Ruling in Palmer v. D.C handed down, Gura wins again

[MaynardDad]

if the ruling didn't strike down the separate law on ammo then it is worthless. The law is still on the books and enforceable until such time as it is struck down.

"At this time, individuals who do not live in the District shall not be charged with either unregistered firearm or unregistered ammunition," [Memo from CoP]

Of course we can expect a stay soon, now that Gura has said that he does not oppose a 90-day stay.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

DC, the juggernaut in extreme Statist gun prohibition and confiscation, continues to be rebuked by SCOTUS. MA, NY, CT, CA, CO, WA, etc. should be on notice that individual Rights guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be infringed by Extreme Statism funded by Bloomberg and vilolated by Statist Sheeple willing to submit to government tyranny so long as they are in the Government's favor.

Actually, they can.

The case against the NYC excessive handgun licensing fees was lost in federal court, and SCOTUS cert denied.

The case against "persons of privilege, power and influence only" in Westchester county was lost.

There are wins and losses in the battle on this front.

 

[CockedAndLocked]

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/28/dc-police-chief-orders-officers-not-arrest-legal-g/

 

[Hoover]

Actually, they can.

The case against the NYC excessive handgun licensing fees was lost in federal court, and SCOTUS cert denied.

The case against "persons of privilege, power and influence only" in Westchester county was lost.

There are wins and losses in the battle on this front.

I think DC might accept the loss and set up a license process that is very expensive, very time consuming and getting one would be less likely than getting hit by lightening. Like you say, the courts have not shot them down yet.

 

[DispositionMatrix]

Heard this today. It was interesting to hear that gun prohibitionist officials from cities with strict gun laws view DC's law as problematic.
http://www.wbur.org/npr/336228215/ruling-against-d-c-s-gun-law-sends-local-officials-scrambling

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I think DC might accept the loss and set up a license process that is very expensive, very time consuming and getting one would be less likely than getting hit by lightening. Like you say, the courts have not shot them down yet.

I was actually surprised that the Illinois response to Moore v. Maddigan resulted in a somehwhat reasonable carry permit system that allows unconnected IL residents to get permits. At the time of the decision, I expected a NJ or HI "in theory only" sort of permit system.

 

[DispositionMatrix]

I think DC might accept the loss and set up a license process that is very expensive, very time consuming and getting one would be less likely than getting hit by lightening. Like you say, the courts have not shot them down yet.

Their registration is supposedly every three years with photographing and fingerprinting. I'm sure carry licensing will be even more ridiculous. They could require carriers to renew once a month knowing they would have five years to wear people down and probably give up before the scheme was overturned.

 

[Hoover]

I was actually surprised that the Illinois response to Moore v. Maddigan resulted in a somehwhat reasonable carry permit system that allows unconnected IL residents to get permits. At the time of the decision, I expected a NJ or HI "in theory only" sort of permit system.

I think gun rights groups and citizens in the rest of IL, outside chicago made the difference there.

Their registration is supposedly every three years with photographing and fingerprinting. I'm sure carry licensing will be even more ridiculous. They could require carriers to renew once a month knowing they would have five years to wear people down and probably give up before the scheme was overturned.

I would not be surprised if as Rob mentioned about NJ andHI, there are licenses but they are impossible to get. The courts need to stop this or they'll make it more strict, more, etc in all the anti places. Like mag limits where they'll keep dropping the number until it's 1. A defacto ban as in NJ and HI is a ban. HI will have been addressed if the 9th Peruta, baker and the case from HI stand. All three addressed the defacto bans.

 

[OfficerObie59]

Apparently he believes that all convictions and all legal decisions should be stayed pending appeal, even before notice of appeal. No? Why not? Confusion? Statist.

Josh Blackman is perhaps the furthest thing from a statist.

Don't confuse his legal opinion with his personal one.

I say this as a supporter of the decision, and more broadly of a constitutional right to bear arms outside the home. But the rule of law demands more. When finding a law unconstitutional, the court should act to sustain the ex ante status quo.

It's a statement of both support for the decision and a proper exercise of judicial restraint.

 

[milktree]

Does a stay override the CoP's policy statement?

The stay would *allow* the policy change to be rescinded, but does it force it?

In an ideal world, the chief could issue a policy to not enforce a likely unconstitutional law, right?

 

[exo]

Does a stay override the CoP's policy statement?

