• 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.

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

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:

The Truth

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
1,971
Location
Henrico
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.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,170
Location
earth's crust
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.
 

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
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.
 

Toymaker

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

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
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.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,912
Location
North Carolina
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.
 

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
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.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,170
Location
earth's crust
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.
 

press1280

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
398
Location
Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
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).
 

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
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
 

press1280

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
398
Location
Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
"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?
 

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
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.

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.
 

press1280

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
398
Location
Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
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.
 

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
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/uploads/2015/02/1-main.pdf
 
Top