Previous Post
Next Post

Judge Frederick Scullin

“A federal judge on Tuesday granted a 90-day stay in a ruling that upended the District’s ban on carrying handguns in public. The order issued by U.S. District Court Judge Frederick Scullin brings a temporary reprieve to D.C. officials, who were sent scurrying over the weekend to interpret the effects of the ruling that gutted the city’s restrictive gun laws.” That’s from As expected, DC’s attorney’s got out of bed extra early this morning to make sure no one else decides to casually stroll down the mall fully strapped. At least until they can figure out how to deal with, well, the Constitution. Watch this space.

[h/t Dirk Diggler, Esq.]


Previous Post
Next Post


  1. It forces the Council to come up with rules ahead of the election, and before the deadline to appeal. Smart move by the judge.

    • Not unexpected.

      Also expect DC officials to request another 90-day extension at the last minute “because we can’t come up with this legislation overnight.”

      And you can expect anything they come up with will be as oppressive as the registration ordinances WITHOUT provisions for out-of-towners.

      Which will mean ANOTHER trip through the court system. “Hey, you waited five years for a decision, what’s a couple-three more for implementation?”

  2. Stupid judge.

    If the law is unconstitutional due to the fact that the government couldn’t prove a benefit of the law in the first place, how could a stay be considered a good idea?

    Allow them to waste money on the appeal if they wish, but maintaining the “status quo” RIGHT after you decided the status quo was illegal is retarded.

      • “I am the judge, I have the power, I do not HAVE to justify that. Just try to fire me, you’ll see.”

        • Judges CAN be fired – even Supreme Court judges. They aren’t in there for life. They CAN be removed.

    • there are certain rules that apply in this situation. A stay is reasonable to allow DC to craft legislation that the judge said they had to have. 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.

      The judge is not stupid. He is following the law to prevent chaos. Illinois got 210 days to craft legislation. Remember that it has to be voted upon several times. go to different committees. allow for public comment. get voted on again, sveral times. Legislation is like making sausage. You just want the outcome and not have to watch the process.

      anyhow – DC knows its days are numbered. They have the judge telling them which cases (Peruta) he thought were reasonable. They know they cannot ban out of staters as well as have a blanket prohibition on carry. once the legislation is crafted, it will be public before it gets voted on. that’s when you contact your federal rep/senator and raise hell since Congress oversees DC and its budget. make it difficult for them to try the same sneaky crap they tried in Chiraq. NRA and SAF can organize a campaign with the local chamber and tourist board. think of how many visitors DC can attract now or better yet, lose when it is highlighted how out of touch the city politicians are with the rest of the country. No – this stay is ok. Glad it is only 90 days and not 180. they will go by quickly.

      • If the House was “working” these (UNCONSTITUTIONAL) budget “continuing resolutions” that have been funding the Obuma regime (and DC) would not exist. The RINO Boehner House is NOT working. Nor the libtard Reid Senate.

        • come January, 2015, regular order will be restored. . . . just have to take back the senate. I hate the continung resolutions, but . . . only choice is shut down the gov’t over the budget, and unfortuantely, the low information voter blames republicans in congress. . . .until we control congress (and the agenda), we are stuck at the mercy of Harry “Palms” Reid.

        • All those who think Harry Reid’s picture would look a hundred times better with the caption “Senate Minority Leader” underneath it, signify by saying “Aye!”

          (We won’t discuss how much better it would look with the word “unemployed” under it.)

      • They should be able to adopt a carbon copy of, say, the VT carry laws and get it all the way through in 90 days. Then, when something proves to be a problem with that, they can address specific issues.

      • This is the key point:

        once the legislation is crafted, it will be public before it gets voted on. that’s when you contact your federal rep/senator and raise hell since Congress oversees DC and its budget. make it difficult for them to try the same sneaky crap they tried in Chiraq.

        Any law enacted by the DC City Council is subject to Congressional approval, because by law DC is “Congress’ Little Plantation on the Potomac” – they can and have overruled laws that they didn’t like, and have withheld approval of the District’s budget when they were piqued by the Mayor and City Council’s antics. This is something that didn’t apply in the ongoing battle to regain human rights in Chiraq. So pressure on your Congresscritters is definitely warranted.

