

I've been in contact with another person who has known him over the years who said "He’s always been a little weak on the licensing thing. I remember that from DC v Heller", so you'll pardon me if I don't swoon at your interpretation of how "pro gun" he is.

Click to expand...

Gura is a realist, not an idealist. He is very good for gun owners because he is a realist with a great legal strategy.

Regulation, though I detest it, is a reality. Heller says so, MacDonald says so.

Gura fights for the basics, then after he wins fundamental right status he fights for an appropriate standard of review. What that means is he fights very hard for an equivalency between the 1st and 2nd A.

Anti-s have been somewhat successful in using the 2A 2 step - getting courts to identify rights as less than the core, which receives strict scrutiny - the highest level- then declaring that the next level - intermediate is met by almost any law.

This case goes a long way to killing the 2A 2 step. Unequivocal identification of a fundamental right to carry outside of the home is a huge victory if Gura can hang on to it in the Circuit Court appeal.

Read any of Gura's briefs. They are not timid or retreating in nature. They are very well reasoned. He builds arguments upon previous favorable rulings and condemns outright unfavorable rulings. He provides almost irresistible arguments for all except the most totalitarian statists in black robes. He is the one we want carrying the argument in the DC Circuit and in the Supreme Court.

Gura will fight DC's motion to stay, have no doubt. If you want to see how it will probably go read Woolard, and expect a similar District Court decision in this case.

Know that the big battle will be in the circuit court. (If DC were smart they would not appeal, but their politicians are dumber than a box of rocks - I believe they will appeal.) Appellate court work is where Gura is a wizard. He uses all of the bill of rights to defend gun rights. He plays the long game, and he plays to win.

BB62 said:

Hmmm. How do you explain his apparent acceptance of turning a RIGHT into a privilege? (in Woollard, Moore v Madigan, and this case)

I've been in contact with another person who has known him over the years who said "He’s always been a little weak on the licensing thing. I remember that from DC v Heller", so you'll pardon me if I don't swoon at your interpretation of how "pro gun" he is.

Click to expand...

It would appear that Gura is pro privilege, and pro money, not pro second amendment. The second amendment is not licensing!

But then a ruling that would bring constitutional carry closer to nationwide would mean his lawyer skills find a new venue. It would also reduce the ranks of many pro privilege organizations. It would not however harm pro liberty organizations because there is plenty of liberty issues besides the right to bear arms. Getting RKBA returned in the manner it was written for would help considerably with the other rights being encroached upon.

He accepted the 90 day stay because if he did not, DC would simply have appealed to the next higher level and probably got something worse.

In other words, if he had done what so many ignoramuses have urged, and refused to accept the 90 day stay, we'd have a 180 day stay granted by a court that will be only too happy to continue extending it, instead of a 90 day stay issued by a judge that probably won't take any weaseling from DC on day 89.

Tactics, folks, tactics!

But no, any sort of tactical accommodation that improves our situation is, to so many here, an utterly unacceptable compromise. DC will almost certainly have to issue permits as a result of this. As opposed to completely banning any sort of carry whatsoever.

The lack of any sort of sense whatsoever, again displayed by the usual suspects, is appalling.

Thundar said:

Gura is a realist, not an idealist. He is very good for gun owners because he is a realist with a great legal strategy...

Click to expand...

You can say nice things about him all you want, but there has been no further pursuit of Woollard or Moore v Madigan, and his "fighting" the stay in this case never happened.

In addition, I note that you didn't take issue with the quote I supplied ("He’s always been a little weak on the licensing thing. I remember that from DC v Heller").

If DC turns into another Illinois (and I fully expect it to), and goes without severe challenge, my conclusion will be unassailable.

SCOTUS denied CERT in Woolard. Gura can't do any more. Didn't IL comply and start issuing permits?

swinokur said:

If DC continues to delay, obfuscate the issues and evade the ruling, it just makes the case for National reciprocity stronger IMO.

What better stage than right in front of Congress?

Click to expand...

That's only a step forward for those in possession of government permission slips, and it has nothing to do with the RKBA.

Permits are for subjects. Period.

If we get "national reciprocity" for all you eager permission-seekers before we get the Heller-implied right to unlicensed open carry, then my faith in the process reverts to zero.

SteveInCO said:

He accepted the 90 day stay because if he did not, DC would simply have appealed to the next higher level and probably got something worse.

Click to expand...

Like when DC appealed the Parker decision and we got Heller?

My own conclusion is that Gura is a capable and persuasive litigator, but that he long ago decided not to put those talents towards Constitutional Carry, being apparently quite satisfied with being allowed to ask for [strike]another[/strike] permission from the beneficent state.

marshaul said:

Like when DC appealed the Parker decision and we got Heller?

My own conclusion is that Gura is a capable and persuasive litigator, but that he long ago decided not to put those talents towards Constitutional Carry, being apparently quite satisfied with being allowed to ask for [strike]another[/strike] permission from the beneficent state.

Click to expand...

You totally misunderstood me. Probably my fault.

DC will appeal the overall ruling regardless (as you are aware); that could lead to almost any result in today's climate. But the argument here on this thread is over whether Gura not contesting the stay is somehow an indication he's an anti-.

