Ruling in Palmer v. D.C handed down, Gura wins again

[Knuckle Dragger]

Update - New Order

The appeal in Palmer v. DC will now move on to a full briefing and hearing, even while motions are still pending in district court.

DC had asked the court to put the appeal on hold pending the outcome of enforcement motions still before the district court. Gura opposed and the circuit court agreed with him.

Gura had asked for summary affirmation of the lower court decision. That was denied.

O R D E R
Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance; and the motion to
hold case in abeyance, the opposition thereto, and the reply, it is

ORDERED that the motion to hold case in abeyance be denied. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be denied. See
Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam).

Because the court has determined that summary disposition is not in order, the
Clerk is instructed to calendar this case for presentation to a merits panel.
Per Curiam

Meanwhile enforcement: motions go on in the district court, but no hearing has been set:

• 11/18/2014 -- Plaintiff's Motion to Hold Defendant in Contempt.
• 12/04/2014 -- Defendant's Opposition
• 12/11/2014 -- Plaintiff's Reply

Enjoy!

 

[Coyote33]

Can we get the "Dummy's Guide" translation? Also, is this good or bad, and why?

 

[terraformer]

Basically, the judge can hold the city in contempt while the appeal moves forward. DC is trying to delay, the court is not letting them.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Can we get the "Dummy's Guide" translation? Also, is this good or bad, and why?

Sure:

The district court that first struck down DC's carry law this summer will continue to consider if DC is in contempt for not passing an ordinance that is consistent with the court's ruling. That's good! The DC city council did pass a concealed carry ordinance and argues that it is not in contempt because it's very similar to laws in NY, NJ, and MD which were upheld on appeal and denied review by SCOTUS. The problem here is that the district court in Palmer explicitly rejected the rational used to uphold those laws.

The circuit court of appeal won't wait to see what happens in the district court before hearing DC's appeal. That's good too.

The circuit court of appeals did not grant Palmer's motion to summarily affirm the win from the disctrict court. That's not a bad thing and really was too much to expect anyway.

 

[GaryO]

DC is a cesspool and Queen Turd is no friend of the gun owner.
http://joeforamerica.com/2015/01/ne...ing-thats-guaranteed-make-gun-lovers-furious/

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Here's a related update. The DC District Court issued a preliminary injunction against the District's 'good preventing the district's 'good cause' requirement for a carry license.

PI Decision and Order

The fact that an individual may be able to demonstrate a greater need for self-protection, and therefore meets the “good reason”/”proper reason” requirement, does not indicate, in any way, whether that person is less likely to misuse handguns or may be less dangerous.

 

[dixidawg]

Need to be logged into MD Shooters to get to the link?

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Need to be logged into MD Shooters to get to the link?

Recap doesn't seem to be working. I'll try to get an archive link to post.

 

[Garys]

Article at saf.org

 

[Hoover]

Full order here:

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Wrenn-v-Lanier-decision-order-MPI.pdf

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Full order here:

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Wrenn-v-Lanier-decision-order-MPI.pdf

Thanks!

 

[M1911]

So, anyone care to comment on the implications of this case? I assume that DC can appeal, if they wish.

 

[jujutsuka]

So, anyone care to comment on the implications of this case? I assume that DC can appeal, if they wish.

I think the 4th Circuit is split from this decision, in Woollard. It seems to me that this *could* ultimately get kicked to SCOTUS.

DISCLAIMER: I'm a relative simpleton when it comes to law so, anyone, corrections and perspective are welcome.

 

[Friday]

this could certainly help those stuck in NY and NJ, where similar burdens of need are on them, provided, of course, SCOTUS sacks up and takes the case.

 

[M1911]

this could certainly help those stuck in NY and NJ, where similar burdens of need are on them, provided, of course, SCOTUS sacks up and takes the case.

Is the DC District Court in the same Circuit as NY NJ?

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Is the DC District Court in the same Circuit as NY NJ?

No, DC has it's own circuit all to itself.

I think the 4th Circuit is split from this decision, in Woollard. It seems to me that this *could* ultimately get kicked to SCOTUS.

DISCLAIMER: I'm a relative simpleton when it comes to law so, anyone, corrections and perspective are welcome.

Not yet. I don't think SCOTUS is going to jump into carry with Peruta, Richards and Baker still in 9th Circuit en banc limbo. This case and/or Palmer would have to get through the DC Circuit before there's any possibility that SCOTUS could become involved. And if we win in the circuit, DC may decide NOT to petition SCOTUS. I think they generally realize that it was a mistake for them to appeal Heller all the way up. As of now, the circuit split looks like this:

1st - nothing - still fumbling around in MA district court.
2nd - against us - Kachalsky(NY) (denied cert)
3rd - against us - Drake(NJ) (denied cert)
4th - against us - Wollard(MD) (denied cert)
7th - fur us - Moore(IL) (no cert petition by IL as they changed their law)
9th - for us (for now) - Pertua, etc(CA,HI). (under en banc review - likely to go against us)
DC - for us (for now) - Palmer(DC) - (under review in the DC Circuit)

There are no right-to-carry cases in the other circuits because carry isn't an issue anywhere but in the above jurisdictions. The next opportunities for our side to petition SCOTUS for a review of a loss would be Palmer or Richards if the 9th Circuit goes against us, which is the conventional wisdom. If those cases do go our way, we may be kind of stuck as you can't appeal a win. That would just leave Palmer in DC, and like I said, if DC loses, they might just take their lumps and leave the rest of us to figure it out.

 

[matt9112]

Dumb legal question why cant you file a new suit in xyz say mass based on NEW court decisions somewhere else? IE why are the rules always locked to there respective districts if California and massachusetts banned red shirts and cali lost that case why can't somebody in MA Say I like red shirts too?

 

[soam]

Dumb legal question why cant you file a new suit in xyz say mass based on NEW court decisions somewhere else? IE why are the rules always locked to there respective districts if California and massachusetts banned red shirts and cali lost that case why can't somebody in MA Say I like red shirts too?

You could file a similar suit in another district, but it may not make sense strategically to do so. If the CA decision is appealed to SCOTUS, there's no reason to litigate it again in MA since the SCOTUS decision (if they make one) would be binding nationwide.

If you did file suit in MA, the CA case would not be binding, but it could be used as a persuasive authority in order to convince the MA court to rule the same way. There's no guarantee that they would though.

 

[milktree]

Here's a related update. The DC District Court issued a preliminary injunction against the District's 'good preventing the district's 'good cause' requirement for a carry license.

I'm having trouble with the .... er... what reads to me like a lot of double negatives...

Does this mean that DC District Court thinks the city's assertion that you must have "greater need" is bogus?

i.e. because greater need isn't a reasonable proxy for "smarter and safer", it's a crappy test, and shouldn't be a requirement.

Or do I have this all inside out?

 

[DispositionMatrix]

I'm having trouble with the .... er... what reads to me like a lot of double negatives...

Does this mean that DC District Court thinks the city's assertion that you must have "greater need" is bogus?

i.e. because greater need isn't a reasonable proxy for "smarter and safer", it's a crappy test, and shouldn't be a requirement.

Or do I have this all inside out?

Means "good reason" (in the order) is not indicative of a person being safer and is therefore invalid.

Assuming the order stands (it won't), D.C. will have to find another method of making getting carry licences too burdensome to be practical. They are committed to the cause of making sure the unwashed are not armed.

 

[M1911]

No, DC has it's own circuit all to itself.

That was what I thought.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Dumb legal question why cant you file a new suit in xyz say mass based on NEW court decisions somewhere else? IE why are the rules always locked to there respective districts if California and massachusetts banned red shirts and cali lost that case why can't somebody in MA Say I like red shirts too?

You could file a similar suit in another district, but it may not make sense strategically to do so. If the CA decision is appealed to SCOTUS, there's no reason to litigate it again in MA since the SCOTUS decision (if they make one) would be binding nationwide.

If you did file suit in MA, the CA case would not be binding, but it could be used as a persuasive authority in order to convince the MA court to rule the same way. There's no guarantee that they would though.

