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

MaynardDad said:
Did you get enough back to cover a significant part of Comm2A's costs?
Click to expand...

All of our costs. But that's all we get. The Attorney keeps the balance. Think of it in investing terms where the goal is to not lose money because we can't make money. So we underwrite the attorney in case of a loss, they give us a deal in hopes of getting their actual costs covered but what we pay goes to ensuring they don't work for nothing. But the attorneys do not get paid what they are worth unless they win. But if we lose, we eat 100% of the costs, but that's discounted.
 
Do cases such as these take the attorney's full attention for longer periods? When it takes a month to respond to a motion, is that because the attorney and his staff are working furiously in the library for a month, or is it because because the attorney is juggling a hundred cases and it takes that long to find a free afternoon to type something up?

Maybe my question is too general or ignorant to answer … I have only seen lawyers on TV, apart from the guy who pointed out each of the hundred places where I had to sign for my mortgage.
 
MaynardDad said:
Do cases such as these take the attorney's full attention for longer periods? When it takes a month to respond to a motion, is that because the attorney and his staff are working furiously in the library for a month, or is it because because the attorney is juggling a hundred cases and it takes that long to find a free afternoon to type something up?

Maybe my question is too general or ignorant to answer … I have only seen lawyers on TV, apart from the guy who pointed out each of the hundred places where I had to sign for my mortgage.
Click to expand...

The short answer is both. Most attorneys are concurrently working numerous cases, often of different types and in different courts. The Assistant AG that's handling a case we bring in federal court might also be representing the state in state court in other regulatory matters that and completely different. Filing deadlines are usually based upon how long a legal teams needs in order to do their research, draft their pleadings, have them reviewed by the client, etc. along with court schedules and work loads for the various parties and the court itself, vacations, etc. It doesn't appear to be efficient if you're only looking though the lens of one interested party. It's actually much more efficient than you think, at lease in federal court.
 
terraformer said:
So we underwrite the attorney in case of a loss, they give us a deal in hopes of getting their actual costs covered but what we pay goes to ensuring they don't work for nothing.
Click to expand...

Comm2A pays the attorney a negotiated fee (well below the usual rate, but still substantial $$) at the start of the case. We are refunded this amount by the attorney when (if) the state pays a 42 USC 1911 claim for legal fees.

When it takes a month to respond to a motion
Click to expand...
Think of it like college. You may have 6 weeks to write a paper, but 90% of the paper writing is done in the final few days before the deadline. Attorneys will take as long as the court gives them.
 
http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/08/new-plea-to-limit-gun-rights-in-d-c/#more-217105
In Monday’s filing, the city government asked the judge to cast aside that ruling and reinstate the ban, arguing that the ruling was wrong in declaring that public carrying of handguns was at the “core” of the Amendment, and was wrong in failing to fully explore the city’s history of regulating guns and its unique need — as the nation’s capital and as an urban complex plagued by gun violence — to prohibit loaded guns in public.
Click to expand...
In Monday’s filing, the city urged the judge, if he is not willing to overturn his decision, to at least give the city a new opportunity to bring in new evidence on why it needs the carrying ban. The challengers to the ban would also be given a chance to enlarge their submissions on the public safety issue. The challengers have argued in court filings that the Washington area is no more prone to violence than other cities, so it is not entitled to a unique authority to compromise gun rights.
Click to expand...
No way to win here. Even if Judge Scullin holds fast, DC will implement an impossible licensing scheme, such as those done in NYC and NJ.
 
and as an urban complex plagued by gun violence — to prohibit loaded guns in public.
Click to expand...

And it worked so well in dc and chicago.

No way the judge gives a rehearing.
 
http://www.guns.com/2014/09/11/d-c-...nding-restored-to-congressional-spending-bill
The U.S. House this week removed a provision approved earlier this year that would have blocked funding for Washington, D.C.’s strict gun laws.
The amendment, originally passed by a voice vote in the Republican-controlled chamber in July, was proposed by Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., to H.R.5016, a House appropriations act that funds the District in 2015. However, Republican lawmakers introduced a ‘clean’ bill to Capitol Hill late Tuesday without the rider prohibiting funding for gun control measures.
Click to expand...
 
Attorney Alan Gura asks judge to block latest D.C. gun law

Motion for Permanent Injunction.

Defendants have responded not with “appropriate legislation consistent with the Court’s ruling,” Order, Dkt. 53, at 2 (footnote omitted), but with “a thumbing of the municipal nose at the [court].” Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684, 712 (7th Cir. 2011) (Rovner, J., concurring).1 They have merely dusted off their earlier statute restricting handgun carry licenses at the police chief’s pleasure, a licensing regime which explicitly rejects the notion that people have a right to carry handguns for self-defense. Beyond that, the operative language of the enjoined carry ban, D.C. Code § 22-4504(a), having been modified non-substantively in September, 2012, was reverted to
substantially the same form it had on the day this lawsuit was filed. This is the same regime under which it was “common knowledge” that licenses were “virtually unobtainable” “for many years.” Bsharah v. United States, 646 A.2d 993, 996 n.12 (D.C. 1994). Authority this Court followed struck down a practically identical law.
Click to expand...

