DC files a Motion for Reconsideration in Palmer v. DC handgun carry case

[jegoodin]

No, since DC filed a motion for reconsideration by the Judge, he must rule on that before the 30 day appeal clock starts. He has no time limit on his ruling timeline for that as I understand it.

so we wait

But they still only have a 90 day stay in which to enact a new law. My interpretation is that clock did not reset and is still ticking based on the original date the stay was granted?!?

 

[swinokur]

yes the 90 day clock is running.

 

[swinokur]

From Maryland shooters forum member:

Judge Scullin issued an order today regarding the expanded (180 day) Stay Request - NO, but maybe a little more than 90 could be considered. But you gotta show me you're making progress you're making towards the District decision

Regarding the Motion for Reconsideration...let's talk about this on October 17th. Hoping he already knows his feelings on this, but is just being "polite".

09/17/2014 66 ORDER: The Court hereby ORDERS that Defendants' # 52 MOTION to Stay is DENIED; however, the Court will entertain a motion to extend the stay beyond October 22, 2014. If Defendants wish to make such a motion, they must file papers in support of that motion on or before 10/3/0214, setting forth in detail what, if any, progress they have made to comply with the Court's decision. Plaintiffs may file any opposition that they have to Defendants' motion on or before 10/10/2014. If Defendants file such a motion, the Court will hear oral argument in support of, and in opposition to, said motion on 10/17/2014 at 10:30 AM. The Court further ORDERS that the Court will hear oral argument in support of, and in opposition to, Defendants' # 63 MOTION for Reconsideration on 10/17/2014 at 10:30 AM. Signed by Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr. on 9/17/2014. (Scullin, Frederick) (Entered: 09/17/2014)

 

[California Right To Carry]

More accurately, the motion for a stay by the district court judge pending an appeal was denied. We also have a better idea of what the new may-issue law for residents will look like via the D.C., press release available here. D.C., will require some heightened need for its residents to carry concealed (Open Carry will still be prohibited).

At 1:06 in this NBC video D.C. Attorney General Irvin Nathan says that non-residents will be able to carry concealed if (1) the handgun is registered and (2) if they have the ability to carry in their home states.

The new legislation is expected to be voted upon next Tuesday.


“Having reviewed the parties’ submissions in support of and in opposition to Defendants’ motion for a stay pending an appeal, the Court hereby ORDERS that Defendants’ motion is DENIED; however, the Court will entertain a motion to extend the stay beyond October 22, 2014. If Defendants wish to make such a motion, they must file papers in support of that motion on or before October 3, 2014, setting forth in detail what, if any, progress they have made to comply with the Court’s decision. Plaintiffs may file any opposition that they have to Defendants’ motion on or before October 10, 2014. If Defendants file such a motion, the Court will hear oral argument in support of, and in opposition to, said motion on October 17, 2014, at 10:30 a.m.; and the Court further ORDERS that the Court will hear oral argument in support of, and in opposition to, Defendants’ motion for reconsideration on October 17, 2014, at 10:30 a.m.”

 

[BB62]

At 1:06 in this NBC video D.C. Attorney General Irvin Nathan says that non-residents will be able to carry concealed if (1) the handgun is registered and (2) if they have the ability to carry in their home states...

So if you're from out of state, you'll have to register your gun, eh?

I sincerely hope the judge smacks D.C. down hard. I can hope, can't I?

 

[California Right To Carry]

So if you're from out of state, you'll have to register your gun, eh?

I sincerely hope the judge smacks D.C. down hard. I can hope, can't I?

We won't know until we see the actual language as to whether or not the registration requirement means that the handgun must be registered in D.C., or if it means that the handgun must be registered in one's home state. I suspect it will be the latter.

 

[WalkingWolf]

We won't know until we see the actual language as to whether or not the registration requirement means that the handgun must be registered in D.C., or if it means that the handgun must be registered in one's home state. I suspect it will be the latter.

