Washington Post: Gun Owners' Next Victory in D.C.

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,927
    WV
    Back ON again...



    :thumbsup:
    I know we're likely looking at a loss here, but at least get Mr Palmer's case out of District!

    He was appointed by Bush 41 and also was appointed by Chief Renquist to the US Foreign Intelligence Survellance Court. We may get a win here, with Wollard helping so Palmer doesn't have to be the first to buck the trend.
     

    krucam

    Ultimate Member

    2ndsupporter

    Member
    Mar 1, 2012
    40
    Docket entry for the hearing is a page back, post 120...
    http://www.mdshooters.com/showpost.php?p=1827241&postcount=120

    It addresses #5 MSJ, and #34 Motion to strike Supplemental Memorandum. Both are motions by the Plaintiffs.

    Docket, for reference: http://ia700408.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.docket.html

    Sorry missed that one. I thought still had been adjourned indefinitely. Thanks for all the hard work on these forums.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,927
    WV
    Docket entry for the hearing is a page back, post 120...
    http://www.mdshooters.com/showpost.php?p=1827241&postcount=120

    It addresses #5 MSJ, and #34 Motion to strike Supplemental Memorandum. Both are motions by the Plaintiffs.

    Docket, for reference: http://ia700408.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.docket.html

    All right-so this will be oral arguments since #5 is the MSJ? IIRC, the DC district court doesn't have audio, so will anyone be there taking notes?
     

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    Looks like an argument over the District dumping 150 pages of unallowed material on the court, without permission. The District apparently thinks it can, and Gura says they cannot.

    No matter the outcome, the District is getting what they want: lots of things to argue about that have nothing to do with the Second Amendment, all to eat up time.
     

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    10/01/2012 Minute Entry; Proceedings held before Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr: Motion Hearing held on 10/1/2012. Taken Under Advisement: 5[RECAP] MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC., GEORGE LYON, AMY MCVEY, TOM G. PALMER, EDWARD RAYMOND, 6[RECAP] Cross-MOTION for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CATHY LANIER, 34[RECAP] MOTION to Strike 33[RECAP] Supplemental Memorandum, filed by SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC., GEORGE LYON, AMY MCVEY, TOM G. PALMER, EDWARD RAYMOND, (Court Reporter Patricia Kaneshiro-Miller.) (hs) (Entered: 10/01/2012)

    :smoke:
     

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    Supplemental memorandum is for SAF to demonstrate they have organizational standing. It's a big deal, because without it the court can deny the plaintiff by finding singular issues with his claim, and ignore the entire 2A argument. AKA: Dearth v Holder

    Sounds like that is where they want to go. It's like the court saying to Gura, "prove to us we cannot ignore this case."
     

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    Thanks. Read it. There is more here than I thought. Maybe the court was looking to dismiss the complaint because they would claim SAF had no standing?

    Wish I had been able to attend. It was right up the road, so to speak.
     

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    The Defendants (DC) refuted SAF's 10/1 Supplemental Brief on Wednesday 10/3, saying that SAF lacks ORGANIZATIONAL Standing. They agree with SAF's assertion that if ONE Plaintiff has representative Standing, the Court does not need to determine if other Plaintiffs have it. However, they say SAF lacks it on the basis that SAF seeks RELIEF different from the other Plaintiffs, which includes the Sect 1988 relief SAF brings.
    http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.39.0.pdf


    Today (10/4), JUST IN CASE there is any misunderstanding of ORGANIZATIONAL vs REPRESENTATIONAL Standing for SAF, Alan Gura responded with:
    http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.40.0.pdf

    Short, Sweet...Seriously Judge, let's put this one to bed.

    :party29:
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,920
    Messages
    7,301,030
    Members
    33,538
    Latest member
    tyreseveronica

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom