• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

D.C granted 90 day stay (until October 22nd) on Palmer vs. DC ruling

swinokur

Activist Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
917
Location
Montgomery County, MD
My point was she didn't help DC's position and argument that CCW is bad and won't work in DC.

She may have been honest but it won't help the city's defense if it decides to appeal.

She more or less admitted there is no reason from a law enforcement perspective to not allow CCW.
 

Toymaker

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2006
Messages
175
Location
Washington, DC USA
swinokur,

I completely understood why you said that and totally agree with you litigation wise, what she said will affect their chances at an appeal.

On the other hand she deserves our support for her honesty. Her responsibility as Chief Of Police is public safety, not to ensure that her political leaders win a case on appeal. I'm sure she will receive some sort of repercussions for saying it but she said it anyway.
 

swinokur

Activist Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
917
Location
Montgomery County, MD
I have no issues with Chief Lanier. She's a political appointee after all. Compared to some of the clowns who preceded her (Larry Soulsby for one) she's done a pretty good job. Not great but not awful either.

The only bad thing for her is her honesty which may harm, DC's case on appeal.

I have no problem with her stating the facts of the matter. That's what non politicians do. Very refershing as a matter of fact. I think as someone mentione with a new Mayor in place after the elections, her career might be at an end in DC, so maybe she feels no compunction to stick to the city's talking points.
 

swinokur

Activist Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
917
Location
Montgomery County, MD
I teared up a little, reading that. :)

Actually it's not denied. It's standard procedure in these cases for the litigants to provide samples to the court as it saves time when a decision is reached. The judge already granted a 90 day stay even before Gura filed his brief.

it's just SOP to include a proposed order and the court can use it if they choose.

IANAL
 
Last edited:

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Florida
swinokur,

I completely understood why you said that and totally agree with you litigation wise, what she said will affect their chances at an appeal.

On the other hand she deserves our support for her honesty. Her responsibility as Chief Of Police is public safety, not to ensure that her political leaders win a case on appeal. I'm sure she will receive some sort of repercussions for saying it but she said it anyway.

either way- i guarantee they still treat law-abiding gun owners who "mistakenly carried" into DC as criminals, and not how she sounded in the article.
 

swinokur

Activist Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
917
Location
Montgomery County, MD
The Chief told her officers to use officer discretion after the stay was granted which prevented the exact scenario you state from happening. So even if you got caught in DC after the stay, nothing happened I'm aware of.
 
Last edited:

jackrockblc

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
256
Location
Jefferson County, CO
Actually it's not denied. It's standard procedure in these cases for the litigants to provide samples to the court as it saves time iwhen a decision is reached. The judge already granted a 90 day stay even before Gura filed his brief.

it's just SOP to include a proposed order and trhe court can use either if they choose.

IANAL


Oh, I know. I just teared up, anyway. :)
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Any politician worth his salt will look at the good chief's words as a mitigation plan for not getting sued by a citizen. Politicians understand money if they understand anything at all. It may not influence some politicians, but many are swayed to do nothing (good or bad) at the very least. We'll see soon enough one way or the other. Oh, a plan better be ready before the November elections...no?
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Florida
The Chief told her officers to use officer discretion after the stay was granted which prevented the exact scenario you state from happening. So even if you got caught in DC after the stay, nothing happened I'm aware of.

no no-
i'm not talking about after the stay. she was saying it's nothing new to them. but i bet they still treat(ed) those who unintentionally carried into DC as hardened criminals.
 

OC4me

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
750
Location
Northwest Kent County, Michigan
The Chief told her officers to use officer discretion after the stay was granted which prevented the exact scenario you state from happening. So even if you got caught in DC after the stay, nothing happened I'm aware of.
In other words, they don't want any negative publicity from arresting law-abiding citizens pending the outcome of their appeal.
 

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
All this praise for a lawyer, Alan Gura, who has dedicated his career to banning Open Carry and requiring that an individual must first have a government issued permission slip to exercise a fundamental right never ceases to amaze me.

The same can be said of all of the so called gun-rights groups, not a one of which has brought a lawsuit seeking to restore Open Carry .



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
 

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,365
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
Well,,,

I know two guys who OC'd at the Washington Monument. No issues. But the cops may never have seen them.

Any pictures? I would love to see that.

They were posted on Facebook, but I can't remember the guy's name. I don't use facebook. I saw a post of it elsewhere.

please feast your eyes on this guy,,,


http://gunssavelives.net/blog/first-photo-of-legal-open-carry-in-dc-in-70-years/

[h=1]First Photo of Legal Open Carry in DC in 70 Years?[/h]JULY 28 2014
BY DEAN WEINGARTEN


Share This Post


dccarry.jpg




 

Toymaker

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2006
Messages
175
Location
Washington, DC USA
DC gun ruling is on hold, but having an effect

Posted and updated as of Aug 12, 2014,
Prosecutors have for now stopped charging new cases of carrying a pistol, U.S. Attorney's Office spokesman William Miller said. Instead, he said, prosecutors are using other available weapons charges while they continue to review Scullin's ruling.

http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/26262113/dc-gun-ruling-is-on-hold-but-having-an-effect

WASHINGTON (AP) — Prosecutors in the District of Columbia have for now stopped charging people with carrying a handgun outside their home or business after a judge ruled a city law banning carrying a handgun unconstitutional.
 
Last edited:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Posted and updated as of Aug 12, 2014,
Prosecutors have for now stopped charging new cases of carrying a pistol, U.S. Attorney's Office spokesman William Miller said. Instead, he said, prosecutors are using other available weapons charges while they continue to review Scullin's ruling.

http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/26262113/dc-gun-ruling-is-on-hold-but-having-an-effect

WASHINGTON (AP) — Prosecutors in the District of Columbia have for now stopped charging people with carrying a handgun outside their home or business after a judge ruled a city law banning carrying a handgun unconstitutional.

But they are still charging for being in possession of ammunition.

"Without the pistol-carrying charge, prosecutors handling new gun cases still have options. Those generally include two misdemeanor charges: possession of an unregistered firearm and unlawful possession of ammunition."
 

Toymaker

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2006
Messages
175
Location
Washington, DC USA
The ammunition charge would apply to residents caught with an unregistered gun or possessing ammo not the same caliber as the registered gun.

I'm not sure how they'd treat non-residents as they weren't mentioned. I'm guessing that it would be the same as the 2 1/2 days between when the judge issued the injunction and the 90 day stay was granted. As long as the non-resident legally possessed the gun and there is no crime being committed there will be no arrest, charge or confiscation. Again, that's just my assumption as there is no mention of non-residents.

After dealing with these control freak DC politicians for so long I'd bet that their biggest hurdle to crafting a new carry law is how do they accommodate non-residents. They have tight controls over the residents with registered guns.
 
Last edited:
Top