• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Palmer files a motion to hold DC in contempt of court

press1280

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
398
Location
Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
CRTC,

The meaningful or symbolic nature of a contempt finding would be predicated upon Scullins remedy rather than his finding. In his original ruling Scullins indicated may issue as not an appropriate response by the federal district. Whether Scullin addresses the issue in the contempt hearing or waits for the new may issue case to mature is very hard to predict. I know you have your opinions, most of which I agree with, but he is a senior judge who was assigned this case by the chief Justice of SCOTUS. We could yet see fireworks from this case.

Thundar
I hope it's soon. As the last brief pointed out, plaintiffs have now gone 6 years with no relief. Kinda weird to win a case, yet nothing has materially changed.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,939
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Something has changed. The district court cited the now vacated Peruta decision 20 times in its 19 page decision View attachment 12525.

View attachment 12526
Well the price of gasoline has gone down but recently has been edging up. What is the relevance of gas prices to the contempt hearing? Exactly the same as the Peruta enBank review, nothing.

The federal district did not appeal the district court hearing. The ruling excludes may issue as an option to comply. The show cause burden for the fedral district which has continued to persecute citizens who bear arms is therefore exceptionally high.

The federal district would quickly appeal being found in contempt and could perhaps even win in the circuit court, but at the district court level Scullin would be cutting off his own b@11$ if he lets the district get away with this behaviour.
 

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
Well the price of gasoline has gone down but recently has been edging up. What is the relevance of gas prices to the contempt hearing? Exactly the same as the Peruta enBank review, nothing.
If the court had said the price of gasoline were relevant then it would be relevant. This is what the court said in Palmer:

From my website -> Update April 6, 2015 – The defendants filed a consent motion, to which the plaintiffs did not object, to: “stay briefing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs, until 30 days after a decision on plaintiffs’ pending (1) Motion for Permanent Injunction, or (2) Motion to Hold Defendants in Contempt, or 30 days after the issuance of the mandate on any appeal of those decisions, whichever is later.”

Given that the appeal was voluntarily dismissed (3) is moot and the court must think that (1) and (2) are relevant even if you do not.

The ruling excludes may issue as an option to comply.
Not for concealed carry it doesn't and that is what DC enacted, a may issue licensing scheme for concealed carry. The City Council enacted a new law banning the Open Carry of handguns and requiring a permit for concealed carry. Gura doesn't so much as make a peep against the new Open Carry ban making this a pure concealed carry case unless the judge figures someway to get Gura out of the corner he painted himself into.

The show cause burden for the fedral district which has continued to persecute citizens who bear arms is therefore exceptionally high.
It would be if this were about the Second Amendment right to openly carry firearms for the purpose of self-defense, it isn't. Instead, it is a concealed carry case in which the District has enacted a licensing scheme for concealed carry when it could have constitutionally prohibited concealed carry and not provide for any concealed carry permits at all.

The federal district would quickly appeal being found in contempt and could perhaps even win in the circuit court, but at the district court level Scullin would be cutting off his own b@11$ if he lets the district get away with this behaviour.
DC can certainly appeal any contempt order but given the posture of this case if a contempt order is issued it will be largely symbolic and any monetary fine to be couch change from DC's perspective and given the many months since Gura filed his pending motion it is safe to conclude that the judge does not see this as "cutting off his own b@11$."

Palmer and Wrenn are both concealed carry cases. Palmer could have been about Open Carry as well but Gura and the plaintiffs decided to make it solely about concealed carry. The judge's order striking down the earlier DC law relied heavily on the now vacated Peruta decision. If you still do not see how Peruta is related then I cannot help you understand and I suspect that nobody else can either.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,939
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
If the court had said the price of gasoline were relevant then it would be relevant. This is what the court said in Palmer:

From my website -> Update April 6, 2015 – The defendants filed a consent motion, to which the plaintiffs did not object, to: “stay briefing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs, until 30 days after a decision on plaintiffs’ pending (1) Motion for Permanent Injunction, or (2) Motion to Hold Defendants in Contempt, or 30 days after the issuance of the mandate on any appeal of those decisions, whichever is later.”

Given that the appeal was voluntarily dismissed (3) is moot and the court must think that (1) and (2) are relevant even if you do not.



Not for concealed carry it doesn't and that is what DC enacted, a may issue licensing scheme for concealed carry. The City Council enacted a new law banning the Open Carry of handguns and requiring a permit for concealed carry. Gura doesn't so much as make a peep against the new Open Carry ban making this a pure concealed carry case unless the judge figures someway to get Gura out of the corner he painted himself into.





It would be if this were about the Second Amendment right to openly carry firearms for the purpose of self-defense, it isn't. Instead, it is a concealed carry case in which the District has enacted a licensing scheme for concealed carry when it could have constitutionally prohibited concealed carry and not provide for any concealed carry permits at all.



DC can certainly appeal any contempt order but given the posture of this case if a contempt order is issued it will be largely symbolic and any monetary fine to be couch change from DC's perspective and given the many months since Gura filed his pending motion it is safe to conclude that the judge does not see this as "cutting off his own b@11$."

Palmer and Wrenn are both concealed carry cases. Palmer could have been about Open Carry as well but Gura and the plaintiffs decided to make it solely about concealed carry. The judge's order striking down the earlier DC law relied heavily on the now vacated Peruta decision. If you still do not see how Peruta is related then I cannot help you understand and I suspect that nobody else can either.
Charles,

You conflate the right to bear arms with the right to openly bear arms. I agree with your general premise that open carry is the right, but that is not what this case and Wrenn are about.

