• 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 for a Permanent Injunction against the new DC carry law.

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
I was wondering what Gura was going to do with the new may-issue law enacted by the D.C., city council. Now we know. Here are links to the: Motion for a Permanent Injunction, Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion, Exhibit A – The new law, and the Proposed Order.



Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don't carry a purse. Besides, Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution, concealed carry can be prohibited.

"[A] right to carry arms openly: "This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations."" District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2809.

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues." District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2816.

"We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller." McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill., 130 S. Ct. 3020 - Supreme Court (2010) at 3050.

"[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms (art. 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons..." Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 US 275 - Supreme Court (1897) at 282


Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,940
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Motion enable vs. infringe

The motion was poorly crafted. It requires DC to pass a law that enables the right to bear arms. It should be worded that the law must not infringe upon the right to bear arms.

Why? In a constitutional world we do not need the city city council from the federal district to enable us to exercise the right. We do want the court to do is bar the council from unconstitutional infringement of the incorporated right to bear arms.
 

Toymaker

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2006
Messages
175
Location
Washington, DC USA
The motion was poorly crafted. It requires DC to pass a law that enables the right to bear arms. It should be worded that the law must not infringe upon the right to bear arms.

Why? In a constitutional world we do not need the city city council from the federal district to enable us to exercise the right. We do want the court to do is bar the council from unconstitutional infringement of the incorporated right to bear arms.
DC doesn't consider it to be a natural right affirmed by the Second Amendment so they don't consider what they're doing to be an infringement. In the injunction they were ordered to write constitutional law with carrying for self defense allowed. As expected they wrote an extremely restrictive may issue law which is even more restrictive than the one they had in place before they banned Chief Lanier from issuing permits.

They're not impressed by words because they consider the 2A to be outdated and irrelevent.
 

Toymaker

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2006
Messages
175
Location
Washington, DC USA
Especially the criminals who ignore all the gun laws anyway.
At least you'll find some criminals who'll admit that there's a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms even if they know very little about the Bill Of Rights and the history behind it. DC's local politicians are worst than criminals. They're a bunch of corrupt tyrannts who got into office by duping a mostly ignorant and poorly educated population into voting for them. The only thing a tyrannt understands is force. The only way the DC council and mayor ever act to even moderately comply to any 2A laws is when Congress threatens to spank their rear ends for resisting to a court order.

The US Attorney's Office is constantly investigating various council members, the mayor and their staff for corruption. Several of them have been charged and convicted of various ethics violations and others are currently under investigation. That should give you some type of insight into why they absolutely refuse to even entertain the thought of allowing law abiding citizens to legally carry firearms.
 

press1280

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
398
Location
Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
I was wondering what Gura was going to do with the new may-issue law enacted by the D.C., city council. Now we know. Here are links to the: Motion for a Permanent Injunction, Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion, Exhibit A – The new law, and the Proposed Order.



Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don't carry a purse. Besides, Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution, concealed carry can be prohibited.

"[A] right to carry arms openly: "This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations."" District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2809.

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues." District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2816.

"We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller." McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill., 130 S. Ct. 3020 - Supreme Court (2010) at 3050.

"[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms (art. 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons..." Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 US 275 - Supreme Court (1897) at 282


Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org
Won't get any court to enforce OC (licensed or not) on DC because they don't want to make too many waves.
 

press1280

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
398
Location
Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
The motion was poorly crafted. It requires DC to pass a law that enables the right to bear arms. It should be worded that the law must not infringe upon the right to bear arms.

Why? In a constitutional world we do not need the city city council from the federal district to enable us to exercise the right. We do want the court to do is bar the council from unconstitutional infringement of the incorporated right to bear arms.
I think that's what was asked for-basically shall-issue or the DC Code (carrying w/o a permit) declared unenforceable. The original complaint asked specified "All who desire" to carry under existing conditions.
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,831
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
Reading the Motion and Response the arrogance of DC officials as well as their contempt for citizens is overwhelming. I hope the court smacks them down with extreme prejudice.
 

swinokur

Activist Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
919
Location
Montgomery County, MD
From Maryland Shooters forum

SAF filed their Reply Brief (in response to DC's opposition) to the Motion for Permanent Injunction yesterday.

They're calling in the 4 Plaintiffs. Each has a separate declaration attached to this Reply Brief. All are 3 pages. only downloaded Tom Palmer's.

Palmer, in his declaration (74-3), is unable to get his permit under the new scheme as he can't answer the justification question (good reason WITH substantiating evidence).

Oh...,"The new law is not new"...
 