I meant to say that had the judge denied the stay, DC would have appealed to a higher court for a stay. Under case law the request for a stay is considered entirely reasonable (even though we know it's not, in this case), and that higher court would have overcompensated for what they perceived to be the lower judge's obstinacy, probably granted a 180 day stay and extended it as often as DC wanted them to. This way DC has much less of a leg to stand on should they want more time; the judge granted a stay, so there's nothing for them to appeal here, and they fumbled around and wasted the time.

Permits may be for subjects, but this is the real world. It's all we're gonna get for the near future IMO.. The courts have held repeatedly that some form of regulation is not unconstitutional. While some might not agree with it, it's what we have. Holding out for more and accepting nothing is just a waste of time IMO. We should take baby steps as Grape has outlined, not reject it because we didn't get the whole enchilada in one fell swoop. That's not gonna happen IMO

YMMV of course.

As to Gura and if he is or is not pro Privilege or pro RKBA----

Just maybe he is arguing the cases he does AS HIS CLIENTS DESIRE!

I don't know either way, but I do believe this COULD be the case!

Gura is no anti. He is however vested in the legal process. When he wins a case based on the merits and gets a judge to say out loud what we all know to be true, then the brass ring is right there for the grabbing. In this case we missed the brass ring and yet again await the turning of the carrousel to bring us to another opportunity at the brass ring. I hope the ride don't end before the brass ring comes within reach.

Constitutional Carry is a battle that's going to have to be restored at the state level, one by one, at this point in RKBA history. We have seen the positive trend, and we need to keep it up, but the courts are not going to be the source of that restoration any time soon, and no amount of pounding fists insisting it be so "right now" is going to convince courts, or the sheeple. A good number of the states will need to get onboard with it to win enough hearts and minds to make it happen.

For now, these court wins are shifting hearts and minds around the country for support of "carry", period.

Do you really think that if only 10% of the states actually allowed carry at all, the courts would have come to the favorable rulings that they have so far? Not even. It’s a process of making "new norms" in the minds of the sheeple, then advancing the norm, wait, and advance it some more.

Pure RKBA wasn’t eroded in just a decade, and it wont be restored in just a decade either. As others have said, baby steps will be required, it sucks, but its a reality.

Gura is playing the long game, in a way that he sees he can win, calculating the least chance of catastrophic failure. So far hes doing a pretty damn good job in a very hostile environment.

So, give the man the credit hes due, and if someone thinks they can go do it better and faster, go and have at it, just be careful not to loose.

I see it going down like this over the next many many years...
1. Normalize "carry" in its various forms as the law of the land in all states & DC (almost there)
2. Normalize a "shall issue" standard as the law of the land (which it almost is)
3. Normalize national reciprocity as the natural extension of these "shall issue" laws (full faith and credit)
4. Push Constitutional Carry on a state by state basis until it becomes the typical model
5. Use the new "typical model" as the arguing point in the courts to force the hand of the hold-out states

The country is like a donkey, push too fast and\or in the wrong direction, and you're going to get kicked in the head. The key is making the donkey "feel" that the speed and direction you want it to go is the most natural thing in the world. This goes for the Sheeple too.

The road to gun control is and always has been paved with compromise.

WalkingWolf said:

The road to gun control is and always has been paved with compromise.

Click to expand...

How utterly obtuse can a guy be? Do you not understand that DC is better off than it was before?

Regardless of whether a stay was granted DC would simply have passed a new law. One better than the old one. Oh, but "the road to gun control is paved with compromise." Can't you see that this time they had to compromise with us?

OC for ME said:

Gura is no anti. He is however vested in the legal process. When he wins a case based on the merits and gets a judge to say out loud what we all know to be true, then the brass ring is right there for the grabbing. In this case we missed the brass ring and yet again await the turning of the carrousel to bring us to another opportunity at the brass ring. I hope the ride don't end before the brass ring comes within reach.

Click to expand...

Brass ring like sonic?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

SteveInCO said:

How utterly obtuse can a guy be? Do you not understand that DC is better off than it was before?

Regardless of whether a stay was granted DC would simply have passed a new law. One better than the old one. Oh, but "the road to gun control is paved with compromise." Can't you see that this time they had to compromise with us?

Click to expand...

OP, at this point in time and in the foreseeable future, can the citizens of DC carry within their community? s

imple question isn't it, kinda like going to McD's: " for here or to go ?"

the answer is NO!

so please explain how they are better off then before?

please explain how we comprised with them?

OC4ME has the concept as the shiny brass ring begins to tarnish.

ipse

WalkingWolf said:

The road to gun control is and always has been paved with compromise.

Click to expand...

Quoted as the simple unvarnished truth because compromise is the reason we have all the gun control laws that are on the books now.

SteveInCO said:

How utterly obtuse can a guy be? Do you not understand that DC is better off than it was before?

Regardless of whether a stay was granted DC would simply have passed a new law. One better than the old one. Oh, but "the road to gun control is paved with compromise." Can't you see that this time they had to compromise with us?

Click to expand...

LOL.....sure so maybe in a 1000 years they'll finally get around to the shall not be infringed part......