Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Palmer files a motion for a Permanent Injunction against the new DC carry law.

  1. #1
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463

    Thumbs up Palmer files a motion for a Permanent Injunction against the new DC carry law.

    I was wondering what Gura was going to do with the new may-issue law enacted by the D.C., city council. Now we know. Here are links to the: Motion for a Permanent Injunction, Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion, Exhibit A – The new law, and the Proposed Order.



    Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don't carry a purse. Besides, Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution, concealed carry can be prohibited.

    "[A] right to carry arms openly: "This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations."" District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2809.

    "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues." District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2816.

    "We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller." McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill., 130 S. Ct. 3020 - Supreme Court (2010) at 3050.

    "[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms (art. 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons..." Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 US 275 - Supreme Court (1897) at 282


    Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

  2. #2
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Motion enable vs. infringe

    The motion was poorly crafted. It requires DC to pass a law that enables the right to bear arms. It should be worded that the law must not infringe upon the right to bear arms.

    Why? In a constitutional world we do not need the city city council from the federal district to enable us to exercise the right. We do want the court to do is bar the council from unconstitutional infringement of the incorporated right to bear arms.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Washington, DC USA
    Posts
    175
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    The motion was poorly crafted. It requires DC to pass a law that enables the right to bear arms. It should be worded that the law must not infringe upon the right to bear arms.

    Why? In a constitutional world we do not need the city city council from the federal district to enable us to exercise the right. We do want the court to do is bar the council from unconstitutional infringement of the incorporated right to bear arms.
    DC doesn't consider it to be a natural right affirmed by the Second Amendment so they don't consider what they're doing to be an infringement. In the injunction they were ordered to write constitutional law with carrying for self defense allowed. As expected they wrote an extremely restrictive may issue law which is even more restrictive than the one they had in place before they banned Chief Lanier from issuing permits.

    They're not impressed by words because they consider the 2A to be outdated and irrelevent.

  4. #4
    Activist Member swinokur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Montgomery County, MD
    Posts
    984
    Quote Originally Posted by Toymaker View Post

    They're not impressed by words because they consider the 2A to be outdated and irrelevant.
    Especially the criminals who ignore all the gun laws anyway.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974
    It will be quite interesting to see how this plays out in the judicial system.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Washington, DC USA
    Posts
    175
    Quote Originally Posted by swinokur View Post
    Especially the criminals who ignore all the gun laws anyway.
    At least you'll find some criminals who'll admit that there's a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms even if they know very little about the Bill Of Rights and the history behind it. DC's local politicians are worst than criminals. They're a bunch of corrupt tyrannts who got into office by duping a mostly ignorant and poorly educated population into voting for them. The only thing a tyrannt understands is force. The only way the DC council and mayor ever act to even moderately comply to any 2A laws is when Congress threatens to spank their rear ends for resisting to a court order.

    The US Attorney's Office is constantly investigating various council members, the mayor and their staff for corruption. Several of them have been charged and convicted of various ethics violations and others are currently under investigation. That should give you some type of insight into why they absolutely refuse to even entertain the thought of allowing law abiding citizens to legally carry firearms.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
    Posts
    408
    Quote Originally Posted by California Right To Carry View Post
    I was wondering what Gura was going to do with the new may-issue law enacted by the D.C., city council. Now we know. Here are links to the: Motion for a Permanent Injunction, Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion, Exhibit A – The new law, and the Proposed Order.



    Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don't carry a purse. Besides, Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution, concealed carry can be prohibited.

    "[A] right to carry arms openly: "This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations."" District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2809.

    "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues." District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2816.

    "We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller." McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill., 130 S. Ct. 3020 - Supreme Court (2010) at 3050.

    "[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms (art. 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons..." Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 US 275 - Supreme Court (1897) at 282


    Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org
    Won't get any court to enforce OC (licensed or not) on DC because they don't want to make too many waves.

  8. #8
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
    Won't get any court to enforce OC (licensed or not) on DC because they don't want to make too many waves.
    We'll never know because one thing is certain, none of the so called gun-rights groups is going to bring a lawsuit seeking Open Carry.

  9. #9
    Activist Member swinokur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Montgomery County, MD
    Posts
    984
    here's DC reply to Gura's request

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
    Posts
    408
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    The motion was poorly crafted. It requires DC to pass a law that enables the right to bear arms. It should be worded that the law must not infringe upon the right to bear arms.

    Why? In a constitutional world we do not need the city city council from the federal district to enable us to exercise the right. We do want the court to do is bar the council from unconstitutional infringement of the incorporated right to bear arms.
    I think that's what was asked for-basically shall-issue or the DC Code (carrying w/o a permit) declared unenforceable. The original complaint asked specified "All who desire" to carry under existing conditions.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974
    Reading the Motion and Response the arrogance of DC officials as well as their contempt for citizens is overwhelming. I hope the court smacks them down with extreme prejudice.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  12. #12
    Activist Member swinokur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Montgomery County, MD
    Posts
    984
    From Maryland Shooters forum

    SAF filed their Reply Brief (in response to DC's opposition) to the Motion for Permanent Injunction yesterday.

    They're calling in the 4 Plaintiffs. Each has a separate declaration attached to this Reply Brief. All are 3 pages. only downloaded Tom Palmer's.

    Palmer, in his declaration (74-3), is unable to get his permit under the new scheme as he can't answer the justification question (good reason WITH substantiating evidence).

