Xwing Posted October 4, 2017 at 03:50 PM Share Posted October 4, 2017 at 03:50 PM I am going to apply this week. IMO, go for it! What do you have to lose, other than the filing fee? Please keep us posted on the progress. I suspect DC will ignore the law and deny, but would be interesting to see. If you meet their other requirements (striking "good cause" per the courts), they are required to approve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghk012 Posted October 4, 2017 at 04:10 PM Share Posted October 4, 2017 at 04:10 PM If I am reading the "stereo instructions" of the court system correctly, DC has up to 90 days to appeal to the Supreme Court. So roughly 12/27/17. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted October 5, 2017 at 11:28 AM Share Posted October 5, 2017 at 11:28 AM If I am reading the "stereo instructions" of the court system correctly, DC has up to 90 days to appeal to the Supreme Court. So roughly 12/27/17. 90 days from entry of final judgment, which would be the denial of en banc. Relevant section of Supreme Court Rule 13.1: "Unless otherwise provided by law, a petition for a writ of certiorari to review a judgment in any case, civil or criminal, entered by a state court of last resort or a United States court of appeals (including the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces) is timely when it is filed with the Clerk of this Court within 90 days after entry of the judgment." Extensions are governed by Supreme Court Rule 13.5: "For good cause, a Justice may extend the time to file a petition for awrit of certiorari for a period not exceeding 60 days. An application to extend the time to file shall set out the basis for jurisdiction in this Court, identify the judgment sought to be reviewed, include a copy of the opinion and any order respecting rehearing, and set out specific reasons why an extension of time is justified. The application must be filed with the Clerk at least 10 days before the date the petition is due, except in extraordinary circumstance." The Supreme Court has a very liberal definition of "good cause." "I'm an overworked government lawyer" is "good cause." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rail Posted October 5, 2017 at 02:41 PM Share Posted October 5, 2017 at 02:41 PM DC will not appeal! http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Sources-DC-Attorney-General-Wont-Take-Gun-Law-Appeal-to-Supreme-Court-449515203.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoRonin70 Posted October 5, 2017 at 03:09 PM Share Posted October 5, 2017 at 03:09 PM · Hidden by mauserme, October 5, 2017 at 03:41 PM - "Fap" Hidden by mauserme, October 5, 2017 at 03:41 PM - "Fap" DC will not appeal! http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Sources-DC-Attorney-General-Wont-Take-Gun-Law-Appeal-to-Supreme-Court-449515203.html Oh yaaaaaassss! I can fap to DC's misery in deeefeeeeeat! Delicious victory at their painful expense! Link to comment
Hap Posted October 5, 2017 at 05:47 PM Share Posted October 5, 2017 at 05:47 PM File this one under: "Elections Have Consequences". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTriple Posted October 5, 2017 at 08:32 PM Share Posted October 5, 2017 at 08:32 PM DC will not appeal! http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Sources-DC-Attorney-General-Wont-Take-Gun-Law-Appeal-to-Supreme-Court-449515203.html Chances are somebody convinced them not to, probably someone from a blue state afraid of having their restrictions also overturned. I suspect that as the gun control movement becomes more desperate, you'll likely see more and more instances of blue states refusing to appeal 2A cases for fear of setting a national precedent, and simply take their loss as a sacrifice for the wider gun control movement and their allies in other blue states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted October 5, 2017 at 08:41 PM Share Posted October 5, 2017 at 08:41 PM Same reason Lisa didn't file a cert petition in Moore. She knew the case would be taken by SCOTUS and, well, I'd like to think that SCOTUS would have affirmed CA7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTriple Posted October 5, 2017 at 08:45 PM Share Posted October 5, 2017 at 08:45 PM Same reason Lisa didn't file a cert petition in Moore. She knew the case would be taken by SCOTUS and, well, I'd like to think that SCOTUS would have affirmed CA7.Exactly. Thankfully these people tend to be very cocky and overconfident, and eventually someone will slip up, let their ego get the best of them, and they'll make a big tactical error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoadyRunner Posted October 5, 2017 at 10:15 PM Share Posted October 5, 2017 at 10:15 PM Same reason Lisa didn't file a cert petition in Moore. She knew the case would be taken by SCOTUS and, well, I'd like to think that SCOTUS would have affirmed CA7. I was also going to say this. They want us to undo may-issue one circuit at a time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamma Posted October 6, 2017 at 01:47 AM Share Posted October 6, 2017 at 01:47 AM Same reason Lisa didn't file a cert petition in Moore. She knew the case would be taken by SCOTUS and, well, I'd like to think that SCOTUS would have affirmed CA7. I was also going to say this. They want us to undo may-issue