Jump to content


Photo

Palmer vs DC - WIN! Ban on Carry declared unconstitutional


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
227 replies to this topic

#211 Indigo

    Just another silver-haired devil

  • Members
  • 3,220 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 11

Posted 01 February 2015 - 10:17 AM

Hasn't Alan Gura filed a motion for the court to file contempt of court charges against D.C.?


  • They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it’s not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance

#212 tkroenlein

    OFFICIAL MEMBER

  • Members
  • 8,851 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 13

Posted 01 February 2015 - 10:37 AM

I think that a "family member who is physically or mentally incapacitated to a point where he or she cannot act in defense of himself or herself" is interesting. What about a 3 year old child? Or what about an 105 lb wife? Does that count? What objective standard could possibly be applied to make this determination?

#213 Hap

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,975 posts
  • Joined: 16-May 13

Posted 01 February 2015 - 11:11 AM

I think that a "family member who is physically or mentally incapacitated to a point where he or she cannot act in defense of himself or herself" is interesting. What about a 3 year old child? Or what about an 105 lb wife? Does that count? What objective standard could possibly be applied to make this determination?

 

I'd say "unarmed" satisfies the stated criterion. It's physical, it's incapacitating to the point where the person cannot act (effectively) in his or her own defense, and it's objectively verifiable.


Ad utrumque paratus


#214 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,034 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 02 February 2015 - 05:28 PM

How does this not moot D.C.'s appeal? They state that they complied with Scullin's order, they enacted a licensing scheme, albeit begrudgingly, and the District makes no argument that the carriage outside the home falls outside the scope Second Amendment protection. Well, they do, but that argument won't stand since they've also stated that the licensing scheme is constitutional so...what is there to appeal? The order? The refusal to grant a motion to stay the order? "Judge Scullin refused to stay his order, he forced us to do this....wah wah" isn't gonna fly when they didn't go to CADC with a motion to stay pending appeal, especially when a motions panel stated that the case must be heard by a merits panel, then denied Gura's motions. I would hope that CADC would issue a Rule 38 OSC as to why appellants should not be sanctioned for filing a frivolous appeal.
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#215 tkroenlein

    OFFICIAL MEMBER

  • Members
  • 8,851 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 13

Posted 02 February 2015 - 05:55 PM

They're just throwing the biggest fit they can. I hope their may issue sceme dies soon.

#216 Hap

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,975 posts
  • Joined: 16-May 13

Posted 03 February 2015 - 09:14 PM

SAF filed suit today against DC's may-issue scheme. Article at TTAG, with a pointer to an article at the American University Radio site: http://wamu.org/news...ealed_carry_law

 

 

In the lawsuit filed today in U.S. District Court, two D.C. residents, one Florida resident and a Washington state-based gun rights group claim that the city's new permitting scheme is so restrictive that it represents an unconstitutional infringement on the Second Amendment.

 

"The Second Amendment right to bear arms includes the right to carry functional, loaded handguns in public areas for the purpose of self-defense," reads the lawsuit, which was filed by pro-gun attorney Alan Gura.

 

"This right, like others, is subject to some degree of regulation, but its status as a right precludes the government from regulating it out of existence or forcing individuals to prove their entitlement to its exercise," it argues.

 

According to the article the suit takes aim squarely at may-issue:

 

 

"Individuals cannot be required to prove a 'good reason' or 'other proper reason' for the exercise of fundamental constitutional rights, including the right to keep and bear arms," it says.

 


Ad utrumque paratus


#217 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,416 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 03 February 2015 - 09:31 PM

It's good to see that another non-resident (this one from Florida) is a plaintiff in the new lawsuit.
"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#218 tkroenlein

    OFFICIAL MEMBER

  • Members
  • 8,851 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 13

Posted 03 February 2015 - 10:43 PM

SAF filed suit today against DC's may-issue scheme. Article at TTAG, with a pointer to an article at the American University Radio site: http://wamu.org/news...ealed_carry_law
 

 
In the lawsuit filed today in U.S. District Court, two D.C. residents, one Florida resident and a Washington state-based gun rights group claim that the city's new permitting scheme is so restrictive that it represents an unconstitutional infringement on the Second Amendment.
 
