5 replies to this topic

[mstrat]

Is anyone following this case?

From http://wiki.calgunsf...ict_of_Columbia

Quote

Palmer v. District of Columbia following Sykes v. McGinness, is a case challenging the carry licensing in the District of Columbia. Though DC may license the manner of carry, DC must allow law abiding residents to carry a handgun in public for self defense.

From the calguns forum ( http://www.calguns.n...ad.php?t=327751 ) it sounds like a decision is long overdue, and some fear the judge may sit on the case to avoid having to rule in favor of 2A-protected rights.

If the judge ever rules on it, assuming he's forced to uphold our rights, could this mean a sudden victory here in IL?  Or do we foresee another lawsuit necessary, or does the McDonald case mean that any ruling for DC regarding the Bill of Rights automatically must apply to states as well.

I've been on the edge of my seat for a long time waiting for a decision on Palmer v D.C. ... but am I being premature in thinking this could be a solid, immediate victory for RTC in IL?

[xbaltzx]

I think the case would have to go to the SCOTUS for it apply to IL.

[Tvandermyde]

it's a trial opinion which means either way it's going to be appealed.

If the DC appealate court rules for RTC -- there has to be something, it is a big step. it puts a lot of pressure on other jurisdictions. Some others like the 7th may go the other way to set it up for SCOTUS but we'll see.

[TTIN]

Dang,can't we ever get a judge with some stones?

[05FLHT]

Tvandermyde, on 12 November 2010 - 01:26 PM, said:

it's a trial opinion which means either way it's going to be appealed.

If the DC appealate court rules for RTC -- there has to be something, it is a big step. it puts a lot of pressure on other jurisdictions. Some others like the 7th may go the other way to set it up for SCOTUS but we'll see.

I don't really foresee the need of a circuit split in this case, unless DC loses and does not appeal. If Palmer loses, they will appeal to the SCOTUS. The only big step left is setting the level of scrutiny.

[GarandFan]

05FLHT, on 12 November 2010 - 05:18 PM, said:

Tvandermyde, on 12 November 2010 - 01:26 PM, said:

it's a trial opinion which means either way it's going to be appealed.

If the DC appealate court rules for RTC -- there has to be something, it is a big step. it puts a lot of pressure on other jurisdictions. Some others like the 7th may go the other way to set it up for SCOTUS but we'll see.

I don't really foresee the need of a circuit split in this case, unless DC loses and does not appeal. If Palmer loses, they will appeal to the SCOTUS. The only big step left is setting the level of scrutiny.

I can just see it now ...

"Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this complete prohibition on bearing arms would fail constitutional muster."