Jump to content

Grace et al v. D.C. et al


Recommended Posts

Hits just keep on coming for anti-gunners. Judge Leon out in DCD just granted a PI in another case involving the D.C. good cause provision. "Likely unconstitutional" hah. Pulled the memorandum opinion and order off the WaPo site as I couldn't find it anywhere else. Just found this so haven't had any time to read through it. But it's 40+ pages so it's gonna be good reading.

 

http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/573b65260eaae/asdf%282%29.pdf

 

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep in mind this is the same Judge Leon who declared the NSA bulk metadata collection program to be likely unconstitutional, was subsequently reversed by the Circuit. Bottom line is that he's no fan of the government when it puts forth BS arguments as to why it must infringe on citizens' civil liberties in order to keep us safe yet fails to present an ounce of evidence bolstering its assertions.

 

Sent from my VK700 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep in mind this is the same Judge Leon who declared the NSA bulk metadata collection program to be likely unconstitutional, was subsequently reversed by the Circuit. Bottom line is that he's no fan of the government when it puts forth BS arguments as to why it must infringe on citizens' civil liberties in order to keep us safe yet fails to present an ounce of evidence bolstering its assertions.

 

Sent from my VK700 using Tapatalk

Probably one factor in denying plaintiffs motion for a permanent injunction.

 

I wonder if Leon's decision will get vacated :( :shtf:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep in mind this is the same Judge Leon who declared the NSA bulk metadata collection program to be likely unconstitutional, was subsequently reversed by the Circuit. Bottom line is that he's no fan of the government when it puts forth BS arguments as to why it must infringe on citizens' civil liberties in order to keep us safe yet fails to present an ounce of evidence bolstering its assertions.

Sent from my VK700 using Tapatalk

 

Probably one factor in denying plaintiffs motion for a permanent injunction.

I wonder if Leon's decision will get vacated :( :shtf:

I don't know, it's a very solid opinion. Good news is the panel hearing Wrenn will be Senior Judge Kavanaugh, Judges Brown and Wilkins. Kavanaugh and Brown are both GOP nominees, left really despises Brown because she's black, Republican, and is pro-gun and pro-life.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

CADC just stayed Judge Leon's order pending appeal. District cites "irreparable harm" if the injunction wasn't granted. I love how they give the government a blank check to drag out the process, stall, lie, exaggerate, and trust the D.C. government when it says "We will suffer irreparable harm if we're forced to issue permits to residents who can't jump through 50 flaming hoops on a motorcycle." No idea who's on the motions panel, probably Garland or Srinivasan.

 

Motion for stay pending appeal:

 

http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/5749e4a7eccf2/Grace_Defendants-Motion-to-Stay-The-Courts-May-17-2016-Order-Pending-Appeal-and-MOtion-for-an-Immediate-Administrative-Stay.pdf

 

Order granting stay:

 

http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/5749e4b0a724a/Grace_Order.pdf

 

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Keep in mind this is the same Judge Leon who declared the NSA bulk metadata collection program to be likely unconstitutional, was subsequently reversed by the Circuit. Bottom line is that he's no fan of the government when it puts forth BS arguments as to why it must infringe on citizens' civil liberties in order to keep us safe yet fails to present an ounce of evidence bolstering its assertions.

Sent from my VK700 using Tapatalk

 

Probably one factor in denying plaintiffs motion for a permanent injunction.

I wonder if Leon's decision will get vacated :( :shtf:

I don't know, it's a very solid opinion. Good news is the panel hearing Wrenn will be Senior Judge Kavanaugh, Judges Brown and Wilkins. Kavanaugh and Brown are both GOP nominees, left really despises Brown because she's black, Republican, and is pro-gun and pro-life.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

You're thinking of Janice Rogers Brown, this was Judith Rogers, a Clinton appointee, which probably explains why it was granted so quickly. I don't think this will necessarily be the panel that decides the case though (and hopefully I'm right).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I forgot the commonality of the name "Rogers." I'm not sure how that particular Circuit works insofar as assignation of Circuit Judges to be the motions judge, sit on the motions panel, merits panel (best described as "random drawing" but hardly random if the court has very proactive Clerk of the Court). The panel hearing arguments will be Kavanaugh, Rogers, and Wilkins. Kavanaugh is solid. Rogers....Clinton did an excellent job at nominating fringe liberals to the spots on the federal judiciary. Wilkins could be a wildcard but I highly doubt it. IMO he was a horrible district judge during his time on the bench in DCD. Looks like Wrenn is excrement up a creek. The Grace order is unsigned so it could be just one judge.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