"The Second Amendment right to bear arms includes the right to carry functional, loaded handguns in public areas for the purpose of self-defense," reads the lawsuit, which was filed by pro-gun attorney Alan Gura.
 
"This right, like others, is subject to some degree of regulation, but its status as a right precludes the government from regulating it out of existence or forcing individuals to prove their entitlement to its exercise," it argues.

 
According to the article the suit takes aim squarely at may-issue:
 

 
"Individuals cannot be required to prove a 'good reason' or 'other proper reason' for the exercise of fundamental constitutional rights, including the right to keep and bear arms," it says.


Well that didn't take long, now did it.

#219 TFC

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,043 posts
  • Joined: 28-October 11

Posted 03 February 2015 - 10:51 PM

This should be the final nail it it's coffin...
"May issue" finally has a real chance of going the way of the do-do.


~If you speak of a gun as a toy, then you see medical waste as playground filler. Yes, it means you're a screwed up individual.~
~"An invasion of mainland America is unwise. Behind every blade of grass a rifle would await us"
-Yamamoto Isoroku
I predicted that Chicago/Cook county will be sold out in order to get "shall issue".
Based on the restrictions on carry in Chicago/Cook County, I was right.

...doing just enough to keep them out of Federal Court...

#220 Googe1227

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,348 posts
  • Joined: 28-May 13

Posted 04 February 2015 - 12:15 AM

One can only hope that's the case. Now, since this is a new lawsuit, how long until it makes it to appeals court or the supremes?
"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." - James Madison
NRA, ISRA, GOA, SAF

#221 tkroenlein

    OFFICIAL MEMBER

  • Members
  • 8,851 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 13

Posted 04 February 2015 - 12:23 AM

It would sure as heck solidify the circuit split angle if Palmer and Peruta both shot down may issue. Then we'd have a proper rumble and maybe a bullet SCOTUS couldn't continue to dodge.

#222 Hap

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,975 posts
  • Joined: 16-May 13

Posted 04 February 2015 - 01:54 PM

Here's a copy of the complaint, filed yesterday.

 

Attached File  Wrenn et al v DC complaint.pdf   112.68KB   186 downloads


Ad utrumque paratus


#223 ghk012

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 287 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 13

Posted 04 February 2015 - 02:14 PM

Thanks Hap for the complaint.  I am surprised Gura didn't quote Peruta.  Maybe complaints are just that, superficial notice of the wrong doing and they will get to the meat and tators when the case goes to trial.



#224 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,416 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 04 February 2015 - 03:06 PM

Thanks Hap for the complaint.  I am surprised Gura didn't quote Peruta.  Maybe complaints are just that, superficial notice of the wrong doing and they will get to the meat and tators when the case goes to trial.


Would it be wise to cite a decision (like Peruta) that is being considered for potential en banc review?

Edited by kwc, 04 February 2015 - 03:07 PM.

"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#225 Davey

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,320 posts
  • Joined: 02-November 10

Posted 04 February 2015 - 05:57 PM

One can only hope that's the case. Now, since this is a new lawsuit, how long until it makes it to appeals court or the supremes?


It will be years before this makes it to cert at the Supreme Court.

#226 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,034 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 18 February 2015 - 08:23 PM

Latest entry on CADC docket from a couple weeks ago (2/3/15) setting the case briefing schedule:

 

02/03/2015  CLERK'S ORDER filed [1535753] setting briefing schedule: APPELLANT Brief due 03/16/2015. APPENDIX due 03/16/2015. APPELLEE Brief due on 04/15/2015. APPELLANT Reply Brief due 04/29/2015 [14-7180]

 

D.C.'s brief is due in less than a month, that oughtta be a good read.  I'd expect it to open with something like this: "Don't make us issue carry permits to people based on ridiculous, bordering on the insane, criteria that we do not even understand!"  We passed a law but we didn't want to!"


NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#227 Hap

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,975 posts
  • Joined: 16-May 13

Posted 18 February 2015 - 08:29 PM

Oral arguments get scheduled once all the briefs are in?


Ad utrumque paratus


#228 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,034 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 22 February 2015 - 02:29 PM

That is correct.  Once the case is fully briefed, the Clerk of the Court will set a time and date for oral arguments.


NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder