D.C granted 90 day stay (until October 22nd) on Palmer vs. DC ruling

[rightwinglibertarian]

That won't work with "this" injunction.

When each of the four plaintiffs registered their guns they deliberately entered, in the reason for registration box, "to be carried outside the home for self defense when not in the home". As expected, they were promptly rejected based on that. Self defense is specified as a criteria in whatever law is crafted so a may issue law won't satisfy the injunction. The 90 day stay that Scullin reluctantly granted isn't a general stay. It's a stay to craft constitutional law. DC still only has 30 days to file an appeal. Both Gura and Scullin knew that if DC was granted a general stay(whether 90 days or 180 days), at the end of that stay, they'd simply present a restrictive/may issue law before the court and if it was rejected they'd simply file their appeal.

You're right, the reason DC wants as long a stay pending appeal as they can get is to stall the process as long as they can, hoping that a change occurs in the judicial system and or the SCOTUS. Both Gura and Scullin know this and it's why Scullin granted them a non-general 90 day stay.

Nice but fanciful thought. The only thing DC can lawfully do is enact a prohibition on any infringements to 2A rights which of course it won't do. Problem is no one (even supposed activists have enough of a backbone to exercise the rights they already have. Why don't I see pictures of daily demonstrations in DC, demanding Constitutional Carry? Why is it I see people tiptoeing around when there is ample precedent to simply exercise ones right? Clearly it would have to be done in a fairly large (but of necessity, peaceful) groups initially but with enough momentum it has to work same as the Bundy Ranch. Did it get heated? Did it get nerve wracking? You bet! But the point is no lives were lost and a citizens rights were successfully defended. This is the model needed across the country for every constitutional right that the government attempts to restrict. The key is to behave in a firm but honorable way as the militia we are for our country. I don't advocate breaking the law but rather upholding the law and rejecting what is not.

 

[Toymaker]

The injunction was issued against D.C. Code § 22-4504(a) and D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4) for nonresidents. Nothing prevents DC from enacting a new Maryland/New Jersey type ban and codifying it as D.C. Code § 22-4504(d) or some entirely different code section. Likewise with D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4). The "unless and until such time" language enjoins these two DC Code sections and not any other, written or to be written, code section. Judges do not even have the authority to issue an injunction against a law which does not exist and no plaintiff has standing to bring such a challenge.



These last two sentences do not make any sense. Scullin issued the 90 stay because both sides asked for a stay. Gura's motivation is clear. He does not want Constitutional Carry, not even for handguns. Gura wants a highly restrictive concealed carry law that bans Open Carry like the one passed in Illinois.

P.S. I was uncertain by what you meant in the first paragraph about the timing of the appeal but the FRCP doesn't provide for delaying filing notice of the appeal once judgment has been entered except for specific circumstances, none of which are currently present.

According to your logic, DC could simply write new DC Code, wording it the same as the current Code. Since it'll be "new" DC code the plaintiffs will have to reacquire standing, bring a new lawsuit and the judge would have to issue a new injunction. An injunction is a judicial order that restrains a person from beginning or continuing an action threatening or invading the legal right of another, or that compels a person to carry out a certain act, e.g., to make restitution to an injured party. DC will have to rewrite their code to satisfy the injunction. It being a law does not make it more important than the wording of the law.

I don't know where you're getting it from that Gura wanted a stay. Gura said that he'd agree to a 90 day stay because he realized that if denied, DC would have immediately appealed to the Circuit and gotten the stay that they wanted anyway and that includes quite likely a 180 day general stay pending appeal. By agreeing to a 90 day stay they could limit it to a non-general stay, for the purpose of crafting constitutional law, and keep the appeal deadline at 30 days.

 

[Toymaker]

Nice but fanciful thought. The only thing DC can lawfully do is enact a prohibition on any infringements to 2A rights which of course it won't do. Problem is no one (even supposed activists have enough of a backbone to exercise the rights they already have. Why don't I see pictures of daily demonstrations in DC, demanding Constitutional Carry? Why is it I see people tiptoeing around when there is ample precedent to simply exercise ones right? Clearly it would have to be done in a fairly large (but of necessity, peaceful) groups initially but with enough momentum it has to work same as the Bundy Ranch. Did it get heated? Did it get nerve wracking? You bet! But the point is no lives were lost and a citizens rights were successfully defended. This is the model needed across the country for every constitutional right that the government attempts to restrict. The key is to behave in a firm but honorable way as the militia we are for our country. I don't advocate breaking the law but rather upholding the law and rejecting what is not.

Last year Maryland passed a very restrictive assault weapons ban law. Before that law was passed last year thousands of Marylanders protested by flooding the Annapolis legislative chambers with bodies testifying in opposition to the proposed law. Guess what happened? Maryland still passed the law ignoring all of those protestors and their voices of opposition. This year a lawsuit was brought against that law by the majority of state gun retailers and guess what? The law was upheld by the Maryland courts. Do you really think that a similar mass protest would make a difference with the like minded politicians in DC?

