Jump to content


Photo

Grace et al v. D.C. et al


This topic has been archived.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

#1 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,540 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 17 May 2016 - 12:39 PM

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.tapatal...aae/asdf(2).pdf


Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk


NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#2 Draal

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,204 posts
  • Joined: 18-June 14

Posted 17 May 2016 - 12:55 PM

Thanks skinnyb!



#3 bmyers

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,775 posts
  • Joined: 31-May 12

Posted 17 May 2016 - 01:08 PM

I like page 46. (Ok so I skipped to the end of the document, but it made me smile when I read it.)



#4 out in the tall grass

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Joined: 22-October 11

Posted 17 May 2016 - 01:09 PM

image.png

My favorite passage of this order.

#5 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,369 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 17 May 2016 - 01:14 PM

I've never seen a one word sentence of "Please." used in a judicial opinion before. Nice. The legal arguments used by the antis become so ridiculous that they need that kind of shaming.


Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#6 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,369 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 17 May 2016 - 01:39 PM

Note 24 at the bottom of page 39 should be enshrined somehow. It's a devastating indictment of the vast majority of gun control schemes foisted on the citizenry.

 

Very thorough and well reasoned decision for a district court preliminary injunction.


Edited by Gamma, 17 May 2016 - 01:50 PM.

Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#7 Marie

    Lizzie's Bennet's alter ego

  • Members
  • 4,145 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 12

Posted 17 May 2016 - 05:35 PM

The comments on the Washington Post article are great. 

 

https://www.washingt...:homepage/story


Great Lakes: Unsalted and Shark Free!


#8 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,540 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 17 May 2016 - 05:43 PM

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
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#9 chislinger

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,818 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 17 May 2016 - 06:09 PM

attachicon.gifimage.png

My favorite passage of this order.

That is awesome! Whenever a judge calls a anti lawyer's argumnent "poppycock" it's a beautiful thing!
"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams

#10 Marie

    Lizzie's Bennet's alter ego

  • Members
  • 4,145 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 12

Posted 17 May 2016 - 06:18 PM

I bet the fact that the plaintiff was a member of the Pink Pistols (as well as the Pink Pistols being a plaintiff) will make some lib heads explode. I loved that! :)


Great Lakes: Unsalted and Shark Free!


#11 Davey

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,196 posts
  • Joined: 02-November 10

Posted 17 May 2016 - 06:22 PM

I've never seen a one word sentence of "Please." used in a judicial opinion before. Nice. The legal arguments used by the antis become so ridiculous that they need that kind of shaming.


Where is this?

#12 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,369 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 17 May 2016 - 07:14 PM

 

I've never seen a one word sentence of "Please." used in a judicial opinion before. Nice. The legal arguments used by the antis become so ridiculous that they need that kind of shaming.


Where is this?

 

The sixth line on page 21.


Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#13 Mr. Fife

    Nip it

  • Members
  • 3,671 posts
  • Joined: 03-July 10

Posted 17 May 2016 - 08:25 PM

My girlfriend was pretty excited by the news but she thinks we should expect an appeal.

https://twitter.com/...653357752455172


Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
 
 

#14 fxdpntc

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 152 posts
  • Joined: 24-September 13

Posted 17 May 2016 - 08:50 PM

My girlfriend was pretty excited by the news but she thinks we should expect an appeal.

https://twitter.com/...653357752455172

Tell her that her surfing pics are awesome... :)



#15 Mr. Fife

    Nip it

  • Members
  • 3,671 posts
  • Joined: 03-July 10

Posted 17 May 2016 - 08:55 PM

She knows :drool:


Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
 
 

#16 transplant

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,485 posts
  • Joined: 14-May 13

Posted 18 May 2016 - 01:29 AM

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:

#17 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,540 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 18 May 2016 - 08:05 AM

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


NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#18 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,540 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 28 May 2016 - 12:35 PM

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.tapatal...rative-Stay.pdf

Order granting stay:

http://cloud.tapatal...Grace_Order.pdf


Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk


NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#19 press1280

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 216 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 11

Posted 28 May 2016 - 04:11 PM

 

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).

 


Edited by press1280, 28 May 2016 - 04:11 PM.


#20 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,540 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 28 May 2016 - 07:15 PM

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
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#21 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,540 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 18 June 2016 - 10:34 AM

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
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#22 press1280

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 216 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 11

Posted 18 June 2016 - 11:33 AM

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.



#23 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,540 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 21 June 2016 - 02:26 PM

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...ng-Schedule.pdf Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#24 press1280

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 216 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 11

Posted 22 August 2016 - 04:49 PM

Panel is up on the DC Circuit calendar https://www.cadc.usc...View&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.


Edited by press1280, 22 August 2016 - 04:52 PM.


#25 GWBH

    Ripcord... This is Alabama - Fire For Effect, Over...

  • Members
  • 6,029 posts
  • Joined: 30-January 08

Posted 24 August 2016 - 04:21 PM

skinnyb82 - what an asset you are to the forum!!

 

THANKYOU!


Fire Support Base Ripcord Association - the heroes of the Vietnam War have their names on a wall in Washington, DC
http://www.ripcordassociation.com/

Phil Compton "ishmo", "L" Company 75th Infantry (RANGER) 101st Airborne Division (VietNam 1968 - 1969 / 1970 - 1971 )
A good man, a good soldier, a patriot and a true friend.

PFC Patrick J. Bohan, 101 Pathfinder Detachment, 101st Airborne Division, KIA, July 10, 1970, on FSB Ripcord
 


#26 Charles Nichols

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 16

Posted 24 August 2016 - 06:41 PM

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.



#27 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,540 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 07 September 2016 - 09:41 AM

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
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#28 chislinger

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,818 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 20 September 2016 - 12:31 PM

Oral arguments:
"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams

#29 chislinger

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,818 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 20 September 2016 - 12:32 PM

Oral arguments:
"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams

#30 Charles Nichols

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 16

Posted 20 September 2016 - 04:31 PM

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.