one circuit at a time... I think every other circuit that has a "may issue" state other than DC has already had a case and found it to be constitutional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hap Posted October 6, 2017 at 11:58 AM Share Posted October 6, 2017 at 11:58 AM Now that DC has decided not to appeal, it will have to craft a new law and regs implementing shall-issue carry licensing. It will be interesting to see the details of the new scheme. It will be particularly interesting to see whether they invite further challenges, as Chicago did after Ezell, or craft a law designed to avoid going back to court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghk012 Posted October 6, 2017 at 07:49 PM Share Posted October 6, 2017 at 07:49 PM Am I correct in saying that the DC ruling only affects District 4 (WV, VA, NC, SC, and DC). So this is great for them, but does nothing to change the "may issue" rules in NY, NJ, Maryland, ETC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stm Posted October 6, 2017 at 10:09 PM Share Posted October 6, 2017 at 10:09 PM Am I correct in saying that the DC ruling only affects District 4 (WV, VA, NC, SC, and DC). So this is great for them, but does nothing to change the "may issue" rules in NY, NJ, Maryland, ETC. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia only covers DC. It's the only thing in that Circuit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xwing Posted October 7, 2017 at 01:29 AM Share Posted October 7, 2017 at 01:29 AM Now that DC has decided not to appeal, it will have to craft a new law and regs implementing shall-issue carry licensing. It will be interesting to see the details of the new scheme. It will be particularly interesting to see whether they invite further challenges, as Chicago did after Ezell, or craft a law designed to avoid going back to court. It sounds like they will keep the existing scheme, and just delete the words "good reason". That would likely (IMO) withstand court scrutiny. But let's see how quickly they do it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quackersmacker Posted October 7, 2017 at 01:39 AM Share Posted October 7, 2017 at 01:39 AM Now that DC has decided not to appeal, it will have to craft a new law and regs implementing shall-issue carry licensing. It will be interesting to see the details of the new scheme. It will be particularly interesting to see whether they invite further challenges, as Chicago did after Ezell, or craft a law designed to avoid going back to court. It sounds like they will keep the existing scheme, and just delete the words "good reason". That would likely (IMO) withstand court scrutiny. But let's see how quickly they do it... The court issued an order this morning instructing them to get on it right away. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/good-reason-no-longer-needed-to-carry-a-concealed-gun-in-dc/2017/10/06/85a21084-aaa0-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.92b1bef22e26 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted October 7, 2017 at 12:50 PM Share Posted October 7, 2017 at 12:50 PM Good. No staying of the mandate for half a year to allow a bunch of crooked politicians to rework the law. All they needed to do is delete the good reason requirement. But yeah, they'll tack on God knows what requirements for training and/or cavity search backgrounds. Since they can't use some arbitrary BS to deny a right, they'll simply price it out of reach (or make it so applicants have to complete a 40 hour class in less than 48 hours, something completely asinine and impossible to fulfill) of most residents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted October 7, 2017 at 06:37 PM Share Posted October 7, 2017 at 06:37 PM they'll simply price it out of reach Unfortunately Kwong opened the door for exactly that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTriple Posted October 7, 2017 at 09:31 PM Share Posted October 7, 2017 at 09:31 PM Good. No staying of the mandate for half a year to allow a bunch of crooked politicians to rework the law. All they needed to do is delete the good reason requirement. But yeah, they'll tack on God knows what requirements for training and/or cavity search backgrounds. Since they can't use some arbitrary BS to deny a right, they'll simply price it out of reach (or make it so applicants have to complete a 40 hour class in less than 48 hours, something completely asinine and impossible to fulfill) of most residents.But that's very telling, though: they know they can't win in court, so they figure that they'll delay the exercise of a right and force the court to go rule by rule, line by line, manually overturning each as they go along. It's a delaying tactic because they know these laws are done for anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted October 8, 2017 at 12:14 PM Share Posted October 8, 2017 at 12:14 PM they'll simply price it out of reach Unfortunately Kwong opened the door for exactly that.Kwong was denied cert so no judgment on the merits. Only binding within CA2. Would be interesting to see someone sue over the cost of a FOID or FCCL or both. Not the best time for one of these cases to be heard due to the events in Vegas and the mental health, radicalization issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.