Alan Gura on a Palmer v. D.C. Stay

There have been rumors flying about the intertubes claiming that Alan Gura has agreed not to oppose a stay on the Palmer v. D.C. decision striking down the capital’s carry ban. These stories were fueled in part by the wording in the District’s request for a stay, which originally claimed that it was unopposed. According to Alan Gura on his blog, that is not the case . . .

I have a better understanding of what the city will now do.

The city will probably file an appeal — that’s within their right.

The city would ask for a stay pending the resolution of the appeal — they can ask for that, and we would oppose that.

The city would ask, in the alternative, for a shorter, closed-ended stay of the Palmer decision to allow the city council time to enact remedial legislation. In Moore, the state of Illinois received first 180 days, then over our strenuous objections, another 30 days on top of that. We would not agree to anything in that neighborhood here, but we would not oppose a shorter stay that would give the city council some reasonable window in which to make a decision, without frustrating the progress of the appeal. The decision as to whether to grant any stays and if so for how long, of course, belongs to the courts.

Remember, Gura had to petition the Court twice for a writ of mandamus to obtain this decision. He has been frustrated by the lack of response for nearly five years. I don’t believe that he will allow, unopposed, the city to obtain an open-ended stay that would result in further interminable delay of this case, further depriving DC’s residents and others of their Second Amendment rights.

We have not seen any documents that he has submitted to the court in response to the city’s request for a stay. As he says, it is up to the court. In this case, that means Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr. Stay tuned.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Gun Watch

comments

  1. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

    The hell with a stay. They can live with our vision of ‘normal’ for a while until they pass something abnormal again…

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      Correct.

      The ongoing UNCONSTITUTIONAL actions of the DC city council are UNCONSTITUTIONAL that means ILLEGAL. So what idiot lets something ILLEGAL continue for 1 minute more?

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      They have had years to repair a clearly unconstitutional law which they had been told about repeatedly, and their reaction was “nanny-nanny-boo-boo, we have the power and you don’t. Suck on that!” Now, suddenly, they are going to actually do what is right? I do not believe it, this is a delaying tactic, attempting to gain a few more days before their world falls apart. Insisting on now will give 180 days for residents to see that there was no gunfight at the OK corral, no rivers of blood in the streets, it was 100% HOOEY. They have been lied to for decades, and their rulers want to prevent them from finding out.

  2. avatar Dickie J says:

    Treasonous Statists acting treasonously? You don’t say!

    1. avatar cowgirlup says:

      Next we’ll be told that water is wet.

  3. avatar Excedrine says:

    They’ll probably get their stay, and then another stay after that. During which time they’ll craft almost egregiously restrictive legislation that will put residents back into almost the exact same situation they were in before. They won’t give up a shred of power until absolutely forced to, and even the they’ll drag their feet for years to come in even doing that much. Expect many, many more court cases to be fought over this. Don’t even be surprised in the future to see lawsuits over illegally denied applications.

    Of course, the worse they make it for us, the more court decisions go in our favor. 😉

    1. avatar Robert W. says:

      Do not forget how D.C. works. There is no such thing as permanent legislation without being approved by the HOUSE and senate of the united states.

      Republicans own the house, and had damn well better block any gun control legislation that comes through. If there is a permitting scheme that is shall issue with reciprocity, they would probably let that through though.

      After that, the local D.C. council can do two things, an emergency legislation that can last for a maximum of 90 days, and a temporary legislation that can last ~275 days. But even then, those would have to be creating a permitting scheme that would meet with this judge’s decision, or else it would be taken right back to court.

  4. avatar Ems_92 says:

    Why is it so hard to treat a right as a right? Have there been any blood baths since the law was over turned?

    1. avatar cowgirlup says:

      It’s obviously just about control. Anybody can look at the actual statistics for DGUs, the lowered violent crime rates in more gun friendly states and cities, etc. The evidence is all in our favor, and logistically it’s better to arm everybody and then deal with the few miscreants (most of which can be deterred by the other gun owners) than trying to police and micromanage everybody and everything. If the police are not obligated to protect any individual citizen, then citizens must protect themselves. This is not hard. But to them it’s apparently rocket science. Or they’re disingenuous control freaks. One of those.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        I’m pretty sure I know which one!

        1. avatar cowgirlup says:

          +1000 for you! Now my question is… who is keeping track of all our points and what do we get to buy with them? 😛

      2. avatar Roscoe says:

        Socio-political control is part of it, but there is more.

        Radical Democrat progressive statist types and all other gun grabber zealots are philosophically opposed to guns and gun ownership/possession by citizens other than military/law enforcement without exception. It is in their psyche which will NEVER be compromised.

        Any action that thwarts their efforts to eliminate popular gun ownership and use will only cause them to dig in their heels and become even more recalcitrant. They understand overwhelming force of law which they will grudgingly acknowledge. That is the only thing that will force compliance with constitutional Second Amendment protections from these extremists.

