VICTORY IN PALMER!!!!

[Inigoes]

I'm still not following this.

Did Tom Palmer ever get his CCW permit?

Nope, nor did the either plaintiffs. They did not apply via DC's newlicensing scheme.


Wrenn and the other new lawsuit plaintifs did.

 

[gamer_jim]

Nope, nor did the either plaintiffs. They did not apply via DC's newlicensing scheme.


Wrenn and the other new lawsuit plaintifs did.

And the courts said Tom Palmer had to follow the new rules?

 

[Elliotte]

There were 3 pieces of legal wrangling that came out of Judge Scullin's ruling.

1) DC appealed his original ruling to the DC Circuit (which is what DC recently dropped their appeal of).

2) DC enacted a may-issue concealed carry law. Our side challenged this with Judge Scullin saying it doesn't comply with the Judge's ruling.

3) There is a new case (also in front of Scullin I think) challenging may issue

 

[press1280]

There were 3 pieces of legal wrangling that came out of Judge Scullin's ruling.

1) DC appealed his original ruling to the DC Circuit (which is what DC recently dropped their appeal of).

2) DC enacted a may-issue concealed carry law. Our side challenged this with Judge Scullin saying it doesn't comply with the Judge's ruling.

3) There is a new case (also in front of Scullin I think) challenging may issue

I really hope the new lawsuit challenging the may-issue scheme does not take the 5 plus years that Palmer did. DC could easily keep moving the goal posts if that's the case. I'm curious if Wrenn will be on some kind of expedited time table? And, within the DC District Court, is Palmer "precedent"?

 

[swinokur]

Coincidence or not? IIRC the Wrenn case has also been assigned to Sculin, who ruled in Palmer.

The same judge has both cases. I assume his ruling in Palmer would be part of any future ruling in Wrenn

thoughts?

 

[esqappellate]

I really hope the new lawsuit challenging the may-issue scheme does not take the 5 plus years that Palmer did. DC could easily keep moving the goal posts if that's the case. I'm curious if Wrenn will be on some kind of expedited time table? And, within the DC District Court, is Palmer "precedent"?

Palmer is district court precedent, which is to say, not binding on any court, including any district court judge in DC. It has only persuasive power.

 

[swinokur]

so Sculin has to persuade himself?

 

[Maestro Pistolero]

I'm very curious why Palmer has not applied for or been granted a license and how this case is concluded in the absence of relief for the plaintiff. Is this not the elephant in the living room?

 

[swinokur]

The case is not concluded. We're still waiting on Sculin to rule on the SAF motion to find DC in contempt and for injunctive relief.

 

[wjackcooper]

Seems to me the fundamental issue (“… does the Second Amendment guarantee the right to bear arms . . .”) remains postured for a final conclusion in Palmer. The District’s dismissal of its appeal simply flips “guarantee” which Mr. Gura maintains is the “only question” in Palmer back to the lower court where the apparent answer already is yes.* Note that the original order appears on its face to preclude the lower court from finding that the “new law” is in accordance with its order.

In any event the contempt motion is still pending and “may issue” is, of course, not a guarantee of the right. As Gura has pointed out the District can appeal any order of the lower court that, in effect, implements its Palmer decision.

Should the lower court somehow not enforce the clear implications of its Palmer order. . . Wrenn is out of the gate and running.

Could be Gura acquiesced in the dismissal of the appeal so that Palmer and Wrenn, if not consolidated, can be advanced at nearly the same rate with Wrenn covering any “may issue” escape that might occur in Palmer.

Regards
Jack

*“nless and until such time as the District of Columbia adopts a licensing mechanism consistent with constitutional standards enabling people to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.” Page 16 of the lower court’s opinion and order.

 

[Nobody]

The case is not concluded. We're still waiting on Sculin to rule on the SAF motion to find DC in contempt and for injunctive relief.

When is that supposed to happen? Two weeks. ....before someone else does it,

NOBODY

 

[swinokur]

no idea. two weeks, 8 weeks, we wait

 

[Elliotte]

When is that supposed to happen? Two weeks. ....before someone else does it,

NOBODY

It was fully briefed back in December (scroll down to the latest 3 entries in the District Court section here http://michellawyers.com/palmer-v-district-of-colombia/).