The merits panel will be Circuit Judges Griffith (Bush II), Srinivasan (Obama), and Millett (Obama). Millett seems much more receptive to the Second Amendment than other Obama appointees. She basically bench slapped the government for trying to restrict lead bullets. Srinivasan delivered the opinion in the recent net neutrality case, also delivered an opinion in re a suit against the Iranian government for torture while incarcerated in the country. Srinivasan said that the torture allegations are (more or less) hearsay, no evidence that Iran tortures people (open a newspaper, Judge Srinivasan), so the plaintiff's suit was dismissed for lack of standing.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The merits panel will be Circuit Judges Griffith (Bush II), Srinivasan (Obama), and Millett (Obama). Millett seems much more receptive to the Second Amendment than other Obama appointees. She basically bench slapped the government for trying to restrict lead bullets. Srinivasan delivered the opinion in the recent net neutrality case, also delivered an opinion in re a suit against the Iranian government for torture while incarcerated in the country. Srinivasan said that the torture allegations are (more or less) hearsay, no evidence that Iran tortures people (open a newspaper, Judge Srinivasan), so the plaintiff's suit was dismissed for lack of standing. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

Do you have a link for that? I thought the judges weren't announced until right around orals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CADC announces the merits panel during the week of orals so I'm not sure if these judges are on the motions panel and the merits panel will be drawn later or....what. But here's the text of the order setting a briefing schedule.

 

"Matthew Grace and Pink Pistols,

Appellees

v.

District of Columbia and Cathy L. Lanier, in her official capacity as Chief of Police for the Metropolitan Police Department,

Appellants

 

BEFORE: Griffith, Srinivasan, and Millett, Circuit Judges

 

ORDER

Upon consideration of the unopposed motion to extend the briefing schedule, it is ORDERED that the following revised briefing schedule will now apply:

Appellants’ Brief July 6, 2016

Appendix July 6, 2016

Appellees’ Brief August 5, 2016

Reply Brief August 19, 2016

Per Curiam"

 

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Grace-v.-D.C._Order-Setting-New-Briefing-Schedule.pdf

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Panel is up on the DC Circuit calendar https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/sixtyday.nsf/fullcalendar?OpenView&count=1000

 

Henderson (Bush 41 appointee but also a pure anti)

Griffith (Bush 43, was on majority in Heller/Parker opinions)

Williams (Reagan, senior status judge)

 

This will be the same panel for the Wrenn case being heard the same day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before District of Columbia v. Heller was granted cert it was called Parker v. District of Columbia. Judge Griffith joined with Judge Silberman in striking down the D.C., bans. Judge Henderson filed a dissent. Some of you may think that this means there is one vote for and one vote against but you would be forgetting that Parker v. District of Columbia said that there is no right to concealed carry and this is a concealed carry case. I do not know how Judge Williams will vote but the writing is on the wall. Two of the three judges on this panel don’t think there is a right to concealed carry. They said so.


Judge Williams was one of three judges who admonished Alan Gura for not bringing an as-applied challenge on behalf of his client in Schrader v. Holder. Alan Gura is the attorney for the plaintiffs in Wren v. DC.


Do not be surprised if the decision in this case unanimously holds that there is no right to concealed carry and therefore fails the test for a preliminary injunction.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I would be surprised if it's unanimous. Period. These types of cases are never unanimous in the relatively sane circuits (which excludes CA9). And the panel ruled on Parker with pretty much zilch for guiding case law as to RTC. Bottom line is that it's a crapshoot. Griffith is solid. Henderson is solid. Williams doesn't give a bleep because he's senior status, effectively retired, but still a wildcard.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Circuit Judge Henderson, the one who thinks the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia, did not ask any questions. It is impossible to say, based on the questioning, whether or not Judge Williams thinks the Second Amendment applies outside of the home or whether or not he thinks the DC ban is a "reasonable regulation" on the Second Amendment right.

 

Circuit Judge Griffith clearly thinks that the Second Amendment applies outside of one's home.

 

The fact that these are concealed carry appeals came up during both sets of oral arguments.

 

Oral arguments in Wrenn v. DC went on for 37:09

Oral arguments in Grace v. DC went on for 27:48

 

Given that both sides were supposed to be limited to 10 minutes per side, it is probably a good sign that they went longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...