The stay would *allow* the policy change to be rescinded, but does it force it?

In an ideal world, the chief could issue a policy to not enforce a likely unconstitutional law, right?

Not sure, but if a stay is issued I wouldn't carry in DC just on a cop's promise to not enforce the law.

 

[milktree]

Not sure, but if a stay is issued I wouldn't carry in DC just on a cop's promise to not enforce the law.

Of course It was a theoretical question.

I imagine if/when a stay is issued she *doesn't* rescind the policy change, she might face recriminations.

 

[Quiet]

Apparently he believes that all convictions and all legal decisions should be stayed pending appeal, even before notice of appeal. No? Why not? Confusion? Statist.

I didn't say I agreed with him, but his view is consistent with many lawyers. Final judgements are not final, they are appealable so the stay should be granted. This is why CADC will grant the stay.

I was notified via the rep system and I agree that my statement was not clear that I was referring to the columnist as a statist, not terraformer, and was somewhat tounge-in-cheek. My apologies.

 

[Quiet]

Apparently he believes that all convictions and all legal decisions should be stayed pending appeal, even before notice of appeal. No? Why not? Confusion? Statist.

Josh Blackman is perhaps the furthest thing from a statist.

Don't confuse his legal opinion with his personal one.



It's a statement of both support for the decision and a proper exercise of judicial restraint.

It's a statement of not believing that adults are able to see the situation and decide how to behave so much so that a judge has to keep what he has decided is an unconstitutional law in place to prevent confusion. That's a statist.

Did you not see reasonable adults discussing what was and wasn't appropriate behavior? Did you not see newspapers and columnists discussing it, and the police chief issuing guidance that could be followed by all?

See, I think we're all adults. Blackman thinks were children needing a judge to take our rights away to prevent confusion.

 

[Hoover]

It's a statement of not believing that adults are able to see the situation and decide how to behave so much so that a judge has to keep what he has decided is an unconstitutional law in place to prevent confusion. That's a statist.

Did you not see reasonable adults discussing what was and wasn't appropriate behavior? Did you not see newspapers and columnists discussing it, and the police chief issuing guidance that could be followed by all?

See, I think we're all adults. Blackman thinks were children needing a judge to take our rights away to prevent confusion.

I think Blackman just has an interest in this particular item, stays. It's his pet cause and really means a lot to him. I agree a stay should be granted to prevent confusion and chaos but only if the decision has a chance of being overturned. I don't see how DC can win on appeal (I know obama stacked the DC appeals court) so I don't think a stay is warranted. Also, the sky isn't going to fall because people can legally carry now, it didn't anywhere else and it won't in DC. So the whining by DC city Councillors, etc. is stupid to begin with.

 

[terraformer]

90 day stay granted. Note that DC asked for 180 and Gura only agreed to 90. I suspect without Gura agreeing, this would have been denied. However, note also that had he denied it, CADC would have granted it and likely given the 180 days. By Gura assenting to 90 days, he got DC residents 90 days less waiting. Sometimes strategy trumps going for the throat every time.

 

[Quiet]

90 day stay granted. Note that DC asked for 180 and Gura only agreed to 90. I suspect without Gura agreeing, this would have been denied. However, note also that had he denied it, CADC would have granted it and likely given the 180 days. By Gura assenting to 90 days, he got DC residents 90 days less waiting. Sometimes strategy trumps going for the throat every time.

Blackman wasn't arguing it as a strategy but rather as a judicial philosophy. I don't agree that judges should be making strategic decisions for litigants.

 

[Hoover]

90 day stay granted. Note that DC asked for 180 and Gura only agreed to 90. I suspect without Gura agreeing, this would have been denied. However, note also that had he denied it, CADC would have granted it and likely given the 180 days. By Gura assenting to 90 days, he got DC residents 90 days less waiting. Sometimes strategy trumps going for the throat every time.

The judge could have taken his time deciding whether to issue a stay, say 5 years maybe?

 

[terraformer]

The judge could have taken his time deciding whether to issue a stay, say 5 years maybe?

 

[jar]

90 day stay granted. Note that DC asked for 180 and Gura only agreed to 90. I suspect without Gura agreeing, this would have been denied. However, note also that had he denied it, CADC would have granted it and likely given the 180 days. By Gura assenting to 90 days, he got DC residents 90 days less waiting. Sometimes strategy trumps going for the throat every time.

