• 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.

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

swinokur

Activist Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
919
Location
Montgomery County, MD
Gura is asking the court for a ruling before Oct 10, which is the date the Mayor will probably sign the bill into law.

License to Carry a Pistol Emergency Amendment Act of 2014, D.C. Bill B20-0926 (passed
1
Sept. 23, 2014) attached hereto as Exhibit A. Considering that the Court’s stay of its order is nearing
expiration, briefing the question of whether this legislation complies with the Court’s ruling should
not await the Mayor’s inevitable signature by the October 10 deadline (considering he proposed the
legislation) or veto override (considering passage was unanimous).
1
 
Last edited:

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
DC's motion for reconsideration was denied. Sculin said a written order is forthcoming and more info here. A hearing on SAF's request for a Permnasnet injunction is scheduled for November.
I had just finished updating the Palmer v. DC page from PACER on my website when I got notification of this post.

"Update October 17, 2014 - The motion for reconsideration by DC was denied the 30 day clock now starts ticking on its motion to appeal. Judge Scullin has set a November 20th date to hear oral arguments on Palmer’s motion for a permanent injunction against the new ordinance. Palmer also filed a notice of supplemental authority to Morris v. U.S. Corps of Army Engineers.

Minute Entry for Motion Hearing held before Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr. on 10/17/14 : Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration [63], heard, argued and denied. The Court will issued a written opinion. Oral Argument on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Permanent Injunction [71] set for 11/20/14 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 21."

Here is a link to the notice of supplemental authority to Morris v. U.S. Corps of Army Engineers.
 

rightwinglibertarian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2014
Messages
827
Location
Seattle WA
DC's motion for reconsideration was denied. Sculin said a written order is forthcoming and more info here. A hearing on SAF's request for a Permnasnet injunction is scheduled for November.


http://www.nationallawjournal.com/le...20140917135832
I can't get the full story as it wants me to register. Does this mean the new law has been struck down as well? I would hope so as carry requires permits. I also hope lawsuits are continually files until DC listens to the voice of the people and becomes like VT
 

swinokur

Activist Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
919
Location
Montgomery County, MD
I'm not 100% clear on this. I think the new DC law is still in effect until Judge Sculin hears Gura's argument for a permanent injunction.

But IANAL and I don't think carry is legal in DC unless you get a permit and/or Sculin grants an injunction on the new law.

Be careful

IANAL
 

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
I can't get the full story as it wants me to register. Does this mean the new law has been struck down as well? I would hope so as carry requires permits. I also hope lawsuits are continually files until DC listens to the voice of the people and becomes like VT
Subsection (a) of the current law, which is still in effect, requires a permit issued from the District of Columbia to carry a "pistol" in public. Subsection (e) restricts permit holders to carrying their pistol concealed.

If anyone doesn't believe that the Second Amendment Foundation (headed by Alan Gottlieb), which is a party in this case, does not want to ban Open Carry there is this bridge in New York I'll give you a good price on.

Fortunately, the way the District amended its law, if the permit requirement from subsection (a) is permanently enjoined then it doesn't matter if permits are restricted to the carrying of pistols concealed, there will be no permit requirement to the carrying of handguns (pistols or revolvers) openly or concealed.

I would say that this would be the two Alans worst nightmare were it not for the ban on openly carrying long guns still being in effect. When the SAF challenged the handgun ban, it purposely did not challenge the ban on openly carrying long guns.

Here is a link to my latest press release.
 

rightwinglibertarian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2014
Messages
827
Location
Seattle WA
NO! If and when it is, you'll hear about it loud and clear.
Personally I reckon people will only go so far then cave. I don't expect people to go all the way anymore. Not with every single state bar VT issuing permits that never should have been allowed in the first place. I could be wrong but I just don't think enough people are going to insist and continue to insist the powers that be accept the 2A for what it actually means
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,912
Location
North Carolina
Personally I reckon people will only go so far then cave. I don't expect people to go all the way anymore. Not with every single state bar VT issuing permits that never should have been allowed in the first place. I could be wrong but I just don't think enough people are going to insist and continue to insist the powers that be accept the 2A for what it actually means
Because NRA has convinced them permit concealed carry is the 2A. Give credit they run a damn fine propaganda campaign.
 

