Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Palmer v. D.C. - This is why it is important to carefully write a Complaint

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

    Exclamation Palmer v. D.C. - This is why it is important to carefully write a Complaint

    Alan Gura got what he asked for in his Complaint and for the reasons given by the district here, he will have to file a new lawsuit to challenge the new law unless the judge decides that the new law does not comply with his order.


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

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Well, he could not have written a complaint complaining of a law that did not exist ...

  3. #3
    Regular Member The Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Henrico
    Posts
    2,139
    The legislation requires that applicants for a license must show “a good reason to fear injury to his or her person, which shall at a minimum require a showing of a special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community as supported by evidence of specific threats or previous attacks which demonstrate a special danger to the applicant’s life[.]”

    Doesn't seem ideal.
    Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis.

    μολὼν λαβέ

    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator
    So in actuality you have no evidence that anything wrong took place, you only believe that it could be spun to appear wrong. But it hasn't been. The truth has a funny way of coming out with persistence, even if it was spun negatively the truth would find its way because these people will not accept less.
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The truth causes some people so much pain they can only respond with impotent laughable insults. Life must be rough for those people.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by The Truth View Post
    The legislation requires that applicants for a license must show “a good reason to fear injury to his or her person, which shall at a minimum require a showing of a special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community as supported by evidence of specific threats or previous attacks which demonstrate a special danger to the applicant’s life[.]”

    Doesn't seem ideal.
    I believe that a eastern US court approved this ... hence DC council's inclusion in the law.

  5. #5
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Well, he could not have written a complaint complaining of a law that did not exist ...
    Gura didn't have to. What he did have to do is to word his Complaint in such a way that, at a minimum, judgment in his favor would have resulted in his clients being able to carry handguns. Gura made a similar mistake in Schrader v. Holder and, which you would have known had you read the brief I posted, was the same mistake the NRA made in Shepard, v. Lisa Madigan.

    Gura got what he asked for. Now he wants something different. That "something different" is now in the hands of the judge.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Washington, DC USA
    Posts
    175
    DC did exactly what they were expected to do. They wrote the most restrictive may issue law that they could have come up with. They would have done this no matter what Gura or anyone else would have asked for. The litigants entered on their applications carry for self defense outside the home and that, including constitutional carry, is what was in the injunction.

    DC doesn't want this case to go to the SCOTUS because they know that the resultant ruling will affect gun laws nationwide and at the same time they don't want to risk pushing congress too far. The ball is squarely back into Judge Scullin's court. It's up to him to call their bluff by putting them in contempt of court and forcing them to either appeal or give congress more ammunition to use against them.

    Charles, I've dealt with these people for most of my adult life. They're one of the most corrupt local governments in the country. They're also rabbid emotion driven anti-gun Brady supporters.

  7. #7
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    Quote Originally Posted by The Truth View Post
    The legislation requires that applicants for a license must show “a good reason to fear injury to his or her person, which shall at a minimum require a showing of a special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community as supported by evidence of specific threats or previous attacks which demonstrate a special danger to the applicant’s life[.]”

    Doesn't seem ideal.
    Lol. They won't issue any permits, not more than a couple. Still, no self respecting person would go through the process of owning a handgun there anyway so this whole thing is pointless.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  8. #8
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    This will go either one way or the other. The court acts on the complaint, or they have to file a whole new law suit and start from scratch. If the latter then the battle is lost. Sooner or later Scalia will retire, and Hillary will appoint a anti gun judge.

    This was the problem with the whining about Romney, yes he was the lesser of two evils. But in the case of 2A those unwilling to vote for him have allowed Obama to set up Hillary. It is only a waiting game for them that they know they will win. The 2A dies when Hillary is elected POTUS.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  9. #9
    Activist Member swinokur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Montgomery County, MD
    Posts
    984
    here's a copy of DC's reply to Gura's request for a PI. sadly, it makes some sense to me.

  10. #10
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by Toymaker View Post
    DC did exactly what they were expected to do. They wrote the most restrictive may issue law that they could have come up with. They would have done this no matter what Gura or anyone else would have asked for. The litigants entered on their applications carry for self defense outside the home and that, including constitutional carry, is what was in the injunction.
    It does not matter what the plaintiffs wrote on their applications. What matters is what Gura asked for in his Complaint. Gura got what he asked for. The only wiggle-room left is the boilerplated paragraph 6 of the Complaint which leaves any additional relief not requested in the Complaint entirely up to the judge.
    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

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by California Right To Carry View Post
    It does not matter what the plaintiffs wrote on their applications. What matters is what Gura asked for in his Complaint. Gura got what he asked for. The only wiggle-room left is the boilerplated paragraph 6 of the Complaint which leaves any additional relief not requested in the Complaint entirely up to the judge.
    Correct. The opposing side has the right to know what relief is being sought and the reasons for it.

    If you were on trial for murder and at the end of the trial the DA now asks for conviction on 4 other charges....it would also be stricken.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
    Posts
    408
    The prayer for relief asked for the DC Code to be repealed OR issue licenses to ALL who desire them who have met the EXISTING conditions and to include non-residents. He didn't just ask for a licensing system. That's quite a ways off what some are saying here. The same system was basically in place when the plaintiffs tried to apply in 2008 (prompting DC to go no-issue when this case was actually filed).
    The order: PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from enforcing D.C. Code § 22-4504(a), as amended following this Court’s judgment
    of July 29, 2014, unless and until such time as the District of Columbia adopts a licensing
    mechanism consistent with constitutional standards enabling people to exercise their Second
    Amendment right to bear arms.
    The judge must mean something by it, or else it would have been like CA7's opinion in Moore (in a nutshell just create a licensing system, nothing more).