DC actually asked for a stay pending appeal, or failing that 180 days. So, it's not just 90 days saved, but also the duration of the appeal.

Also it puts DC in an interesting position. If they pass a permit scheme within the 90 days, the appeal is moot. If they don't, and the stay isn't extended, it goes back to this weekend's free for all on day 91.

 

[browncoat]

DC actually asked for a stay pending appeal, or failing that 180 days. So, it's not just 90 days saved, but also the duration of the appeal.

Also it puts DC in an interesting position. If they pass a permit scheme within the 90 days, the appeal is moot. If they don't, and the stay isn't extended, it goes back to this weekend's free for all on day 91.

It is so great to see a liberal area experiencing the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" sort of thing that they inflict on us.

 

[DispositionMatrix]

Old news now, but here is a podcast interview with Gottlieb and Gura on the ruling.
http://guntalk.libsyn.com/guntalk-07-27-2014-part-c

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

The ruling prompted an unusually cogent editorial on the Huffington Post:
Guns in America: Why I Think It's Time for California to Stop Fighting Peruta vs. San Diego

The author's main point is that the harder places like California, Chicago and DC resist change, the harder they're going to be hit by decisions like this.

"Mom you can't nanny your children forever. You can't demand that they stay babies. Somewhere along the way it's time to let Americans grow up and deal with the risks of the real world with all of the tools they need and the demands to be responsible that go along with them. Do not fret. They will make you proud of them, these Americans, if you just let them."

 

[terraformer]

DC actually asked for a stay pending appeal, or failing that 180 days. So, it's not just 90 days saved, but also the duration of the appeal.

Also it puts DC in an interesting position. If they pass a permit scheme within the 90 days, the appeal is moot. If they don't, and the stay isn't extended, it goes back to this weekend's free for all on day 91.

Not entirely. They asked for 180 days, they got 90. That's all they get. They can get "until appeal" if they file an appeal, which must be noticed within 14 days (well within the 90), and if so, the clock starts on briefs (which are due well within the 90 days). If they don't file briefs, they won't get a stay pending appeal, or if it was granted, Gura can get it lifted.

If DC passes legislation, the appeal is null and void. They can ask the CADC for another 90 days (getting the 180 they originally sought) but not based on the reason of "pending appeal". It would be an appeal of the judges failure to grant the 180 day stay. I suspect they will not win that appeal of the stay motion given the behavior of Illinois stretching 180 days into 360 days. A stay pending appeal would not have a time limit, but it would be very much tied to their actions on appeal. If they do anything to stop or delay the appeal, Gura has an opportunity to smack them on the issue.

Given this set of facts, there is very little likelihood DC can get more than 90 days without filing substantive pleadings in an appeal. The only way they can get more than 90 and not see an appeal all the way through is for the legislature to pass a law midway into the appeals process. They would look like morons if they do that. But that's the only way I can see it happening.

On July 28, 2014, Defendants filed a partially unopposed motion to stay pending appeal or, in the alternative, for 180 days and for immediate administrative stay. See Dkt. No. 52 at 1. In support of this motion, Defendants’ counsel advised the Court that he had conferred with Plaintiffs’ counsel, “who indicated that [P]laintiffs do not oppose a 90-day stay starting immediately ‘pending the city council enacting remedial legislation that complies with constitutional standards.’” See id. at 1-2.
Based on the parties’ agreement that an immediate 90-day stay is appropriate to provide the city council with an opportunity to enact appropriate legislation consistent with the Court’s ruling,1 the Court hereby
ORDERS that Defendants’ motion for a stay is GRANTED to the extent that the Court’s July 24, 2014 Order is stayed nunc pro tunc for 90 days, i.e., until October 22, 2014; and the Court further

 

[jar]

Not entirely. They asked for 180 days, they got 90. That's all they get. They can get "until appeal" if they file an appeal, which must be noticed within 14 days (well within the 90), and if so, the clock starts on briefs (which are due well within the 90 days). If they don't file briefs, they won't get a stay pending appeal, or if it was granted, Gura can get it lifted.

If DC passes legislation, the appeal is null and void. They can ask the CADC for another 90 days (getting the 180 they originally sought) but not based on the reason of "pending appeal". It would be an appeal of the judges failure to grant the 180 day stay. I suspect they will not win that appeal of the stay motion given the behavior of Illinois stretching 180 days into 360 days. A stay pending appeal would not have a time limit, but it would be very much tied to their actions on appeal. If they do anything to stop or delay the appeal, Gura has an opportunity to smack them on the issue.

Given this set of facts, there is very little likelihood DC can get more than 90 days without filing substantive pleadings in an appeal. The only way they can get more than 90 and not see an appeal all the way through is for the legislature to pass a law midway into the appeals process. They would look like morons if they do that. But that's the only way I can see it happening.

I thought they got 30 days to notice the appeal, based on FRAP 4(a)(1)(A). Their motion included 'stay pending appeal'. Agreed that this would be terminated if they fail to timely appeal.

I should have bolded 'if the stay isn't extended' in my hypothetical. On reflection ,that condition seems unlikely assuming they file a substantive appeal.

I think the two most likely outcomes are:
1. Crafting a constitutional scheme inside the 90 days and not appealing.
2. Timely filing a notice of appeal accompanied by a motion to stay pending appeal, which will likely be granted (by the DC circuit if Scullin denies it initially)

If 1 happens or they lose at the DC circuit also and fail to petition for cert, then starts the shenanigans over fees. (See what's going on in Moore and Shepard)

 

[Hoover]

The ruling prompted an unusually cogent editorial on the Huffington Post:
Guns in America: Why I Think It's Time for California to Stop Fighting Peruta vs. San Diego

The author's main point is that the harder places like California, Chicago and DC resist change, the harder they're going to be hit by decisions like this.

I don't travel the puffington host but I can only imagine the comments, heads exploding. I would have preferred the title Respecting the Constitution, Why I Think It's Time for California to Stop Fighting Peruta vs. San Diego.

Somehow I don't think CA AG Kamela Harris is going to take the advice.

 

[Hoover]

Not entirely. They asked for 180 days, they got 90. That's all they get. They can get "until appeal" if they file an appeal, which must be noticed within 14 days (well within the 90), and if so, the clock starts on briefs (which are due well within the 90 days). If they don't file briefs, they won't get a stay pending appeal, or if it was granted, Gura can get it lifted.

If DC passes legislation, the appeal is null and void. They can ask the CADC for another 90 days (getting the 180 they originally sought) but not based on the reason of "pending appeal". It would be an appeal of the judges failure to grant the 180 day stay. I suspect they will not win that appeal of the stay motion given the behavior of Illinois stretching 180 days into 360 days. A stay pending appeal would not have a time limit, but it would be very much tied to their actions on appeal. If they do anything to stop or delay the appeal, Gura has an opportunity to smack them on the issue.

Given this set of facts, there is very little likelihood DC can get more than 90 days without filing substantive pleadings in an appeal. The only way they can get more than 90 and not see an appeal all the way through is for the legislature to pass a law midway into the appeals process. They would look like morons if they do that. But that's the only way I can see it happening.

If they don't appeal and they set up a defacto ban license like HI and NJ, can Gura go back to this judge or would he need to file another suit and go through the process again probably with a different judge?

 

[terraformer]

If they don't appeal and they set up a defacto ban license like HI and NJ, can Gura go back to this judge or would he need to file another suit and go through the process again probably with a different judge?

They already have a defacto ban license. They have a license they don't give to anyone.

 

[terraformer]

I thought they got 30 days to notice the appeal, based on FRAP 4(a)(1)(A). Their motion included 'stay pending appeal'. Agreed that this would be terminated if they fail to timely appeal.

I should have bolded 'if the stay isn't extended' in my hypothetical. On reflection ,that condition seems unlikely assuming they file a substantive appeal.

I think the two most likely outcomes are:
1. Crafting a constitutional scheme inside the 90 days and not appealing.
2. Timely filing a notice of appeal accompanied by a motion to stay pending appeal, which will likely be granted (by the DC circuit if Scullin denies it initially)

If 1 happens or they lose at the DC circuit also and fail to petition for cert, then starts the shenanigans over fees. (See what's going on in Moore and Shepard)

Sorry, 14 days is enbanc review. I don't have all the dates memorized. But the primary appeal window includes also is 30 days to filing a brief. So notice and brief occur at the same time. Point remains, all major appeals waypoints are hit within the original 90 days. If they are given pending appeal, it is irrelevant as the 90 day clock would take over if they fail to hit those other marks.

 

[Tundra02]

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/court...shington-dc-carry-case-carry-no-longer-legal/