        Our battle will be to continue taking the infringement wall down one brick at a time, depending how imaginative the anti’s can be, how persistent our pro-gun advocates are, and how impatient the court becomes with the antis’ delaying tactics. Expect the legal fight to continue, and new roadblocks to emerge. This fight will not end anytime soon in good part because they have media support for inspiration.

  5. avatar Jim R says:

    This is why I said that it was a hollow victory. They will drag their feet and do everything in their power to make this as difficult, time consuming and expensive as possible in the hopes that we’ll just give up. We won’t, of course, but by the time it’s all said and done it’ll take years and cost millions and even then we’ll wind up with a concealed-carry system that’s at least as restrictive as New York City. All that trouble and in the end, for all practical intents and purposes, nothing will change.

    1. avatar Robert W. says:

      We stuck around for 5 years to get this decision, we won’t give up now.

      We have Peruta (which is oft cited in this judgment) that seems to be dragging now, but there is no chance in hell that we will be giving up on that either. The NRA, SAF, and all other groups are pushing litigation on all fronts, and are not about to give up while we are starting to see bigger wins coming through.

  6. avatar tfunk says:

    I mean, I guess I can see not opposing it to “play the game” and not piss off the court or whatever, but…DC has already had pretty much forever to come up with an “acceptable” CCW permitting system.

    Wish they’d all just become constitutional carry.

  7. avatar Ted says:

    A right delayed is a right denied.

    Martin Luther King, Jr.

    1. avatar Scrubula says:

      +1

      1. avatar cowgirlup says:

        I can’t ever say +1 anymore because I already escalated to +1000. So now anything less than +1000 coming from me looks like “meh, whatever”. lol

  8. avatar Hannibal says:

    I have a good amount of faith in Gura that he’ll make the right decision here. Unlike many who make big promises (I’m mostly talking about on the state level where I hear this stuff) Gura has come through.

    1. avatar Robert W. says:

      I agree,

      I would not be surprised at all if he completely signed off on a 30-90 day close ended stay to allow a licensing scheme or appeal to go through. He is smart, he will not piss off people when he doesn’t need to, but he wont let anyone drag their heels. Two things you need to remember:one, gun owners need to keep coming off as the sane and calm side of the process; two, Gura takes great pride in his work, this is essentially his legacy and mark on the world and is not something that he will give up on.

  9. avatar Alan Rose says:

    D.C. needs a stay – because Constitutional Carry has been a disaster in Vermont. Oh wait…

  10. avatar O2HeN2 says:

    No stay. This is the grand social experiment we want. Either we’re right or wrong. We’re right, of course.

    O2

  11. avatar dwb says:

    Day three in DC. People really are carrying guns. The impact?

  12. avatar Tom W. says:

    The District can’t be bothered will a God given inalienable right. Silly masses, they know what’s best.

    You know what else is out of style?

    Tar and feathering.

  13. avatar Jeremy in AL says:

    Give the man some slack. He’s done more than most people in fighting infringements. Trust him a bit.
    We should give him a medal.

    1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      You gotta wonder where we’d be if not for Alan Gura. The Glock on my hip as I type sure wouldn’t be there, that’s for sure.

  14. avatar Ralph says:

    One thing that we’ve seen from gungrabbers and other assorted statists — they are relentless in their campaigns against human rights and freedom.

    Stay or no stay, if the District Court’s holding in Palmer is upheld by the Circuit Court, DC will have to permit carry in the District. I expect that permit process will be as impossible as the current one for a home permit. And then we will have another five years of litigation.

    While Gura litigates, we vote. If we can turn over the Senate in November, then this matter can be settled legislatively by Congress.

    1. avatar cowgirlup says:

      The concept of a home permit in and of itself is ridiculous. That’s like me asking the state if I can eat Mac and Cheese.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        That’s like me asking the state if I can eat Mac and Cheese.

        Actually, that’s more like the government prohibiting sodas over 16 oz. Which is exactly what Bloomberg tried to do in New York City. So don’t be surprised if Mac & Cheese is next up on the statist control agenda. For the children.

        1. avatar cowgirlup says:

          Oh good point re: 16 oz. sodas. I’d forgotten about the soda ban. They’re coming for the mac and cheese next! But they can’t appeal to “think of the children” on mac and cheese because that’s the only thing little kids will eat. OMG they want to starve the children! (I say we just start using these kinds of asinine debating tactics. It’s what they use in gun control.)

  15. avatar Mark N. says:

    Repeating what I said last night:
    What the pleading says is that Gura agreed to a 90 day stay to permit the City council to enact a constitutionally compliant ordinance for the carrying of loaded firearms in city limits. Two things: as the pleadings report, the council does not reconvene until September 15. Second is the term “constitutionally compliant”–which means that if they try to throw some outrageous system up there, Gura will object to a continuation of the stay. Notably, D.C. has a may issue law in place –but a no issue system in practice. I would guess that Gura is betting that the trial court will grant some sort of stay to allow for the enactment of an ordinance, as was the case in Illinois, but he has placed strict limits on what he will agree to, given that he is dealing with a city council and not a state legislature. Reading between the lines, Gura will likely demand a shall issue system be enacted to avoid a repeat of the current circumstance.

