FarmHand357 Posted August 4, 2014 at 01:40 AM Share Posted August 4, 2014 at 01:40 AM Skinny, I hope you don't let the actions of a few offset the benefits to the many who look forward to your legal insights on these cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transplant Posted August 4, 2014 at 01:43 AM Share Posted August 4, 2014 at 01:43 AM Skinny, I hope you don't let the actions of a few offset the benefits to the many who look forward to your legal insights on these cases. +1000 I have learned a LOT from reading both the documents posted and skinny's analysis even when the result is not what was hoped for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hap Posted August 4, 2014 at 03:46 AM Share Posted August 4, 2014 at 03:46 AM Are there any pro or anti organizations working with the local DC lawmakers to help them frame a new set of regulations? Or are they being left to their own devices? It is very likely that the Legal Center to Prevent Gun Violence has offered to help the city craft laws that will reduce gun ownership and the possession and carrying of firearms with regulations that haven't yet been ruled unconstitutional. http://smartgunlaws.org/ Of course, if they get too carried away with this sort of thing, back up in court they will wind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob Posted August 4, 2014 at 12:15 PM Share Posted August 4, 2014 at 12:15 PM Personally, I think the quibbling over whether the carrying of firearms in public makes things safer or not serves little purpose. There is no real strong evidence that it makes all that much difference one way or the other. Chicago and NYC had fairly similar firearms laws for a lot of years with radically different murder rates. The 2A says the "right of the people...". It's a right and not something dependant on whether it serves any useful purpose or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chislinger Posted August 4, 2014 at 12:57 PM Share Posted August 4, 2014 at 12:57 PM Personally, I think the quibbling over whether the carrying of firearms in public makes things safer or not serves little purpose. There is no real strong evidence that it makes all that much difference one way or the other. Chicago and NYC had fairly similar firearms laws for a lot of years with radically different murder rates. The 2A says the "right of the people...". It's a right and not something dependant on whether it serves any useful purpose or not.Exactly, lacking strong evidence that legally carrying firearms in public significantly endangers the public it should not be restricted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jwg43 Posted August 9, 2014 at 06:02 PM Share Posted August 9, 2014 at 06:02 PM I came across an interesting article on the Plaintiff in Palmer. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/self-described-peacenik-challenged-dc-gun-law-and-won/2014/08/08/d3d69acc-1cd7-11e4-82f9-2cd6fa8da5c4_story.html It certainly bursts the bubble of those who believe that gun rights advocates are all white rednecks "clinging to their guns and religion". Bravo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillR Posted August 9, 2014 at 11:19 PM Share Posted August 9, 2014 at 11:19 PM Skinny... You have the ability to give us the facts and explain to us in layman terms what is actually happening. Most really appreciate your insights... please don't stop being the person we can count on for plain English translation. Your insights are priceless... Thanks for everything you've done for us. Don't get frustrated when us who don't speak legalese daily ask dumb questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoktorPaimon Posted August 12, 2014 at 02:04 PM Share Posted August 12, 2014 at 02:04 PM Personally, I think the quibbling over whether the carrying of firearms in public makes things safer or not serves little purpose. There is no real strong evidence that it makes all that much difference one way or the other. Chicago and NYC had fairly similar firearms laws for a lot of years with radically different murder rates. The 2A says the "right of the people...". It's a right and not something dependant on whether it serves any useful purpose or not.Exactly, lacking strong evidence that legally carrying firearms in public significantly endangers the public it should not be restricted. Strong evidence ought not be enough. We should be aiming for the "immanent threat" standard that speech restrictions are judged against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigma Posted August 12, 2014 at 02:40 PM Share Posted August 12, 2014 at 02:40 PM The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The districts are triers of fact. The appellate courts review the district court rulings for errors. Again, does ANYONE ever bother to read the opinion? Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2 Some people read them and can't understand them some people are at work and don't have time to read them and are anxious to know what happened some people are reading them from a cell phone and some people just want a quick summary if possible. But I do understand your frustration Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted August 12, 2014 at 04:28 PM Share Posted August 12, 2014 at 04:28 PM I work full time, no kids or wife (thank God haha) but my job sometimes requires me to put in 80+ hrs/week and I also travel for work. Until the standard of review is strict scrutiny for any pleading involving an infringement on Second Amendment rights, it will ALWAYS be a balancing act between individual civil liberties and public safety. The only way to get that is to get a new case in front of SCOTUS and basically amend Heller, bolster it. Otherwise, it makes no difference what I say or what anyone believes. The GCA would have to be wiped of a huge chunk of it declared unconstitutional. Until then, it's a moot point because the current standard of review is "heightened scrutiny" or "not quite strict scrutiny." Friedman, or any AWB case, would be an excellent vehicle for elevating the standard to strict scrutiny. Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0beit Posted August 13, 2014 at 03:28 AM Share Posted August 13, 2014 at 03:28 AM Which is probably where we're headed since AWBs are being challenged all over. Sucks what happened in Maryland, but I guess a split would appeal to SCOTUS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
