Lawsuit filed for carry in the District of Columbia

[Thundar]

Scullin: 3 years isn't enough, wait some more

08/16/2012 MOTION RESCHEDULING NOTICE as to 6[RECAP] MOTION for Summary Judgment, 5[RECAP] MOTION for Summary Judgment, 34[RECAP] MOTION to Strike 33[RECAP] Supplemental Memorandum. Due to a change in the Court's calendar the Motion Argument set 8/27/2012 is reset for 8/29/2012 10:00 AM before Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr.. (Scullin, Frederick) (Entered: 08/16/2012)

08/20/2012 TEXT SCHEDULING NOTICE CANCELLING ORAL ARGUMENT for 6[RECAP] MOTION for Summary Judgment, 5[RECAP] MOTION for Summary Judgment, 34[RECAP] MOTION to Strike 33[RECAP] Supplemental Memorandum. Motion Argument set for 8/29/2012 before Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. is adjourned without date due to a conflict in the Court's calendar. Counsel will be notified when future dates become available. The motion remains on submit. (Scullin, Frederick) (Entered: 08/20/2012

So the hearing was rescheduled then canceled. Bottom line from Scullin: You've been waiting for over 3 years while your fundamental rights are being violated by the government, why should the government lackeys in black robes make any effort to actually hand down a decision. We are unelected, job for life, black robed federal **** ******* *******, why would we ever be responsive to the people?

 

[ianto94]

08/16/2012 MOTION RESCHEDULING NOTICE as to 6[RECAP] MOTION for Summary Judgment, 5[RECAP] MOTION for Summary Judgment, 34[RECAP] MOTION to Strike 33[RECAP] Supplemental Memorandum. Due to a change in the Court's calendar the Motion Argument set 8/27/2012 is reset for 8/29/2012 10:00 AM before Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr.. (Scullin, Frederick) (Entered: 08/16/2012)

08/20/2012 TEXT SCHEDULING NOTICE CANCELLING ORAL ARGUMENT for 6[RECAP] MOTION for Summary Judgment, 5[RECAP] MOTION for Summary Judgment, 34[RECAP] MOTION to Strike 33[RECAP] Supplemental Memorandum. Motion Argument set for 8/29/2012 before Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. is adjourned without date due to a conflict in the Court's calendar. Counsel will be notified when future dates become available. The motion remains on submit. (Scullin, Frederick) (Entered: 08/20/2012

So the hearing was rescheduled then canceled. Bottom line from Scullin: You've been waiting for over 3 years while your fundamental rights are being violated by the government, why should the government lackeys in black robes make any effort to actually hand down a decision. We are unelected, job for life, black robed federal **** ******* *******, why would we ever be responsive to the people?

The hearing is supposed to be rescheduled for October 1, but who knows.

 

[Thundar]

Was there a hearing today?

The hearing is supposed to be rescheduled for October 1, but who knows.

Was there a hearing today?

 

[Thundar]

There was a court hearing on Monday (1 Oct 2012) The issue of standing came up for SAF, but standing was certain for individual plaintiffs.

There had to be more, but I haven't seen anything on the blogs. Has anybody heard anything?

 

[ianto94]

There was a court hearing on Monday (1 Oct 2012) The issue of standing came up for SAF, but standing was certain for individual plaintiffs.

There had to be more, but I haven't seen anything on the blogs. Has anybody heard anything?

I was there. Judge focused on standard of review and said he would apply intermediate scrutiny, which I think is inconsistent with Heller. Gura argued that since this was a prohibition, the prohibition would fail under any standard. DC argued there was no right to carry but then seemed to agree the right is fundamental -- go figure.

Hard to understand what this judge will do. He did say he would do it quickly and that is a relief. In the meantime, the fight shifts to the 4th circuit for the Woolard case being heard later this month. We might also get a decision out of the 10th circuit or 7th circuits before that.

 

[Thundar]

I was there. Judge focused on standard of review and said he would apply intermediate scrutiny, which I think is inconsistent with Heller. Gura argued that since this was a prohibition, the prohibition would fail under any standard. DC argued there was no right to carry but then seemed to agree the right is fundamental -- go figure.

Hard to understand what this judge will do. He did say he would do it quickly and that is a relief. In the meantime, the fight shifts to the 4th circuit for the Woolard case being heard later this month. We might also get a decision out of the 10th circuit or 7th circuits before that.

Thanks ianto.

 

[Gray Peterson]

I was there. Judge focused on standard of review and said he would apply intermediate scrutiny, which I think is inconsistent with Heller. Gura argued that since this was a prohibition, the prohibition would fail under any standard. DC argued there was no right to carry but then seemed to agree the right is fundamental -- go figure.

Hard to understand what this judge will do. He did say he would do it quickly and that is a relief. In the meantime, the fight shifts to the 4th circuit for the Woolard case being heard later this month. We might also get a decision out of the 10th circuit or 7th circuits before that.

It's not inconsistent with Heller in the sense that you only need to use the scrutiny standard that is needed to strike down a total prohibition. Since Heller​ took rational basis off of the table, you only need the lowest standard given the status as a total ban.

 

[Thundar]

Since Heller​ took rational basis off of the table, you only need the lowest standard given the status as a total ban.