I can't help but give a shout-out to the gift that keeps on giving:

Courts have had little trouble striking down safety-based firearms laws that do not focus on dangerousness. For example, the District of Massachusetts struck down a state law barring lawful resident aliens from possessing guns “regardless of whether intermediate scrutiny or strict scrutiny applies.” Fletcher v. Haas, 851 F. Supp. 2d 287, 303 (D. Mass. 2012).
[T]he statute here fails to distinguish between dangerous non-citizens and those non-citizens who would pose no particular threat if allowed to possess handguns. Nor does it distinguish between temporary non-immigrant residents and permanent residents. Any classification based on the assumption that lawful permanent residents are categorically dangerous and that all American citizens by contrast are trustworthy lacks even a reasonable basis.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
The judge should watch the interviews with the DC city council. They say flat out they designed it to make it impossible for almost everyone. They must curse Gura non stop. [smile]
 
Hoover said:
The judge should watch the interviews with the DC city council. They say flat out they designed it to make it impossible for almost everyone. They must curse Gura non stop. [smile]
Click to expand...

Seriously... can something like the interview with the DC councilman where he said "I would be surprised if more than a few hundred qualified" be admitted as evidence?
 
The complete contempt for gun owners from the DC council is just amazing.

Some councilmembers protested that disclosing licensing data would endanger public
safety, but others were less concerned. Stated Councilmember Alexander, “Who cares about the
confidentiality of a gun owner. We don’t want it . . . we don’t want it, so expose yourself.”
Click to expand...
 
From the article K.D. posted.

New legislation passed by the D.C. Council in September says a person can only get a permit to carry a gun outside their home or business if they demonstrate a specific reason for needing one.
Click to expand...

Really? I think the restriction went a bit further than that. Even if you were deemed worthy, the restrictions on the license to carry were such a burden and so numerous that you couldn't go about your day without breaking the law.

I think the law gets tossed. Can't wait to see the DC council reactions.
 
Gura is filing for contempt against DC. The internets are all abuzz about this but beware, DC can propose a new stay based on new actions they have taken. They just haven't. So while the motion for contempt order sounds big and bad ass, see the following document why it may well not be granted, or it will be mooted by a new motion by DC in the coming days.

http://ia802305.us.archive.org/14/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.81.0.pdf

The motion for contempt.
http://ia802305.us.archive.org/14/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.83.0.pdf
proposed blank order. As you can see it gives DC time to move.
http://ia902305.us.archive.org/14/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.83.6.pdf
 
jefftk said:
Seriously... can something like the interview with the DC councilman where he said "I would be surprised if more than a few hundred qualified" be admitted as evidence?
Click to expand...

noddaduma said:
Absolutely.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



I'd like to hear what Terraformer or Knuckedragger have to say on this.



JayMcB said:
Emily Miller is documenting her efforts to get an LTC, and the district seems to be going out of it's way to make it difficult, as well as requiring you to be in 'special danger' before being eligible to even apply. How that is not in contempt of the ruling is beyond me.
Click to expand...

Do the police there need a license? If not, why not? If so, how are they more in danger?
 
Coyote33 said:
Do the police there need a license? If not, why not? If so, how are they more in danger?
Click to expand...

State agents are granted special powers by other state agents because the system itself is corrupt. It not only has no interest in upholding individual rights but insures you have less rights by giving itself more power.
 
Now:

Emily MillerVerified account 11:03 AM - 20 Nov 2014
‏@EmilyMiller I’m at district court -- plaintiffs in DC gun carry case effort to hold city in contempt for new law not abiding by judge’s order.


She is tweeting all Alan's updates live: https://twitter.com/EmilyMiller



Emily MillerVerified account
‏@EmilyMiller Hearing status - Alan Gura said DC carry law in contempt of court order. City argues they don’t have standing to bring issue.
 
Last edited:
A woman was arrested for carry while at the protest taking place while the president spoke last night.
http://nypost.com/2014/11/21/woman-carrying-gun-arrested-outside-white-house/
The Secret Service says that its officers arrested 23-year-old April Lenhart of Mount Morris, Michigan around 8:30 p.m. EST Thursday. They say she was participating in a demonstration along the north fence outside the White House complex when agents spotted a holstered handgun on her front hip.

Authorities say that Lenhart faces charges of having an unregistered firearm and unregistered ammunition, and carrying a pistol without a license.
Click to expand...
 

Similar threads

Bumpstocks Legal - SCOTUS smacks down ATF, AGAIN!
Replies
14
Views
529
pastera
pastera
Here's a list of states suing the BATFE/FEDS in opposition to the new ruling of who's a dealer and who's not.
Replies
5
Views
456
Tartakovsky
Tartakovsky
Status of Pistol brace ruling?
Replies
18
Views
790
allen-1
allen-1
.380 was made great again (.380 Intercepter Taofledermaus)
2 3 4
Replies
113
Views
2K
pastera
pastera
North Andover SWAT Standoff - Tango Down
Replies
0
Views
335
VTski4x4
VTski4x4
Back
Top Bottom