rightwinglibertarian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2014
Messages
827
Location
Seattle WA
Thanks so much for not even bothering to ask for evidence of my statements. Doesnt matter that most of us could fill a hard drive of evidence, we have our own beliefs and the evidence would get in the way of those beliefs so of course it isnt allowed. People might actually start believing the truth :shocker:

Quick lets censor such dangerous speech
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,337
Location
Valhalla
Thanks so much for not even bothering to ask for evidence of my statements. Doesnt matter that most of us could fill a hard drive of evidence, we have our own beliefs and the evidence would get in the way of those beliefs so of course it isnt allowed. People might actually start believing the truth :shocker:

Quick lets censor such dangerous speech
While we understand such passion and belief, OCDO is private property and user/members are subject to the rules in exchange for the privilege of posting here.
 

rightwinglibertarian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2014
Messages
827
Location
Seattle WA
While we understand such passion and belief, OCDO is private property and user/members are subject to the rules in exchange for the privilege of posting here.
Quite. Which is why I have no objection to providing evidence to back up claims made. I simply find removing a post without even a request for clarification or more info and quickly suppressing things deemed unpleasant highly distasteful. This is not the attitude I would expect of such a forum. Now the thread has been derailed when a simple question could have kept it on track. Very disappointing.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,337
Location
Valhalla
While we understand such passion and belief, OCDO is private property and user/members are subject to the rules in exchange for the privilege of posting here.
Quite. Which is why I have no objection to providing evidence to back up claims made. I simply find removing a post without even a request for clarification or more info and quickly suppressing things deemed unpleasant highly distasteful. This is not the attitude I would expect of such a forum. Now the thread has been derailed when a simple question could have kept it on track. Very disappointing.
PM sent.
 

cloudcroft

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
1,873
Location
El Paso, TX
"...user/members are subject to the rules in exchange for the privilege of posting here."

Likewise, OCDO should also recognize the fact that it's a "privilege" to HAVE us as members -- as we take the time & effort to post here: Without any members, they would be no forum. We're not 2nd-class/subservient citizens to the forum, we're equals to it at the very least. Obey the Forum Rules, yes, but that doesn't mean anyone has to grovel.

And for the most part, the collective intellectual property posted here by members is of great value just in itself, and this forum is lucky to have it.

So, it's a 2-way street...
 
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,337
Location
Valhalla
"...user/members are subject to the rules in exchange for the privilege of posting here."

Likewise, OCDO should also recognize the fact that it's a "privilege" to HAVE us as members -- as we take the time & effort to post here: Without any members, they would be no forum. We're not 2nd-class/subservient citizens to the forum, we're equals to it at the very least. Obey the Forum Rules, yes, but that doesn't mean anyone has to grovel.

And for the most part, the collective intellectual property posted here by members is of great value just in itself, and this forum is lucky to have it.

So, it's a 2-way street...
Minding one's manners is hardly groveling and following Forum Rules makes no one subservient, 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] class citizens.

While we try to moderate with a light hand, that does not give license to ignore the basic tenants of OCDO.

We have many responsible, dedicated users here who understand the why and wherefore - to them we give thanks and a tip of the hat.
 
Last edited:

ron73440

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
471
Location
Suffolk VA
Because NRA has convinced them permit concealed carry is the 2A. Give credit they run a damn fine propaganda campaign.
I've tried to talk people out of getting permits, but most can't conceive of carrying without a permission slip.

I can't conceive of asking permission to carry.

Luckily I live in NC where it's not required for OC.
 

cloudcroft

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
1,873
Location
El Paso, TX
"I've tried to talk people out of getting permits, but most can't conceive of carrying without a permission slip." -- ron73440

Well, baby steps, Ron, baby steps. :)

Keep after them though...and also, if you know any CCers, speak to THEM about OCing, at least occasionally...we need lots more people out there OCing as we need as much D&E* goin' on as possible!


*D&E = Desensitizing & Educating
 
Top