    Oh...,"The new law is not new"...
    Last edited by swinokur; 10-31-2014 at 10:37 AM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463

    Full Palmer v. DC Reply Brief Zip File - Dkt No. 74

    Quote Originally Posted by swinokur View Post
    From Maryland Shooters forum

    SAF filed their Reply Brief (in response to DC's opposition) to the Motion for Permanent Injunction yesterday.

    They're calling in the 4 Plaintiffs. Each has a separate declaration attached to this Reply Brief. All are 3 pages. only downloaded Tom Palmer's.

    Palmer, in his declaration (74-3), is unable to get his permit under the new scheme as he can't answer the justification question (good reason WITH substantiating evidence).

    Oh...,"The new law is not new"...
    Thanks. I had checked the docket late yesterday afternoon/early evening and it hadn't yet been posted. I've placed the entire brief into a zip file which can be downloaded for free at my website under today's (October 31st) Update at my website.
    Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don't carry a purse.

    Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

  14. #14
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279
    Gura is awesome!

    One of the best segments of his brief is on page 20 (of the brief, not the pdf) where he describes, with complete accuracy, what the defendants (D.C.) attempt to do.

    D.C. has argued that they have fulfilled the court's requirement by enacting "may issue" licensing requirements and any injunctions against them require an entirely new case.

    To which Gura replies:


    One can readily see why a replacement statute must not “differ[] only in some insignificant
    respect” from the enjoined statute. Today, one needs “good reason” to exercise the right. When that
    falls by the wayside, perhaps after another decade of litigation, the application fee would be raised to
    a million dollars. A decade later, only ambidextrous people can safely carry guns. A decade after
    that, Olympic medal marksmanship might be demanded. The list of “new laws” is bounded only by
    Defendants’ imagination. Each time, supposedly, exhaustion and litigation would be required anew,
    but generations of plaintiffs would ever enjoy a meaningful right.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
    Posts
    408
    Quote Originally Posted by swinokur View Post
    From Maryland Shooters forum

    SAF filed their Reply Brief (in response to DC's opposition) to the Motion for Permanent Injunction yesterday.

    They're calling in the 4 Plaintiffs. Each has a separate declaration attached to this Reply Brief. All are 3 pages. only downloaded Tom Palmer's.

    Palmer, in his declaration (74-3), is unable to get his permit under the new scheme as he can't answer the justification question (good reason WITH substantiating evidence).

    Oh...,"The new law is not new"...
    It's very good, and explains why the District Court can smack this "new law" down, instead of having to have a new lawsuit filed. Think about it, if a new lawsuit needed to be filed for every slight change in the law, then DC could effectively outrun any meaningful attempt at carry. DC's actions clearly show they have no intention of obeying the court's order. Their strategy here is to not attempt giving "proper cause(or whatever DC's equivalent wording is)" the time of day; instead show that a normal person can't comply and it's an illegal requirement.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279
    Gura is playing D.C. like a fiddle.

    It makes a person wonder if he has been prepared (with full intent) to address "may issue" all along? Do you think he might have expected Illinois to go "may issue" and readied himself to destroy the argument, only to have the issue mooted by Illinois passing shall issue?

    Look at Palmer's brief. Not only does he address the fact that D.C.'s new, old law fails to redress his grievance, he also brilliantly illustrates he has previously, and responsibly enjoyed this right and that D.C. has removed it. They can hardly argue they are preventing harm by taking caution in permit issue since Palmer has demonstrated his previous responsible behavior.

    Brilliant!

    Thanks, D.C., for handing a fully prepared Gura the opportunity to dismantle "may issue", nationwide, NOW...

    ...instead of passing "shall issue" and letting it remain unresolved until some other attorney can get some other case before a court possibly decades from now.

  17. #17
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by Superlite27 View Post
    Gura is awesome!
    What an odd thing to say about someone who has traveled around the Federal Circuits arguing that Open Carry can be banned.
    Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don't carry a purse.

    Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

  18. #18
    Activist Member swinokur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Montgomery County, MD
    Posts
    984
    Scullin's written order on reconsideration.

    denied.

    Next up Nov 20th hearing on PI.

    Dc's window to appeal around Dec 6
    Last edited by swinokur; 11-07-2014 at 04:56 PM.

  19. #19
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by swinokur View Post
    Dc's window to appeal around Dec 6
    DC has to file its notice of appeal within 30 days from the denial of the motion for reconsideration. That 30 day clock started ticking when Judge Scullin denied the motion on October 17th. The document you posted is his reasoning for denying the motion, not the denial of the motion.

    DC will be forced to file its notice prior to the hearing on the motion for a Permanent Injunction. If it doesn't then it forfeits its right to appeal and the District will have, in effect, thrown itself upon the mercy of the court.

    Granted, there is some confusion because Judge Scullin in this document once again denies the motion for reconsideration. I suspect that the District is not going to risk losing its right to appeal by making a procedural judgment that the clock started ticking today.

    "On October 17, 2014, the Court heard oral argument in support of and in opposition to that motion; and, at the conclusion of the parties' arguments, the Court issued an oral order denying the motion. See Minute Entry dated October 17, 2014."
    Last edited by California Right To Carry; 11-07-2014 at 05:42 PM.
    Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don't carry a purse.

    Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

  20. #20
    Activist Member swinokur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Montgomery County, MD
    Posts
    984
    even better then

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •