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.