Last edited:

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
Full Palmer v. DC Reply Brief Zip File - Dkt No. 74

From Maryland Shooters forum

SAF filed their Reply Brief (in response to DC's opposition) to the Motion for Permanent Injunction yesterday.

They're calling in the 4 Plaintiffs. Each has a separate declaration attached to this Reply Brief. All are 3 pages. only downloaded Tom Palmer's.

Palmer, in his declaration (74-3), is unable to get his permit under the new scheme as he can't answer the justification question (good reason WITH substantiating evidence).

Oh...,"The new law is not new"...
Thanks. I had checked the docket late yesterday afternoon/early evening and it hadn't yet been posted. I've placed the entire brief into a zip file which can be downloaded for free at my website under today's (October 31st) Update at my website.
 

Superlite27

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
1,277
Location
God's Country, Missouri
Gura is awesome!

One of the best segments of his brief is on page 20 (of the brief, not the pdf) where he describes, with complete accuracy, what the defendants (D.C.) attempt to do.

D.C. has argued that they have fulfilled the court's requirement by enacting "may issue" licensing requirements and any injunctions against them require an entirely new case.

To which Gura replies:


One can readily see why a replacement statute must not “differ[] only in some insignificant
respect” from the enjoined statute. Today, one needs “good reason” to exercise the right. When that
falls by the wayside, perhaps after another decade of litigation, the application fee would be raised to
a million dollars. A decade later, only ambidextrous people can safely carry guns. A decade after
that, Olympic medal marksmanship might be demanded. The list of “new laws” is bounded only by
Defendants’ imagination. Each time, supposedly, exhaustion and litigation would be required anew,
but generations of plaintiffs would ever enjoy a meaningful right.
 

press1280

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
398
Location
Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
From Maryland Shooters forum

SAF filed their Reply Brief (in response to DC's opposition) to the Motion for Permanent Injunction yesterday.

They're calling in the 4 Plaintiffs. Each has a separate declaration attached to this Reply Brief. All are 3 pages. only downloaded Tom Palmer's.

Palmer, in his declaration (74-3), is unable to get his permit under the new scheme as he can't answer the justification question (good reason WITH substantiating evidence).

Oh...,"The new law is not new"...
It's very good, and explains why the District Court can smack this "new law" down, instead of having to have a new lawsuit filed. Think about it, if a new lawsuit needed to be filed for every slight change in the law, then DC could effectively outrun any meaningful attempt at carry. DC's actions clearly show they have no intention of obeying the court's order. Their strategy here is to not attempt giving "proper cause(or whatever DC's equivalent wording is)" the time of day; instead show that a normal person can't comply and it's an illegal requirement.
 

Superlite27

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
1,277
Location
God's Country, Missouri
Gura is playing D.C. like a fiddle.

It makes a person wonder if he has been prepared (with full intent) to address "may issue" all along? Do you think he might have expected Illinois to go "may issue" and readied himself to destroy the argument, only to have the issue mooted by Illinois passing shall issue?

Look at Palmer's brief. Not only does he address the fact that D.C.'s new, old law fails to redress his grievance, he also brilliantly illustrates he has previously, and responsibly enjoyed this right and that D.C. has removed it. They can hardly argue they are preventing harm by taking caution in permit issue since Palmer has demonstrated his previous responsible behavior.

Brilliant!

Thanks, D.C., for handing a fully prepared Gura the opportunity to dismantle "may issue", nationwide, NOW...

...instead of passing "shall issue" and letting it remain unresolved until some other attorney can get some other case before a court possibly decades from now.
 

swinokur

Activist Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
919
Location
Montgomery County, MD
Scullin's written order on reconsideration.

denied.

Next up Nov 20th hearing on PI.

Dc's window to appeal around Dec 6
 
Last edited:

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
Dc's window to appeal around Dec 6
DC has to file its notice of appeal within 30 days from the denial of the motion for reconsideration. That 30 day clock started ticking when Judge Scullin denied the motion on October 17th. The document you posted is his reasoning for denying the motion, not the denial of the motion.

DC will be forced to file its notice prior to the hearing on the motion for a Permanent Injunction. If it doesn't then it forfeits its right to appeal and the District will have, in effect, thrown itself upon the mercy of the court.

Granted, there is some confusion because Judge Scullin in this document once again denies the motion for reconsideration. I suspect that the District is not going to risk losing its right to appeal by making a procedural judgment that the clock started ticking today.

"On October 17, 2014, the Court heard oral argument in support of and in opposition to that motion; and, at the conclusion of the parties' arguments, the Court issued an oral order denying the motion. See Minute Entry dated October 17, 2014."
 
Last edited:
Top