    1. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      Yep.

      It’s pretty clear from reading the history of this case that one side plays master+ level chess, and the other side has trouble finishing a game of checkers.

      Given his very successful track record, I’m trusting in the legal judgement and acumen of Mr. Gura. He’s produced real results and made anti-gun political hacks bellow like a a herd of sacred cows being slaughtered.

  16. avatar RetMSgt in Pa. says:

    In the issue of fairness, the court should take five years to respond to the District’s request for stay.

    1. avatar cowgirlup says:

      hahahahahahaha

  17. avatar Mark says:

    The fight over expenses further down in Mr Gura’s blog would be funny if it weren’t so absurd..
    The state claiming he shouldn’t be tipping waitresses & should stay at a $130/nt hotel (In Chicago!?)..
    Wow.. just wow..
    After reading some of the state’s arguments, it’s easy to see how people get wrongly convicted.
    Winning at all costs, even if its $500/hr lawyers going back and forth over $6 tips.

  18. avatar Dozer says:

    if they don’t appeal and go stright to writing a law, that has Bloomberg all over it so as not to put this at SCOTUS

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      Now I’m waiting for the first unfortunate (and otherwise legally carrying) person who doesn’t know that and gets arrested 🙁

  19. avatar Bob20 says:

    This is not too far from the Progressives asking for a “stay” on the first amendment.

  20. avatar Steve says:

    Plaintiffs don’t oppose the stay?

    Imbeciles.

    1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

      there are certain rules that apply in this situation. A stay is reasonable to allow DC to craft legislation. An open-ended stay is not. 90 days for a municipality to craft rules is reasonable. just remember – DC is a federal enclave. The House is working to de-fund alot of DC’s anti-gun agenda/budget exactly for crap like this. I am hopeful given the $$$ hanging over their head like the sword of damacles . . . Congress will be on a 5 week recess, but the DC Council better not screw the pooch on this one or they will lose more $$$ that they don’t have.

      1. avatar Steve says:

        “Reasonable” to allow an already decidedly unconstitutional law stay in place until they can devise further ways to limit our rights?

        Ok…

    2. avatar Matt in FL says:

      Before you call Gura an imbecile, how’s about you present us with your legal background, so we can an determine if you’re speaking from a position of education and experience or ignorance and armchairs. I’m betting on the latter.

      1. avatar Steve says:

        No law degree required to understand that fighting against something, then supporting that it stay for a tad bit longer, is stupid.

        Unless you can somehow state what we have to gain by letting an unconstitutional law stay in place, risking the lives of countless others, for several more months?

        1. avatar Hasdrubal says:

          What’s stupid is not understanding that the system Gura is working with is stupid in the first place, and that barring a full blown armed revolution, following the procedures of that stupid system is more likely to get the results we’re all looking for than just calling everyone involved stupid. Or, he could throw a screaming fit and call everyone stupid, and probably be dismissed as a looney tune the next time he tries to do something beneficial for the entire nation.

          Not that I’m calling you stupid, or anything.

        2. avatar Steve says:

          Were you trying to make no sense at all?

  21. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    Yet another example of justice delayed being justice denied. The city has had decades of carefree civil rights infringement and at least half a decade of express displeasure of the Supreme Court. Enough is far, far more than enough!

    Freedom is the default status and that’s what the court should mandate immediately. The city should not be afforded additional time for maximum freedom infringement while they cobble together some scheme for partial infringement.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      +1

      The Court found that DC had been raping the rights of the People for decades but turns around and allows DC to continue raping for another 90 days! Of course, that gives DC time to figure out a legal way to continue raping. This is madness.

  22. avatar John in Ohio says:

    They ignored grievance of the People for an extended period of time but acted with amazing speed upon motion of government. This is so lopsided that it’s tyrannical. The obvious bias is appalling! How would anyone have been harmed had the stay not been granted? By granting this stay, the People have been denied their constitutional rights, hence, there has been harm by granting it.

  23. avatar Jus Bill says:

    Here are a couple of threads in MD Shooters about the ruling:

    DC carry confrontations
    http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=157091

    VICTORY IN PALMER!!!!
    http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=156993

  24. avatar rlc2 says:

    And here are a couple at CalGuns.net that make interesting points- some very good reading there, by wise strategists- it gets a bit deep at times, but for those who have other questions, like I do- some speculation…

    Why does it matter to vote? Who appoints federal judges?
    http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=14556503&postcount=404

    Whats up with the 9th court, on Peruta?
    http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=841721&page=12

    What about Justice Kennedy?
    http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=14558748&postcount=452
    and
    http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=14559039&postcount=460

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email