We as a pro-Second Amendment community have to continue to work on correcting the mindset of America regarding the importance and true meaning of the 2A. We can mass protest all we want but we also have to convince people to stop voting for statists and anti-2A politicians. These politicians also appoint anti-2A judges to the court system. It's not as simple as just getting a bunch of pro-gun guys together and going downtown and picketing. These laws have to be methodically dismantled and taken down one by one and it's not going to happen over night.

 

[rightwinglibertarian]

Last year Maryland passed a very restrictive assault weapons ban law. Before that law was passed last year thousands of Marylanders protested by flooding the Annapolis legislative chambers with bodies testifying in opposition to the proposed law. Guess what happened? Maryland still passed the law ignoring all of those protestors and their voices of opposition. This year a lawsuit was brought against that law by the majority of state gun retailers and guess what? The law was upheld by the Maryland courts. Do you really think that a similar mass protest would make a difference with the like minded politicians in DC?

We as a pro-Second Amendment community have to continue to work on correcting the mindset of America regarding the importance and true meaning of the 2A. We can mass protest all we want but we also have to convince people to stop voting for statists and anti-2A politicians. These politicians also appoint anti-2A judges to the court system. It's not as simple as just getting a bunch of pro-gun guys together and going downtown and picketing. These laws have to be methodically dismantled and taken down one by one and it's not going to happen over night.

ok.... that makes it clearer, yet far more complicated. Question is will the people who voted this law in be removed from office? If they are no longer representing the people then they certainly should be. The other issue is how can you fight for 2A rights when the judges themselves make illegal and unconstitutional rulings? You can sue every state and every town that has laws in violation of the Constitution but if the judges refuse to uphold the Constitution, and mass protests fail what can you do? It's like all commonly known methods of getting ones point across no longer function as they should. You can't even rely on SCOTUS to even hear your case if it gets that far, never mind make decent rulings.

 

[Thundar]

Palmer v. DC has only four individual plaintiffs. Another thing that DC could do is to create a highly restrictive may-issue law and then issue permits to the four individual plaintiffs leaving only the SAF as a plaintiff. The SAF is an associational plaintiff. A lone associational plaintiff presents a "standing" problem for the suit to continue. That was one of the problems with NRA v. McCraw.

Runs counter to equal protection clause. The law must be applied equally to all persons similarly situated.

 

[Toymaker]

Runs counter to equal protection clause. The law must be applied equally to all persons similarly situated.

That's right.


Also, even if DC decided to ignore this judge's injunction and/or pass some restrictive may issue scheme, unlike the states, a newly written law in DC is subject to the direct scrutiny and rejection of Congress. I doubt that even Harry Reid and the Democratically controlled Senate would take kindly to DC ignoring a federal judge's injunction.

 

[California Right To Carry]

Runs counter to equal protection clause. The law must be applied equally to all persons similarly situated.

The Second Amendment Foundation is not a person similarly situated to any real person.

 

[Toymaker]

The Second Amendment Foundation is not a person similarly situated to any real person.

No but, Gura, a lawyer hired by the SAF is representing real persons namely, the plaintiffs.

In Brown v. Board of Education, a Fourteenth Amendment case, would it have been proper for the government to have only satisfied the demands of the 13 plaintiffs separating them from the rest of society? It didn't matter that they were represented by lawyers from the NAACP.

 

[California Right To Carry]

No but, Gura, a lawyer hired by the SAF is representing real persons namely, the plaintiffs.

You seem to have overlooked the post where DC eliminates the individual plaintiffs by granting them permits, leaving the SAF as the only Plaintiff. As I mentioned before, a similar thing happened with the NRA v. McCraw case. SAF needs at least one live plaintiff to have standing as an association and even then standing isn't guaranteed.

 

[Toymaker]

You seem to have overlooked the post where DC eliminates the individual plaintiffs by granting them permits, leaving the SAF as the only Plaintiff. As I mentioned before, a similar thing happened with the NRA v. McCraw case. SAF needs at least one live plaintiff to have standing as an association and even then standing isn't guaranteed.

The way the injunction is written it orders defendants from enforcing DC Code 22-4504(a) or to issue licenses to carry handguns to ALL law abiding citizens/individuals who desire such licenses. Not just the plaintiffs.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2014/images/07/27/dc.gun.ban.order.pdf

Now, you're right, DC could ignore the wording of the federal judge's injunction but, if doing so they're in a position to very likely suffer repercussions much more so than any state. The only realistic courses they have are to comply, at least in good faith, or appeal to the Circuit. It was recently hinted by City Council Chairman Mendelson that they, at this time, are planning to formally appeal.

 

[SarMintr]

I'm curios how DC could enact a MD style law requiring G&S reasons to get a permit when Sculin specifically stated in his ruling self defense is a valid reason to carry. Why wouldn't he let the injunction stand until DC complies with his ruling? (wishful thinking)

It's an injunction. Just because DC passes legislation doesn't make that go away until Judge Sculin lifts it does it?

Guess we'll watch and see.

The idea is that if he didn't, the DC Circuit would have issued a much worse one: a stay pending appeal that would last until the Circuit rules. That could be a total of two years or more. By doing this preemptively, and ending past the deadline for appeal, it prevents the stay pending appeal. It sucks that such is the way the game is played, but clearly that was a move in favor of our side.