  13. #13
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
    The prayer for relief asked for the DC Code to be repealed OR issue licenses
    "OR" does not mean "AND" which is why Gura's case now hangs on Gura's boilerplated sixth prayer for relief in his Complaint. For the reasons explained in the District's Opposition to the Permanent Injunction the case in the district court is now over. It is now up to the judge to decide whether or not he wants to go beyond the scope of the relief requested in the Complaint or simply close the case.

    It is already been pointed out by me that Gura made a similar fatal mistake in Schrader v. Holder in which the Court of Appeals admonished Gura for not challenging the law as being unconstitutional as-applied to his client. Had he done so then he very well may have won.

    Despite the district court's conclusion in my California Open Carry lawsuit, it is always permissible to bring a constitutional challenge to a law as-applied to one's client(s) while at the same time challenging the law as-applied to groups and as applied to everyone (a facial challenge).

    Face it, Gura The Boy Blunder blew it. He should have spent more time working on his Complaint and less time admiring his own reflection.


    Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org
    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
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
    Posts
    408
    Quote Originally Posted by California Right To Carry View Post
    "OR" does not mean "AND" which is why Gura's case now hangs on Gura's boilerplated sixth prayer for relief in his Complaint. For the reasons explained in the District's Opposition to the Permanent Injunction the case in the district court is now over. It is now up to the judge to decide whether or not he wants to go beyond the scope of the relief requested in the Complaint or simply close the case.

    It is already been pointed out by me that Gura made a similar fatal mistake in Schrader v. Holder in which the Court of Appeals admonished Gura for not challenging the law as being unconstitutional as-applied to his client. Had he done so then he very well may have won.

    Despite the district court's conclusion in my California Open Carry lawsuit, it is always permissible to bring a constitutional challenge to a law as-applied to one's client(s) while at the same time challenging the law as-applied to groups and as applied to everyone (a facial challenge).

    Face it, Gura The Boy Blunder blew it. He should have spent more time working on his Complaint and less time admiring his own reflection.


    Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org
    Why would he ask for both the DC Code to be struck AND a licensing scheme created? If the DC code is struck then the permits are of little use (outside of DC residents using the permit for reciprocity) and you have a de facto constitutional carry with a million no carry zones.

    Look at the judge's ruling. What does his order mean? I see at as some kind of strings attached with the licensing scheme. What I'm getting from you is that you're thinking the mere creation of a licensing scheme means the case is over?

  15. #15
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
    Why would he ask for both the DC Code to be struck AND a licensing scheme created? If the DC code is struck then the permits are of little use (outside of DC residents using the permit for reciprocity) and you have a de facto constitutional carry with a million no carry zones.
    Because Alan Gura and his master Alan Gottlieb, in addition to wanting to ban Open Carry, want to precondition the carrying of handguns on one having a concealed carry permit.

    Quote Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
    Look at the judge's ruling. What does his order mean? I see at as some kind of strings attached with the licensing scheme. What I'm getting from you is that you're thinking the mere creation of a licensing scheme means the case is over?
    You either didn't read the District's opposition to the permanent injunction or did not understand it. Regardless of whichever it was, I can't help you beyond posting these links to the two sets of oral arguments from Peterson v. Martinez which demonstrate the importance of having a well written Complaint.

    Oral Arguments of November 17, 2011.
    Oral Arguments of March 19, 2012.

    P.S. Perhaps if you posted sections of the District's argument in its Opposition to the Permanent Injunction and explained to the class why the District is wrong then perhaps others can help you.
    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

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
    Posts
    408
    Quote Originally Posted by California Right To Carry View Post
    Because Alan Gura and his master Alan Gottlieb, in addition to wanting to ban Open Carry, want to precondition the carrying of handguns on one having a concealed carry permit.



    You either didn't read the District's opposition to the permanent injunction or did not understand it. Regardless of whichever it was, I can't help you beyond posting these links to the two sets of oral arguments from Peterson v. Martinez which demonstrate the importance of having a well written Complaint.

    Oral Arguments of November 17, 2011.
    Oral Arguments of March 19, 2012.

    P.S. Perhaps if you posted sections of the District's argument in its Opposition to the Permanent Injunction and explained to the class why the District is wrong then perhaps others can help you.
    Without getting deep in the weeds I can say that the reason DC is wrong is because they claim the plaintiffs have gotten everything they asked for, which isn't true when compared to what Gura had asked for. Whether the judge sees it this way is another matter. But it would have been difficult to attack a may-issue scheme when there wasn't one in place when the lawsuit was filed.
    As far as Peterson goes the court claimed he waived the OC challenge to Denver (I believe during oral arguments), and that's what sunk him. Different animal here.

  17. #17
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463

    Post Gura files new lawsuit to compensate for Palmer v. DC mistakes

    Well, it looks like Alan Gura has realized that he screwed the pooch with his Palmer v. DC lawsuit for the reasons discussed above.

    The SAF/Gura has filed a new lawsuit challenging the "good reason" requirement for a DC concealed carry license. Gura refers to it as a "handgun carry license" but everyone here should know by now that the license only provides for concealed carry as the new DC law explicitly prohibits the Open Carry of handguns with or without a license and Gura never challenged the separate law prohibiting the Open Carry of long guns.

    Here is a link to the Complaint -> http://www.saf.org/wp-content/upload.../02/1-main.pdf
    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

Posting Permissions

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