out in the tall grass Posted August 20, 2014 at 08:59 PM Share Posted August 20, 2014 at 08:59 PM I thought I read in the Washington paper the other day, that D.C. Has filed for an extension. I thought some here would have said something about that or posted a link.Now excuse me while I try and find what I was reading. Ok here it is...http://www.guns.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Case-1-09-cv-01482-FJS-Document-60.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted August 20, 2014 at 11:25 PM Author Share Posted August 20, 2014 at 11:25 PM http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/district-asks-for-more-time-as-it-ponders-ruling-throwing-out-handgun-carry-ban/2014/08/18/b9ee1b10-2715-11e4-958c-268a320a60ce_story.html Another link. Sorry, posted to IllinoisCarry facebook page, forgot to post here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solareclipse2 Posted August 22, 2014 at 02:36 AM Share Posted August 22, 2014 at 02:36 AM There's a lot to read there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmer Fudd Posted August 22, 2014 at 06:10 PM Share Posted August 22, 2014 at 06:10 PM The Chairman of the DC City Council today announced that they are going to appeal Palmer in its entirety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted August 22, 2014 at 06:18 PM Share Posted August 22, 2014 at 06:18 PM The Chairman of the DC City Council today announced that they are going to appeal Palmer in its entirety. This shouldn't surprise anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoverGunner Posted August 22, 2014 at 11:50 PM Share Posted August 22, 2014 at 11:50 PM If and when it does become law DC's CCW law will make ours look great Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chislinger Posted November 6, 2014 at 04:56 AM Share Posted November 6, 2014 at 04:56 AM Gura asking for an injunction of the "new" DC shall issue law: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Palmer-v.-District-of-Columbia_Memorandum-of-Points-and-Authorities-in-Reply-to-Defendants-Opposition-to-Plaintiffs-Motion-for-Permanent-Injunction.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted November 6, 2014 at 11:30 AM Share Posted November 6, 2014 at 11:30 AM Gura asking for an injunction of the "new" DC shall issue law: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Palmer-v.-District-of-Columbia_Memorandum-of-Points-and-Authorities-in-Reply-to-Defendants-Opposition-to-Plaintiffs-Motion-for-Permanent-Injunction.pdf I think you meant "may issue." As usual, Gura's arguments are so eloquently stated. I love this: "But Defendants do not suggest that they will issue licenses to the Plaintiffs, who obviously cannot meet the Defendants’ new/old standards, so how is it that Plaintiffs’ injury is resolved? Plaintiffs did not sue for an administrative adjudication, for the right to discover the police chief’s opinion of whether they deserve to carry defensive handguns. That much was never a secret. Plaintiffs sued for a constitutional right." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xwing Posted November 6, 2014 at 06:02 PM Share Posted November 6, 2014 at 06:02 PM Gura asking for an injunction of the "new" DC shall issue law: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Palmer-v.-District-of-Columbia_Memorandum-of-Points-and-Authorities-in-Reply-to-Defendants-Opposition-to-Plaintiffs-Motion-for-Permanent-Injunction.pdf I think you meant "may issue." As usual, Gura's arguments are so eloquently stated. I love this: "But Defendants do not suggest that they will issue licenses to the Plaintiffs, who obviously cannot meet the Defendants’ new/old standards, so how is it that Plaintiffs’ injury is resolved? Plaintiffs did not sue for an administrative adjudication, for the right to discover the police chief’s opinion of whether they deserve to carry defensive handguns. That much was never a secret. Plaintiffs sued for a constitutional right." Nicely written. BTW, I read the entirety of DCs new law. It is basically "no issue" unless you're best friends w/ the police chief or a big political donor calling in a favor... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singlecoilpickup Posted November 6, 2014 at 06:03 PM Share Posted November 6, 2014 at 06:03 PM I really hope "may issue" type laws get a final smack down from the SCOTUS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chislinger Posted November 6, 2014 at 09:25 PM Share Posted November 6, 2014 at 09:25 PM Gura asking for an injunction of the "new" DC shall issue law: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Palmer-v.-District-of-Columbia_Memorandum-of-Points-and-Authorities-in-Reply-to-Defendants-Opposition-to-Plaintiffs-Motion-for-Permanent-Injunction.pdf I think you meant "may issue." Haha, yeah, brain fart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singlecoilpickup Posted November 11, 2014 at 07:32 PM Share Posted November 11, 2014 at 07:32 PM Want to feel some rage? Read this:http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/27347523/emily-miller-dc-gun-carry-permit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted November 11, 2014 at 09:39 PM Share Posted November 11, 2014 at 09:39 PM That's the very definition of "may issue." Illinois almost went there... be VERY thankful it didn't (for residents, at least...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singlecoilpickup Posted November 11, 2014 at 09:42 PM Share Posted November 11, 2014 at 09:42 PM In particular, the phrase about the 2nd Amendment being there just "because the British were coming" makes me want to club baby seals (figuratively). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solareclipse2 Posted November 11, 2014 at 11:39 PM Share Posted November 11, 2014 at 11:39 PM In particular, the phrase about the 2nd Amendment being there just "because the British were coming" makes me want to club baby seals (figuratively). What have you got against clubbing baby seals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federal Farmer Posted November 12, 2014 at 02:12 AM Share Posted November 12, 2014 at 02:12 AM In particular, the phrase about the 2nd Amendment being there just "because the British were coming" makes me want to club baby seals (figuratively). What have you got against clubbing baby seals? Is that a new thing? Because in my clubbing days I don't recall running into any seals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted November 12, 2014 at 02:20 AM Share Posted November 12, 2014 at 02:20 AM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teufel Hunden Posted November 12, 2014 at 02:43 AM Share Posted November 12, 2014 at 02:43 AM So, I have a feeling we are going to get to see what would have happened in Illinois if the legislature wouldn't have pushed through a law, that while not perfect, at least made an attempt to comply with the judge's ruling. D.C. seems to be continually thumbing their nose at the bench. I wouldn't be surprised if the judge comes back and decides all bets are off. Open carry, concealed carry, whatever, it is all legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BShawn Posted November 12, 2014 at 03:29 AM Share Posted November 12, 2014 at 03:29 AM Stay tuned for NOV 20th Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.