I don't plan on ever going to that corrupt town, but in NC and many states handguns are not registered. This knocks out carry for most out of state. If I am not mistaken there is no registration in Virginia which borders DC, and many people who work in DC live. Registration needs to be ruled unconstitutional.

 

[blahpony]

I got the impression that DC residents would be able to get a carry permit for their registered guns. Any non-resident would be able to carry with a permit from their home state.

If so, it should be interesting to see how DC residents feel being treated as lower class citizens than visitors.

 

[swinokur]

From the press release, it appears DC is going to try may issue, like MD. In other words, prove why you need a permit.

Back to court we go.

 

[Thundar]

From the press release, it appears DC is going to try may issue, like MD. In other words, prove why you need a permit.

Back to court we go.

This should get very interesting. It will go back to Scullin. If the new DC law runs contrary to Peruta, then Scullin will void the law. We could again have open carry in DC until the district makes the law Peruta compliant.

Looking at the big picture, by passing a may issue law, the core argument may change from the right to bear arms to the level of regulation that can be placed upon the right without constitutional barriers being broken. I thought DC was stupid. Maybe they learned from Heller I. DC will still lose at the District Court level, but has a much better chance with may issue case than with a bear arms ban case at the DC Circuit. The Supreme Court has also refused to hear more than one may issue case.

 

[rightwinglibertarian]

“Having reviewed the parties’ submissions in support of and in opposition to Defendants’ motion for a stay pending an appeal, the Court hereby ORDERS that Defendants’ motion is DENIED; however, the Court will entertain a motion to extend the stay beyond October 22, 2014. If Defendants wish to make such a motion, they must file papers in support of that motion on or before October 3, 2014, setting forth in detail what, if any, progress they have made to comply with the Court’s decision. Plaintiffs may file any opposition that they have to Defendants’ motion on or before October 10, 2014. If Defendants file such a motion, the Court will hear oral argument in support of, and in opposition to, said motion on October 17, 2014, at 10:30 a.m.; and the Court further ORDERS that the Court will hear oral argument in support of, and in opposition to, Defendants’ motion for reconsideration on October 17, 2014, at 10:30 a.m.”

Argh! :banghead: The ruling striking down DCs illegal 'law' was constitutional. The stay was not. You can't suspend the absolute right of the citizen to bear arms. Unbelievable the shenanigans people go through just to exercise rights they've always had and have never legally been taken away. Serve the people of DC right if the new 'law' is severely restrictive. Next time maybe they'll learn their lesson.

 

[California Right To Carry]

This should get very interesting. It will go back to Scullin. If the new DC law runs contrary to Peruta, then Scullin will void the law. We could again have open carry in DC until the district makes the law Peruta compliant.

Judge Scullin might not be in a position to void the new law. Keep in mind that Gura got what he asked for in his Complaint. If Gura doesn't like the new law he will have to file a new Complaint and it is highly unlikely that the new lawsuit will be assigned to Judge Scullin.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Which gives more time for Hillary to get elected and appoint a anti gun judge to SCUTUS.

The likes of the NRA and others have played around with compromise so long, it is only a matter of time before the RKBA becomes extinct.

 

[swinokur]

DC filed their brief in reply to Gura's opposition for reconsideration.

 

[rightwinglibertarian]

DC filed their brief in reply to Gura's opposition for reconsideration.

While plaintiffs characterize the District’s motion as “frivolous” or “highly frivolous,”
they fail to rebut the simple proposition upon which the motion is based—no controlling court
decision has held that the Second Amendment encompasses a right to carry firearms for selfdefense
outside the home. Plaintiffs argue that the Court need not engage in intermediate
scrutiny because “the right” exists as they frame it. But that puts the cart before the horse—
plaintiffs assume that which no controlling court has decided.

Well thats your problem. They seem to be saying the bearing of arms needs to be legalised instead of the proper understanding that something is allowed until prohibited. I may have misunderstood though as my legalese isnt very good. They also are ignoring the fact no court can legally and justifiably make an unconstitutional ruling. Almost as if the court is the dictator and allows it's minions privileges.

