• 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.

Lawsuit filed for carry in the District of Columbia

press1280

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
398
Location
Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
BEFORE: Henderson, Brown, and Srinivasan, Circuit Judges ORDER

Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus, it is ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus be denied without prejudice to renewal. Petitioners have not shown that the district court’s delay in ruling on the pending cross-motions for summary judgment is so egregious or unreasonable as to warrant the extraordinary remedy of mandamus at this time. See Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289 (1988); cf. Telecommunications Research and Action Center v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70, 79-81 (D.C. Cir. 1984). We are confident that the district court will act on the motions as promptly as its docket permits.

*******
Yes, it is very comforting to know that three black robed statists are confident that the district court will rule on a civil rights case of that has entered its sixth calendar year as promptly as its docket permits.

It is also very comforting to note that the judicial pocket veto is alive and well in the second circuit. Funny thing though, I cannot find any mention of the judicial pocket veto in my copy of the US Constitution.
This is the DC Circuit BTW. I find it odd Henderson (an anti through and through) seems to ALWAYS be on any panel examining a 2A challenge, including this one which is strictly based on the District Court's delay and not on the merits. SHE was the lone vote against Heller before the Supreme Court ruled for Heller-claiming "security of a free state" meant one of the 50 states-not DC.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,940
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
This is the DC Circuit BTW. I find it odd Henderson (an anti through and through) seems to ALWAYS be on any panel examining a 2A challenge, including this one which is strictly based on the District Court's delay and not on the merits. SHE was the lone vote against Heller before the Supreme Court ruled for Heller-claiming "security of a free state" meant one of the 50 states-not DC.
Oops. Of course it is the DC Circuit. I had the NY Safe Act and the judicial pretzel that circuit's ruling has made of the 2nd A on my mind.
 
Last edited:

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,940
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Happy Groundhog Day/ Super Bowl Sunday 2014

Sad to say but we are halfway to spring and six months since the motion to expedite was filed. Still not even a ruling on that motion to expedite!
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,940
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Spring Training begins again, and still crickets from the DC District Court

Seven months after a motion to expedite and no ruling.

This is really justice denied to everybody who must travel unarmed in dirty rundown DC slums. Scullin, the blood of the innocent DC crime victims who have died without the ability to defend themselves is smeared all over your dirty black robe. You preside without honor. Shame on you.

The act of coming to this thread month after month, year after year with the same message of the judicial pocket veto has opened my eyes to the intolerable injustice woven into the Article III courts. These federal courts lack any accountability to the people they are supposed to serve. For the most part they are self licking ice cream cones.
 

press1280

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
398
Location
Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
The judge is no doubt busy http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=40&q=frederick+scullin&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=6,49 but I thought the purpose of re-assigning to him (a retired judge on senior status) was that he would have a smaller caseload that allowed him to get the case through quickly. That hasn't happened. It seems the ND of NY is where his caseload lies and where his attention is focused.
He was reassigned a number of cases, not just Palmer. I see some have been acted upon, others, like Palmer, not.
 
Last edited:

cirrusly

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2013
Messages
291
Location
North Dakota
Forget this kangaroo court. One case: Drake v Jereigan. Praying SCOTUS will add that to the docket and reinforce carry outside the home is a right, once and for all!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,940
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Forget this kangaroo court. One case: Drake v Jereigan. Praying SCOTUS will add that to the docket and reinforce carry outside the home is a right, once and for all!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Unfortunately earlier today cert was denied for Drake v. Jereigan. So the only viable bear arms cases are this one and Peruta.

Peruta is problematic because it may just be moot. The Sheriff has decided not to appeal, so Peruta gets his license (Sheriff may stall based upon Cali Atty General appeal, but Peruta can just file a motion to compel the Sheriff to issue the license.)

So what we really have left is THIS case. It is the one that we know we can win at SCOTUS. It is the one that the antis know they will lose.
 

cirrusly

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2013
Messages
291
Location
North Dakota
Unfortunately earlier today cert was denied for Drake v. Jereigan. So the only viable bear arms cases are this one and Peruta.

Peruta is problematic because it may just be moot. The Sheriff has decided not to appeal, so Peruta gets his license (Sheriff may stall based upon Cali Atty General appeal, but Peruta can just file a motion to compel the Sheriff to issue the license.)

So what we really have left is THIS case. It is the one that we know we can win at SCOTUS. It is the one that the antis know they will lose.
Not moot for California and Hawaii though.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,940
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Maybe this could is the case SCOTUS wants since the others have been denied CERT.
I have been saying that for more than two years. It allows for a straight up definition of the right to bear arms. We have the right to bear arms. DC has passed a law voiding a fundamental constitutional right. The DC law will be voided by the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile five years, yup five years denied a fundamental right because DC Federal District Court Judges are too busy to make a ruling. Really? Shame on you black robed Kritocrats!
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,748
Location
Oregon
You're the first person I thought of when I heard the news Thundar. Great news.
 
Top