I do understand how Peruta and Palmer are related if a contempt hearing is appealed, but there is no longer a required justification (relationship) in front of this court. For Scullin the District court ruling stands on its own unless he reverses himself.
 
Last edited:

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
Charles,

You conflate the right to bear arms with the right to openly bear arms.
No, it is others who conflate the bearing of arms with the right to bear arms. The right to bear arms in public is Open Carry. There is no general right to concealed carry in public except for limited 19th century exceptions embraced by the US Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller which includes travelers while actually on a journey.

I agree with your general premise that open carry is the right, but that is not what this case and Wrenn are about.
Palmer and Wrenn are not about Open Carry. I've said that many times. Palmer and Wrenn are both concealed carry cases, Palmer even now than ever which brings us back full circle. Gura isn't asking for Open Carry in either case. He wants only concealed carry and concealed carry only via government issued permission slips, which is why the vacating of the Peruta decision is relevant to the Palmer case (and Wrenn for that matter).
 

swinokur

Activist Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
919
Location
Montgomery County, MD
Scullin just rule for Wrenn.

After reviewing the entire file in this matter, the parties' submissions and the applicable law, and for the above-stated reasons, the Court hereby

ORDERS that Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED; and the Court further

ORDERS that Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction are enjoined from enforcing the requirement of D.C. Code § 22-4506(a) that handgun carry license applicants have a "good reason to fear injury to his or her person or property or has any other proper reason for carrying a pistol," including, but not limited to, the manner in which that requirement is defined by D.C. Code § 7-2509.11 and 24 D.C.M.R. §§ 2333.1, 2333.2, 2333.3, 2333.4, and 2334.1, against Plaintiffs Brian Wrenn, Joshua Akery, Tyler Whidby, and other members of Plaintiff Second Amendment Foundation, Inc.; and the Court further

ORDERS that Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction, are enjoined from denying handgun carry licenses to applicants who meet the requirements of D.C. Code 22- 4506(a) and all other current requirements for the possession and carrying of handguns under District of Columbia law; and the Court further

ORDERS that, pursuant to Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs shall post security in the amount of $1,000.00; and the Court further

ORDERS that counsel shall appear for a conference with the Court on Tuesday, July 7, 2015, at 11:00 a.m. to discuss an expedited schedule for
 
Last edited:

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
Scullin just rule for Wrenn.
I had just finished posting the news on my website and my Facebook page before checking here to see if anyone beat me to it.

Judge Scullin cited the Peruta decision six times even though it has been vacated and, of course, if he were in the 9th Circuit he would not be able to cite it at all. I suspect that an appeal will be filed and a stay issued before the ink is dry on the Plaintiffs new applications.

I liked much of Judge Scullin's argument. If this decision isn't vacated by the time the stay is lifted in my appeal, I shall shamelessly steal them.
 

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
Palmer Contempt Motion is Denied - Permanent Injunction is Denied as Unnecessary.

Judge Scullin denied the contempt motion and denied the motion for a permanent injunction as being unnecessary-> View attachment 92 - Order on Permanent Injunction.pdf

From my website:

Update May 18, 2015 by Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry – Judge Scullin denied the contempt motion and denied the motion for a permanent injunction as being unnecessary. Note that Judge Scullin says he is prevented from ruling on the new DC law because of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65.

And so, after all of these years, Palmer v. District of Columbia goes out not with a bang but with a whimper.
 
Last edited:

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
so what's the new ruling mean to open carry?
The new DC law bans Open Carry. Judge Scullin said he cannot rule on the new DC law in Palmer because he is prevented from doing so because of Rule 65 of the FRCP. In the separate but related lawsuit of Wrenn v. DC Judge Scullin issued a preliminary injunction against the good cause clause of the licensing law for concealed carry.

Since nobody is challenging the new Open Carry ban the Open Carry ban will remain in place until someone who knows what he is doing files a lawsuit to overturn the ban. We all know by now that the NRA, SAF and none of the so called gun-rights groups is going to do that.

NRA Suckers.jpg
 

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
The new DC law bans Open Carry. Judge Scullin said he cannot rule on the new DC law in Palmer because he is prevented from doing so because of Rule 65 of the FRCP. In the separate but related lawsuit of Wrenn v. DC Judge Scullin issued a preliminary injunction against the good cause clause of the licensing law for concealed carry.

Since nobody is challenging the new Open Carry ban the Open Carry ban will remain in place until someone who knows what he is doing files a lawsuit to overturn the ban. We all know by now that the NRA, SAF and none of the so called gun-rights groups is going to do that.

View attachment 12530
I wish open carry was taken on first given our legal traditions and the bad precedent the concealed carry cases have given us. I also think open carry is generally superior to concealed carry.

But for whatever reason, most people want to carry concealed. SAF and NRA are doing what their donors want them to do. I reject the notion that concealed carry is not a fundamental human right, and I believe licensing it is immoral in addition to being useless for increasing public safety; so "shall issue" is a step in the right direction. I understand what the legal precedent in the United States says, but most people become familiar with open carry after concealed carry. So I don't think there is anything sinister in the actions of the major gun groups.
 
Last edited:

swinokur

Activist Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
919
Location
Montgomery County, MD
As I stated, DC has no problem writing huge checks when it's not their money. But the taxpayers and voters seem ok with it so the circus continues.
 

swinokur

Activist Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
919
Location
Montgomery County, MD
I don't know Mr. Gura but perhaps a bit of professional pride or a touch of vanity? It certainly seems like a nice revenue stream though either way.
 

HPmatt

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
1,460
Location
Dallas
Last edited:
Top