 

[Toymaker]

The problem that DC faces is that Congress decides whether or not a new DC law becomes final. DC can present their 'new' may issue law in opposition to the wording of the injunction and leave it at that but they still won't be finished at that point. Congress can still strike down that new law and there's nothing that their anti-2A buddy in the White House can do about it. Putting forth a may issue law will put DC's Congressional supporters in a precarious situation and will further damage what little statehood/voting representation support DC has. If they support DC's new law they'll be ignoring the constitution. Pelosi, Schumer, Feinstein etc. would have no trouble with that but what about the other more middle ground Democrats? How many of them would say 'hey, wait a minute. They ignored this federal judge's injunction. They refused to attempt to write anything even close to constitutional law.'

What if Congress musters up enough support to strike down DC's new may issue law? That would put them back to square one. Would the old law go back into effect or would the injunction go back into effect?

As expected DC absolutely refuses to acknowledge the 2A. They will steadfastly hold on to their anti-gun Brady supporters no matter what so it should be no surprise to anyone that they would write a very restrictive may issue law. They don't have the ability to comply with the wording of this or any injunction as pointed out by Judge Scullin.

The whole point of this exercise is to force DC's hand one way or the other and the only way DC will change is if they're forced to do so..........or, they somehow fall out of grace with their Brady Campaign supporters.

 

[Toymaker]

This article shows that it's not only DC that cherishes their anti-gun laws. Other federal agencies within DC like the Secret Service, etc. also consider the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens to be unimportant. Now, this is the same agency that recently couldn't stop a fence jumper, armed with a folding knife, before he entered the front door of the White House. Their answer was to push the security perimeter further out instead of ensuring that the hundreds of officers that they have on duty there are actually present to patrol the existing perimeter.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...3ce1ae-425a-11e4-9a15-137aa0153527_story.html

Mendelson said the Secret Service commented on an early draft of the legislation. The federal agency “wanted broader restrictions than had been included” in that draft, he said, noting that the proposed bill includes a ban on carrying guns in the vicinity of the White House — the area bordered by 15th and 17th streets, H Street and Constitution Avenue NW.

“I understand that the Secret Service is very uneasy,” Mendelson said. He declined to comment further on the agency’s position, citing the sensitivity of the negotiations.

A spokesman for the Secret Service did not return a phone call or e-mails seeking comment Monday.

Two people familiar with the Secret Service’s comments but not authorized to discuss them publicly said the agency had also asked for restrictions around foreign diplomatic facilities, whose security is under Secret Service purview, but those requests were not incorporated into the emergency bill because of concerns about the enforceability of such restrictions.[/UNQUOTE]

 

[Kopis]

There are 3,250 registered handgun owners in the District. Mendelson has said he expects "a few hundred" people to obtain concealed-carry permits.

a few hundred elites.......

 

[swinokur]

From a post on Maryland Shooters:

The squabbling over the legal fees begins, also SAF/Gura file a Notice of Supplemental Authority covering the Binderup v Holder win in PA District.

09/25/2014 68 Consent MOTION to Stay Briefing on Attorney Fees by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CATHY L. LANIER (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Saindon, Andrew) (Entered: 09/25/2014) 09/25/2014 69 ORDER: Granting Defendant's # 68 Consent Motion to Stay Briefing on Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr. on 9/25/2014. (Scullin, Frederick) (Entered: 09/25/2014) 09/26/2014 70 NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY by GEORGE LYON, AMY MCVEY, TOM G. PALMER, EDWARD RAYMOND, SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Binderup v. Holder)(Gura, Alan) (Entered: 09/26/2014)

This Supplemental Authority (attached) was submitted primarily to stem the tide of the 2A 2-Step Means End Analysis, which many other Courts have adopted and the DC Defendants are saying Judge Scullin didn't use, hoping to support their Motion for Reconsideration.

 

[swinokur]

Gura plans to ask Judge to over rule new DC Gun law


(http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...7318b6-4a4b-11e4-a046-120a8a855cca_story.html)