DC files a notice of appeal

[California Right To Carry]

Palmer v. District of Columbia

Update November 14, 2014 - The defendants filed a notice of appeal today. It looks like I was right about their not wanting to risk losing their right to appeal by construing the written order denying their motion for reconsideration as the date for when the clock starts ticking as opposed to the oral order denying their motion back on October 17th.

http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=1852

 

[press1280]

So they're in effect still holding out hope to revert back again to a total ban? If that's the case then I don't see a reason for Scullin to do anything IRT the hearing next week.
This is good though, I hope they push their total ban all the way to SCOTUS.

 

[davidmcbeth]

So they're in effect still holding out hope to revert back again to a total ban? If that's the case then I don't see a reason for Scullin to do anything IRT the hearing next week.
This is good though, I hope they push their total ban all the way to SCOTUS.

I would not mind this either .. let the lawyers get their blood money .... and sit and argue about a RIGHT .. wherein any result is irrelevant.

 

[1245A Defender]

Well,,,

So they're in effect still holding out hope to revert back again to a total ban? If that's the case then I don't see a reason for Scullin to do anything IRT the hearing next week.
This is good though, I hope they push their total ban all the way to SCOTUS.

Seems to me, they can argue all they want to in the lower courts, But,,,
Really, they cant go to SCOTUS,,, thats already settled law,, inre,, Mcdonald!

I hate to say it, but I might be wrong... OK, I dont think I am...
Describe for me how I am screwed up!

 

[press1280]

Seems to me, they can argue all they want to in the lower courts, But,,,
Really, they cant go to SCOTUS,,, thats already settled law,, inre,, Mcdonald!

I hate to say it, but I might be wrong... OK, I dont think I am...
Describe for me how I am screwed up!

McDonald didn't decide the outside the home question, so sure they can go to SCOTUS. But I'm sure they'll get some gun control groups pushing them NOT to appeal, instead they'll be told just to throw up a ton of new regulations just shy of a total ban, and just keep dragging things out each time they get hauled back into court.

 

[California Right To Carry]

McDonald didn't decide the outside the home question, so sure they can go to SCOTUS. But I'm sure they'll get some gun control groups pushing them NOT to appeal, instead they'll be told just to throw up a ton of new regulations just shy of a total ban, and just keep dragging things out each time they get hauled back into court.

By holding that the Second Amendment right as defined in Heller is fundamental and incorporated via the 14th Amendment to the states, McDonald (with a broad brush) did decide the "outside the home" question which is why every* Federal Court of Appeals has assumed that the Second Amendment right extends beyond the home but given that all of these cases except Moore v. Madigan were direct or indirect attempts to carry concealed it was an easy enough matter for the courts of appeal to point to the parts of the Heller decision which said that there is no right to carry concealed weapons and case closed, they lost.

And even the Moore Court said that Illinois can require that firearms be carried openly as per the Heller decision.

*Woollard deserves its own category of "Ducking the Second Amendment Question."

 

[press1280]

By holding that the Second Amendment right as defined in Heller is fundamental and incorporated via the 14th Amendment to the states, McDonald (with a broad brush) did decide the "outside the home" question which is why every* Federal Court of Appeals has assumed that the Second Amendment right extends beyond the home but given that all of these cases except Moore v. Madigan were direct or indirect attempts to carry concealed it was an easy enough matter for the courts of appeal to point to the parts of the Heller decision which said that there is no right to carry concealed weapons and case closed, they lost.

And even the Moore Court said that Illinois can require that firearms be carried openly as per the Heller decision.

*Woollard deserves its own category of "Ducking the Second Amendment Question."

Kachalsky, yes, but Woollard and Drake were not CCW cases, those states do not differentiate between open and concealed, only that a permit is required. Drake never got into concealed carry and said that the NJ law dating back to the 1920's was "longstanding" so it didn't infringe the 2A.