So we're just waiting on Scullin

 

[swinokur]

yep.

 

[Maestro Pistolero]

I can't imagine why Palmer wouldn't have applied unless he clearly couldn't have met the announced criteria for issuance in which case, as I understand it, he would not need a denial for continued standing.

 

[Ack Ack]

no idea. two weeks, 8 weeks, we wait

If previous rulings are any indication, it will be somewhere between 2 weeks and 5 years.

 

[swinokur]

well, we have no control, so I don't worry about it. i worry about stuff I can control.

works for me anyway

 

[esqappellate]

Seems to me the fundamental issue (“… does the Second Amendment guarantee the right to bear arms . . .”) remains postured for a final conclusion in Palmer. The District’s dismissal of its appeal simply flips “guarantee” which Mr. Gura maintains is the “only question” in Palmer back to the lower court where the apparent answer already is yes.* Note that the original order appears on its face to preclude the lower court from finding that the “new law” is in accordance with its order.

In any event the contempt motion is still pending and “may issue” is, of course, not a guarantee of the right. As Gura has pointed out the District can appeal any order of the lower court that, in effect, implements its Palmer decision.

Should the lower court somehow not enforce the clear implications of its Palmer order. . . Wrenn is out of the gate and running.

Could be Gura acquiesced in the dismissal of the appeal so that Palmer and Wrenn, if not consolidated, can be advanced at nearly the same rate with Wrenn covering any “may issue” escape that might occur in Palmer.

Regards
Jack

*“nless and until such time as the District of Columbia adopts a licensing mechanism consistent with constitutional standards enabling people to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.” Page 16 of the lower court’s opinion and order.

Simple. When the other guy wants to dismiss his appeal and quit and you won below, you *always* let him quit.

 

[press1280]

Simple. When the other guy wants to dismiss his appeal and quit and you won below, you *always* let him quit.

It just strikes me as odd that Palmer "won" yet for him and the plaintiffs, nothing has changed.

 

[wjackcooper]

Looks to me like Mr. Gura (hats off) continues to see the whole field.

Acquiescing in the dismissal of the appeal has repositioned Palmer to run in tandem with Wrenn, before the same Republican judge and has refocused Palmer on “the only question” in the cases, i.e., the Second Amendment “guarantee” of the right to “bear” which, of course, is the “fundamental” issue in each case. The odds of an unfavorable ruling in both cases are now likely substantially less, or so it seems to me. The most he gave up, if anything, was a few months pending in the appellant court.

Regards
Jack

Filed in the lower court on April 2:
file:///C:/Users/Owner/Downloads/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.88.0%20(4).pdf

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Defendants, the District of Columbia and its Police
Chief, Cathy Lanier, have moved to voluntarily dismiss their appeal in this case (D.C. Cir. No.
14-7180).
With that, Defendants have not only acquiesced in this Court’s judgment—they have
abandoned their various objections to the outstanding motion for permanent injunction (Dkt. 71)
and motion to hold Defendants in contempt (Dkt. 83) that were based on allegations that their
notice of appeal had divested this Court of jurisdiction.
There is no question but that this Court has full jurisdiction to enforce its order and
judgment of July 29, 2014, either by holding Defendants in contempt, or again enjoining the
enforcement of D.C. Code § 22-4504(a) because the District has failed to enact a licensing
scheme consistent with constitutional standards.
Plaintiffs urge this Court to act expeditiously. Defendants’ appeal proved to be nothing
more than an elaborate stalling tactic. First, they moved to hold their own appeal in abeyance.
1
Case 1:09-cv-01482-FJS Document 88 Filed 04/02/15 Page 1 of 2
Having failed at that, they sought an extension on their opening brief (in and of itself, a routine
move), and finally, within two weeks of that brief being due at the extended deadline, Defendants
decided they did not wish to have the appeal heard after all—having used the appeal as an excuse
to delay enforcement for nearly five months.
This Court should now determine whether the District’s “new” old law complies with its
judgment of last July. Nearly six years after bringing this litigation, Plaintiffs remain deprived of
a fundamental constitutional right, without a remedial order that the Defendants would follow,
and without a means of accessing or triggering appellate review.
Dated: April 2, 2015 Respectfully

Need a link that works, thanks.