• 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

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
DC Answer to Gura opposition ot stay pending appeal.

Link:

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/local/dcs-reply-to-gun-ruling/1197/


Quick recap:

DC stated that it will file for reconsideration.

Overall, the DC answer appears weak. It rambles and presents a new and rather unique argument in the answer. They argue that we don't need citizens carry firearms in public, that is what armed police are for. - See footnote 5. This really is a case of DC grasping at straws.

Hopefully the judge does not give an answer to DC until the 90 day stayis almost up.

Live free or Die,
Thundar
 
Last edited:

swinokur

Activist Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
917
Location
Montgomery County, MD
Link: http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/doc...n-ruling/1197/

Quick recap:

DC stated that it will file for reconsideration.

Overall, the DC answer appears weak. It rambles and presents a new and rather unique argument in the answer. They argue that we don't need citizens carry firearms in public, that is what armed police are for. - See footnote 5. This really is a case of DC grasping at straws.

Hopefully the judge does not give an answer to DC until the 90 day stayis almost up.

Live free or Die,
Thundar

DC only has 30 days from the date of the original ruling to appeal to the Circuit. That's long before the 90 days is up.
 

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
Here is a link to the 15 page brief the Defendants filed on Monday -> http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?attachment_id=2193

On a procedural note the District says it is going to file a motion for reconsideration which is due next Tuesday the 26th. If the motion is denied then the District can file an appeal. Otherwise, the notice of appeal is due next Thursday the 28th.

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

swinokur

Activist Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
917
Location
Montgomery County, MD
I though the The appeal is due by Monday as a guy in another forum posted. Sculin issued his ruling 7-26. 30 days after that is Monday August 25th.If Sculin waits until Tuesday to rule, DC has to tip their hand as to what their intent is. Wanna bet Sculin waits until Tuesday?

This is great.
 
Last edited:

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
I though the The appeal is due by Monday as I calculate it. Sculin issued his ruling 7-26. 30 days after that is Monday August 25th.If Sculin waits until Tuesday to rule, DC has to tip their hand as to what their intent is. Wanna bet Sculin waits until Tuesday?

Gura said that the appeal is due on the 28th. By my calculation it is due on the 27th. Assuming that because of the computer glitch the decision was not published until the weekend the clock would not start ticking until the following Monday. Using Gura's statement that the notice of appeal is due on the 28th I based the deadline for the motion to reconsider on that date. In any event we will know by the end of next week "Who's on first."

This is great.

Yes it is.
 

rightwinglibertarian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2014
Messages
827
Location
Seattle WA
The way the 90 day order is written is actually a very good order for gun owners.

Those that would suppress our civil rights were always going to get some sort of stay either from Scullin or from the Circuit Court. 90 days (instead of 180 days) and only for writing constitutional laws is a good thing. Not giving DC grounds to appeal the stay at this time is another good thing.

Remember this order is not a general stay, but a stay so that the district may draft constitutional law if they so choose. The district has 45 days to appeal the ruling. If DC appeals the ruling, the stay goes away. So the district has until September 9 to appeal the ruling. If they do appeal, the DC Council will not be in session until 15 September. So it would appear that in order to appeal, the district would have another period under which constitutional carry would apply.

Gura is smart. He is playing to win. Appearing reasonable and not backing the decider into a corner is good when dealing with a single district court judge. It also sets a tone for the length of stays in the future - 90 days instead of 180 days.

I can't believe I'm seeing this. If they cared about the Constitution they would have done nothing and admitted citizens have the unquestionable and absolute right to keep and bear arms as they so choose to. I'm honestly at loss for words to use that would not get me instantly banned. People that actually believe in the authority of the Constitution are considered extremist and told they arent living in reality and times have changed, even here and even among gun rights activist. It shows we truly have sunk so far down when excuses for compromise are thrown around so freely and wantonly.
 

Toymaker

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2006
Messages
175
Location
Washington, DC USA
"The whole issue of the public carrying of a firearm is very complicated," Mendelson said. "And I believe the executive and the attorney general will continue with the appeal."


They haven't actually announced yet that they will appeal. Mendelson simply said that he "believes" the executive and the attorney general will continue with the appeal. Mendelson is the council chairman and he's also the most level headed member of that bunch. We all know that their intent is to appeal and I think this is his way of saying lets stop playing games with this.
 

swinokur

Activist Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
917
Location
Montgomery County, MD
They have until next Thursday,If Mendelson says they are going to appeal, I'd be surprised if it didn't happen. Mendelson knows exactly what their plan is.

Level headed and DC Govt should not be used in the same sentence.

They are mutually exclusive.
 
Last edited:

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
They have until next Thursday,If Mendelson says they are going to appeal, I'd be surprised if it didn't happen. Mendelson knows exactly what their plan is.

Level headed and DC Govt should not be used in the same sentence.

They are mutually exclusive.

I know someone who is well connected on both sides of the fence. He told me 11 days ago that every gun control organization in the country is urging DC to simply enact a Maryland/New Jersey may-issue law and not appeal. He added "Then again, DC didn't listen in Heller."

It's curious how the Second Amendment turns things upside down. In any other case we would want DC not to appeal a loss.

Jude Scullin is a 75 year old judge who took Senior Status. He is one step away from going fishing full time. Were DC simply to enact a new Maryland/New Jersey type law and repeal the old law without filing an appeal then Gura has to begin again. Starting over is in DC's best interest.

We'll know which door DC chose next week.

Charles Nichols - President of California Right To Carry
 

swinokur

Activist Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
917
Location
Montgomery County, MD
I'm curios how DC could enact a MD style law requiring G&S reasons to get a permit when Sculin specifically stated in his ruling self defense is a valid reason to carry. Why wouldn't he let the injunction stand until DC complies with his ruling? (wishful thinking)

It's an injunction. Just because DC passes legislation doesn't make that go away until Judge Sculin lifts it does it?

Guess we'll watch and see.
 

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
I'm curios how DC could enact a MD style law requiring G&S reasons to get a permit when Sculin specifically stated in his ruling self defense is a valid reason to carry. Why wouldn't he let the injunction stand until DC complies with his ruling? (wishful thinking)

It's an injunction. Just because DC passes legislation doesn't make that go away until Judge Sculin lifts it does it?

An injunction against the current unconstitutional law does not prevent DC from enacting a new unconstitutional law which would have to be challenged in turn. DC need look no further than Ezell v. Chicago as a road map for them to drag this case out for several more years in the district court.

Palmer v. DC has only four individual plaintiffs. Another thing that DC could do is to create a highly restrictive may-issue law and then issue permits to the four individual plaintiffs leaving only the SAF as a plaintiff. The SAF is an associational plaintiff. A lone associational plaintiff presents a "standing" problem for the suit to continue. That was one of the problems with NRA v. McCraw.

Guess we'll watch and see.

Yep. Fingers crossed that DC chooses to appeal and SCOTUS eventually grants cert before the current 5-4 majority is gone.

Charles Nichols - President of California Right To Carry
 

Toymaker

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2006
Messages
175
Location
Washington, DC USA
An injunction against the current unconstitutional law does not prevent DC from enacting a new unconstitutional law which would have to be challenged in turn. DC need look no further than Ezell v. Chicago as a road map for them to drag this case out for several more years in the district court.

Palmer v. DC has only four individual plaintiffs. Another thing that DC could do is to create a highly restrictive may-issue law and then issue permits to the four individual plaintiffs leaving only the SAF as a plaintiff. The SAF is an associational plaintiff. A lone associational plaintiff presents a "standing" problem for the suit to continue. That was one of the problems with NRA v. McCraw.



Yep. Fingers crossed that DC chooses to appeal and SCOTUS eventually grants cert before the current 5-4 majority is gone.

Charles Nichols - President of California Right To Carry


That won't work with "this" injunction.

When each of the four plaintiffs registered their guns they deliberately entered, in the reason for registration box, "to be carried outside the home for self defense when not in the home". As expected, they were promptly rejected based on that. Self defense is specified as a criteria in whatever law is crafted so a may issue law won't satisfy the injunction. The 90 day stay that Scullin reluctantly granted isn't a general stay. It's a stay to craft constitutional law. DC still only has 30 days to file an appeal. Both Gura and Scullin knew that if DC was granted a general stay(whether 90 days or 180 days), at the end of that stay, they'd simply present a restrictive/may issue law before the court and if it was rejected they'd simply file their appeal.

You're right, the reason DC wants as long a stay pending appeal as they can get is to stall the process as long as they can, hoping that a change occurs in the judicial system and or the SCOTUS. Both Gura and Scullin know this and it's why Scullin granted them a non-general 90 day stay.
 

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
That won't work with "this" injunction.

When each of the four plaintiffs registered their guns they deliberately entered, in the reason for registration box, "to be carried outside the home for self defense when not in the home". As expected, they were promptly rejected based on that. Self defense is specified as a criteria in whatever law is crafted so a may issue law won't satisfy the injunction. The 90 day stay that Scullin reluctantly granted isn't a general stay. It's a stay to craft constitutional law. DC still only has 30 days to file an appeal. Both Gura and Scullin knew that if DC was granted a general stay(whether 90 days or 180 days), at the end of that stay, they'd simply present a restrictive/may issue law before the court and if it was rejected they'd simply file their appeal.

The injunction was issued against D.C. Code § 22-4504(a) and D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4) for nonresidents. Nothing prevents DC from enacting a new Maryland/New Jersey type ban and codifying it as D.C. Code § 22-4504(d) or some entirely different code section. Likewise with D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4). The "unless and until such time" language enjoins these two DC Code sections and not any other, written or to be written, code section. Judges do not even have the authority to issue an injunction against a law which does not exist and no plaintiff has standing to bring such a challenge.

You're right, the reason DC wants as long a stay pending appeal as they can get is to stall the process as long as they can, hoping that a change occurs in the judicial system and or the SCOTUS. Both Gura and Scullin know this and it's why Scullin granted them a non-general 90 day stay.

These last two sentences do not make any sense. Scullin issued the 90 stay because both sides asked for a stay. Gura's motivation is clear. He does not want Constitutional Carry, not even for handguns. Gura wants a highly restrictive concealed carry law that bans Open Carry like the one passed in Illinois.

P.S. I was uncertain by what you meant in the first paragraph about the timing of the appeal but the FRCP doesn't provide for delaying filing notice of the appeal once judgment has been entered except for specific circumstances, none of which are currently present.
 
Top