I was thinking the same thing, if DC has admitted that the right to bear arms actually does exist in a public setting, then a total ban fails intermediate scrutiny.

 

[Thundar]

December 2012..... Still waiting for a decision

Still no decision. Do you think we will hear something before New Years?

 

[bigtoe416]

Well the 7th circuit has overturned the concealed carry ban in Illinois. I'm guessing Gray's case will be decided shortly, can't be too much longer.

 

[tattedupboy]

I like the direction in which things are headed with today's court decision, but o wouldn't hold my breath on carry of any kind (concealed or open) starting in PRIL any time soon. Chicago is gonna fight this kicking and screaming, all the way to SCOTUS if necessary.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[RANDYT]

Speculation is saying that CA and NY are putting pressure on IL not to appeal, because if the ruling is affirmed there may issue statute is also overturned.

 

[OC4me]

Illinois will almost certainly appeal providing that doing so will gain them an indefinite Stay (i.e. the current ban on public carry remains in effect). Then they can drag out the Appeal (and Stay) for years all the while waiting for one (or more) of the conservative Supreme Court justices to retire (which is widely expected to be the case during the next 4 years). Illinois may still snatch victory from the Jaws of defeat. Heller may very well be overturned!

 

[Thundar]

Happy New Year

It has been 18 Months since the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court intervened to get this case back on track. He took the case out of the hands of Judge Kennedy and placed in the hands of Senior Judge Scullin. There has been no decision or ruling from from Scullin. This is absolutely pathetic. 2013 and still no decision at the district court level. This case is about fundamental rights. How can it linger for so long?

Do you think we will get a decision in 2013, or will we wait until 2014?

Justice Delayed is Justice Denied.
Thundar.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Illinois will almost certainly appeal providing that doing so will gain them an indefinite Stay (i.e. the current ban on public carry remains in effect). Then they can drag out the Appeal (and Stay) for years all the while waiting for one (or more) of the conservative Supreme Court justices to retire (which is widely expected to be the case during the next 4 years). Illinois may still snatch victory from the Jaws of defeat. Heller may very well be overturned!

I believe in the Moore v. Madigan case that an appeal would not stay the ban .. they have 180 days since the ruling to comply.

 

[Smurfologist]

It has been 18 Months since the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court intervened to get this case back on track. He took the case out of the hands of Judge Kennedy and placed in the hands of Senior Judge Scullin. There has been no decision or ruling from from Scullin. This is absolutely pathetic. 2013 and still no decision at the district court level. This case is about fundamental rights. How can it linger for so long?

Do you think we will get a decision in 2013, or will we wait until 2014?

Justice Delayed is Justice Denied.
Thundar.

How will this case be affected by the President's current push on gun control........Your thoughts are very much appreciated. Thanks in advance!

 

[OC4me]

How will this case be affected by the President's current push on gun control........Your thoughts are very much appreciated. Thanks in advance!

An anti-gun opinion handed down now would receive 'some' political cover from the media (but not much). A pro-gun opinion issued now would cause a hell of a lot of hysterical screaming from the usual suspects in the media and on the left, but on the whole a pro-gun decision would really do a lot of damage to whatever gun control momentum the President might have.

The fact that no decision was handed down immediately after Newtown probably means that the current push by the President for more gun-control isn't a factor.

My theory is that no matter what decision is handed down, an appeal will be heading to the Supreme Court. A pro-gun Judge would have handed out a decision a long time ago knowing that the Heller 5 would hear the case. An anti-gun Judge would wait out the clock, hoping for 1 of the Heller 5 to be replaced by Obama.

Guess which type of Judge has been handling this case?

 

[Thundar]

How will this case be affected by the President's current push on gun control........Your thoughts are very much appreciated. Thanks in advance!

The current care is destined to be one of the carry cases. The Chief Justice of SCOTUS took this case out of the hands of bumbling judge Kennedy for a reason.

Hopefully this case will get to the Supreme Court before we lose one of the 5 voices that believe that there is an individual 2nd A.

To answer your question, Obama push is political and it doesn't mean much to the courts.

Live free or Die,
Thundar

 

[press1280]

The current care is destined to be one of the carry cases. The Chief Justice of SCOTUS took this case out of the hands of bumbling judge Kennedy for a reason.

Hopefully this case will get to the Supreme Court before we lose one of the 5 voices that believe that there is an individual 2nd A.

To answer your question, Obama push is political and it doesn't mean much to the courts.

Live free or Die,
Thundar

At this point it doesn't matter whether Scullin rules on this case or not. This case, which should have been the first to reach SCOTUS, can't get out of district court. SCOTUS will rule on the matter through another vehicle, and DC will have to abide by it.

 

[Thundar]

At this point it doesn't matter whether Scullin rules on this case or not. This case, which should have been the first to reach SCOTUS, can't get out of district court. SCOTUS will rule on the matter through another vehicle, and DC will have to abide by it.

You may be right, but DC provides a cleaner path for gun rights. DC is not a state so those pesky police power and 10th A issues are not an issue with DC. These would not be issues at all if SCOTUS had accepted Gura's incorporation argument in MacDonald.