 

[BB62]

Is the "notice of appeal" just a note saying "We're going to appeal" or is it something more elaborate?

 

[California Right To Carry]

Kachalsky, yes, but Woollard and Drake were not CCW cases, those states do not differentiate between open and concealed, only that a permit is required. Drake never got into concealed carry and said that the NJ law dating back to the 1920's was "longstanding" so it didn't infringe the 2A.

Woollard and Drake were both CCW cases because Alan Gura made them CCW cases. For someone whose handle is "Press" in part you really have to stop relying on what you read in the press, in forums and the like and read the actual briefs filed in the cases and listen to the oral arguments in the cases.

It is also helpful to read the entire decision in cases, including the dissents. The dissent in Drake pointed out that there was a crucial difference between concealed carry and open carry, and for that particular case, the fact that New Jersey did not require permits to openly carry handguns until the mid 1960's.

In none of his cases has Gura ever challenged a permit requirement and in all three of the cases you mentioned above, Gura argued that Heller's admonition that concealed carry is not a right was (orbiter) dicta.

Let's face it, after traveling the Federal Circuits with their dog and pony show, Alan Gottlieb and Alan Gura have managed to convince but two Federal Appellate court judges that states can choose between concealed and open carry and that was a case the scope of which was limited to a single county (Yolo).

 

[California Right To Carry]

Is the "notice of appeal" just a note saying "We're going to appeal" or is it something more elaborate?

It is more than "just a note." If one does not file a notice of appeal on time then he loses his right to appeal (with few exceptions) and a court of appeals will crawl over its .... to ...... its ....... in order to avoid having to decide whether or not a law is constitutional. If there is any procedural way to avoid the question then the court will take it.

Failing to file a notice of appeal in this particular case would have left Judge Scullin just a notch or two below god.

 

[swinokur]

Gura files another brief. Looks like the conference has been moved to 11-19? or not?

11/14/2014 79 NOTICE of filing of corrected appeal and suggestion of lack of jurisdiction by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CATHY L. LANIER (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Corrected Notice of Appeal)(Saindon, Andrew) (Entered: 11/14/2014)

11/17/2014 TEXT SCHEDULING NOTICE: A Telephone Conference is set for 11/19/2014 at 10:00 AM before Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. Plaintiff's attorney is directed to coordinate with opposing counsel and initiate the call to Chambers. (Scullin, Frederick) (Entered: 11/17/2014)

11/17/2014 80 Transmission of the Notice of Appeal, Order Appealed, and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals. The Fee remains to be paid and another notice will be transmitted when the fee has been paid in the District Court re 78 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court, 76 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court,. (znmw, ) (Entered: 11/17/2014)

11/17/2014 81 RESPONSE re 79 Notice (Other) re Jurisdiction filed by GEORGE LYON, AMY MCVEY, TOM G. PALMER, EDWARD RAYMOND, SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC.. (Gura, Alan) (Entered: 11/17/2014)

Is the PI hearing still scheduled for 11-20?

 

[swinokur]

More filings from Pacer:

2014-11-18 82 0 RESPONSE re 81 Response to Document filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CATHY L. LANIER. (Saindon, Andrew) (Entered: 11/18/2014)

11/18/2014 83 MOTION for Order to Show Cause re: CONTEMPT by GEORGE LYON, AMY MCVEY, TOM G. PALMER, EDWARD RAYMOND, SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1: MPD Teletype Message to Force Oct 10 14, # 2 Exhibit 2: Docket, DC Superior Ct 2014-CF2-18623, # 3 Exhibit 3: Docket, DC Superior Ct 2014-CF2-18922, # 4 Exhibit 4: Docket, DC Superior Ct 2014-CF2-18901, # 5 Exhibit 5: Docket, DC Superior Ct 2014-CF2-19086, # 6 Text of Proposed Order)(Gura, Alan) (Entered: 11/18/2014)