This. Plus chaos would ensue. Here we have a DC court overturning a DC law. We have a different law, which may or may not be similar, here in MA. You can't really have a DC court reaching out overturning a MA law. You'd end up with a situation of warring district and appellate courts. In this case DC will probably appeal, so view this decision as temporary for now.

The opinion, however, is a 'legal authority' and you can expect that plaintiffs in similar cases will be filing a 'Notice of Supplemental Authority' citing this case to bolster their own. But, it is not binding. Here in MA, this is a really good answer to chief who expect people to demonstrate a 'need' before issuing an unrestricted LTC (or sometimes even a restricted LTC), rather than evaluating applicants based upon their 'qualifications'.

 

[soam]

Here in MA, this is a really good answer to chief who expect people to demonstrate a 'need' before issuing an unrestricted LTC (or sometimes even a restricted LTC), rather than evaluating applicants based upon their 'qualifications'.

Exactly this. This PI calls the whole "need based" licensing scheme into question. Such a scheme only makes sense if your goal is to limit the number of licenses in your jurisdiction, and justify it by saying that issuing more licenses detracts from public safety. This is obviously not the case, and the court appears to see through the BS and understand that need based licensing is bogus. Hopefully the injunction becomes permanent.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

uch a scheme only makes sense if your goal is to limit the number of licenses in your jurisdiction, and justify it by saying that issuing more licenses detracts from public safety.

Or, if you goal is to placate the powerful while controlling the ordinary.

 

[soloman02]

You know what is funny? The DC circuit cited Peruta in their decision .

 

[NewGuyRay]

This. Plus chaos would ensue. Here we have a DC court overturning a DC law. We have a different law, which may or may not be similar, here in MA. You can't really have a DC court reaching out overturning a MA law. You'd end up with a situation of warring district and appellate courts. In this case DC will probably appeal, so view this decision as temporary for now.

The opinion, however, is a 'legal authority' and you can expect that plaintiffs in similar cases will be filing a 'Notice of Supplemental Authority' citing this case to bolster their own. But, it is not binding. Here in MA, this is a really good answer to chief who expect people to demonstrate a 'need' before issuing an unrestricted LTC (or sometimes even a restricted LTC), rather than evaluating applicants based upon their 'qualifications'.

Can we expect this will be the case with regard to "Grimes" and its progeny? I understand we have the additional hurdle that no court in the 1st has ruled carry outside the home to be protected by 2A, so is this ruling really helpful here?

 

[terraformer]

Can we expect this will be the case with regard to "Grimes" and its progeny? I understand we have the additional hurdle that no court in the 1st has ruled carry outside the home to be protected by 2A, so is this ruling really helpful here?

You only file those notices if you have a pending motion with the court. There is no pending motion in Grimes, or any of our cases at the moment. There is a reply possible in Jarvis and we haven't filed our brief in Draper. So no 28(j)'s/7(f)'s are going to be filed by us.

 

[NewGuyRay]

Now, it's hard to read the mind of a judge and know whether he was looking big picture or not but, isn't his reasoning in striking down the arbitrary group classification for denying the exercise 2A rights pretty much how you would expect to see a decision written that strikes down the GCA of '68 prohibition of possession by felons?

 

[browncoat]

Now, it's hard to read the mind of a judge and know whether he was looking big picture or not but, isn't his reasoning in striking down the arbitrary group classification for denying the exercise 2A rights pretty much how you would expect to see a decision written that strikes down the GCA of '68 prohibition of possession by felons?

Not really, because felons are not an arbitrary group. The rate of recidivism alone makes felons a much better target for oppression, and courts have upheld "stop and frisk" where the facts were much less in favor of the policy.

 

[terraformer]

Not really, because felons are not an arbitrary group. The rate of recidivism alone makes felons a much better target for oppression, and courts have upheld "stop and frisk" where the facts were much less in favor of the policy.

Felons are just as arbitrary when you look at what are defined as felonies. Hell, adultery in MA is a felony. So you cheat on your wife, that makes you a PP?