11/19/2014 TEXT Minute Entry for Telephone Conference held on 11/19/2014 before Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr: Court advised that it would hear oral argument tomorrow, as scheduled, on motion for permanent injunction and motion for an order to have Defendants show cause why the Court should not hold Defendants in contempt. All agreed that the first issue to address was the scope of the Court's jurisdiction given Defendants filing of Notice of Appeal. Court advised it would also hear arguments on the merits of Plaintiffs' motions. Appearances: Alan Gura, Esq. for pltfs; Andrew Saindon, Esq. for defts. (Scullin, Frederick) (Entered: 11/19/2014)

 

[California Right To Carry]

Dupe

More filings from Pacer:

Dupe -> http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?128023-Palmer-files-a-motion-to-hold-DC-in-contempt-of-court

 

[swinokur]

Intentionally added to existing thread.

 

[swinokur]

DC has dropped their appeal of Palmer. Still need a ruling from Sculin on the SAF contempt motion. I guess DC finally figured out a no issue scheme won't fly and is going to try and defend may issue.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...hpModule_99d5f542-86a2-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394

 

[OC for ME]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/1/dc-gives-ban-carrying-guns-public/

Appeal dropped.

 

[California Right To Carry]

I suspect that it is fear of Open Carry which prompted them to drop their appeal now that the Peruta decision is vacated and the en banc panel decision is more likely now to read like Chief Judge Thomas' dissent in Peruta where he said:


Although all the nineteenth-century cases cited by the majority cautioned against restrictions on the open carrying of weapons, none of them — except the discredited, outlier Bliss — suggests that restrictions on carrying concealed weapons implicate the Second Amendment. See Chandler, 1 La.Ann. at 490; Nunn, 1 Ga. at 251; Reid, 1 Ala. at 616-17. And nothing in these cases or Chase's Blackstone even hints that a restriction on carrying concealed weapons would become invalid if restrictions were placed on open carry. Rather, they suggest that restrictions on concealed carry are always valid, while there are limits to restrictions on open carry.

 

[press1280]

I suspect that it is fear of Open Carry which prompted them to drop their appeal now that the Peruta decision is vacated and the en banc panel decision is more likely now to read like Chief Judge Thomas' dissent in Peruta where he said:


Although all the nineteenth-century cases cited by the majority cautioned against restrictions on the open carrying of weapons, none of them — except the discredited, outlier Bliss — suggests that restrictions on carrying concealed weapons implicate the Second Amendment. See Chandler, 1 La.Ann. at 490; Nunn, 1 Ga. at 251; Reid, 1 Ala. at 616-17. And nothing in these cases or Chase's Blackstone even hints that a restriction on carrying concealed weapons would become invalid if restrictions were placed on open carry. Rather, they suggest that restrictions on concealed carry are always valid, while there are limits to restrictions on open carry.

If that is the case then an OC case mirroring the Wrenn case ought to be filed since DC's scheme is CCW only.

 

[rightwinglibertarian]

DC has dropped their appeal of Palmer. Still need a ruling from Sculin on the SAF contempt motion. I guess DC finally figured out a no issue scheme won't fly and is going to try and defend may issue.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...hpModule_99d5f542-86a2-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394

it amazes me how willfully ignorant people are. To take 'shall not be infringed' and not only require a permit but have it 'May Issue'? How can anyone defend a thing like that? Which word in the 2A is beyond the comprehension of even a 12 year old, never mind grown men and women? :banghead:

 

[California Right To Carry]

If that is the case then an OC case mirroring the Wrenn case ought to be filed since DC's scheme is CCW only.

There won't be as there is no so called gun-rights groups that will file an Open Carry case. If I had the resources to file one it would not mirror the Wrenn case. It would mirror my California Open Carry case which basically argues, relative to my Second Amendment component, that Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution and that the exercise of that right cannot be made conditional upon having a government issued permission slip. Unlike Wrenn, I would also challenge the ban on openly carrying long guns for the purpose of self-defense.