        And — You can bet Bloomberg and his money are all over this issue.

      • Thanks, Dirk, this is good info, and context for why be patient. I’m sure Gura is about three steps ahead, knowing the process too.

    • Not retarded at all.

      First, the district court found that the current law providing for a ban on all carry is not constitutional.
      It did not find that any limitation on carry would be unconstitutional. That question wasn’t before the court. And given that Heller fully endorsed some regulation and restriction, we know that some regime between an outright ban and no restrictions at all would be constitutional. So DC can (and will) enact something odious and as close to the former as possible. But whether that regime is permissible wasn’t tested because it doesn’t exist, but in a week or so it certainly will. There’s not much benefit to a week of carry; let’s be realistic: we all know there will be a law enacted, and we all know it will suck, and the judge knows it, too.

      Second, when a statute is overturned on constitutional grounds, it is very common for the district court to stay the order pending appeal. Quite frankly, I’d say at least half of the cases that I’ve litigated where the other party took an appeal of a decision that didn’t terminate the case the district court has stayed its order — and these are regular, run of the mill civil cases, not cases that are remotely as big a deal as this one.

      Third, even setting those aside, if I were litigating this case (and I say this as someone staunchly pro gun), even I’d have to admit (as Gura seems tacitly to have conceded) that enough of the Nken v. Holder test is satisfied to warrant a stay.

  3. Of course they did.

    Oh, Suggestion for “this is what happens to an unarmed populace”- China just suffered another mass knife attack.

  4. Constitutional carry lasted 2 days.
    Blood in the streets? Gunfights all over the place?

    • Of course not. It takes those stupid brainless bits of steel, alloy and/or plastic three or four days to realize they are now allowed to go an a rampage.

  5. Breaking news: judge says screw you and your civil rights for 90 more days

    • I bet this judge just got paid big bucks under the table. As with so many things in life… follow the money.

  6. “China just suffered another mass knife attack” sounds a little passively constructed, doesn’t it? Are you with the media?

  7. We all know what’s gonna happen. All kinds of laws that make impossible (at least not for the elites who know people) for law abiding citizens to conceal carry.

    • I disagree. The court has made it quite clear, given his reliance on Moore and Peruta, that a ‘may issue” in law but “no issue” in practice will not pass constitutional muster. Instead, there must be some way to effectively exercise the right but all the people, not just the elites.

      I expect that there will be restrictions–mostly having to do with training requirements, perhaps a bogus insurance requirement of a $1 million liability policy, and requirements to register weapons (for residents), and that reciprocity will be limited to states with “similar” training requirements. I further anticipate that the city will enact a concealed carry bill and continue to outlaw open carry. The city may try to impose a “may issue” law, but given past history, Gura will fight that tooth and nail.

      • I further anticipate that the city will enact a concealed carry bill and continue to outlaw open carry.

        Yes, this plus your above comments would effectively keep matters where they are. But wasn’t “regulating concealed carry and outlawing open carry” precisely the issue in Peruta and the court ruled the other way? (Regulate one of the other, but not both?)

    • I agree. The vast majority of those with carry permits a year or 2 from now will be 1. Rich 2. Connected 3.white. The poor minority woman who has to walk violent streets to get home to her children every night will still be defenseless.

  8. They make it seem like the carry ban was actually effective at reducing crime, and therefore a stay is necessary to prevent the sudden spiral into lawlessness in DC. As though we all didn’t grow up with the reality of “Battleground Washington.” As though that sad reality isn’t what prompted this case in the first place. They will never give up their slavish devotion to gun control.

      • Certainly not! Wouldn’t want Shannon’s current mental image of gun blog commentors as toothless rednecks typing away with two fingers while they gulp beer and scratch their a$$es to be shattered.

        • Our man Dirk is a gun guy, a lawyer, a black man and AFAIK has the majority of his teeth. So Shannon’s bogus narrative is well and truly forked.

        • you are too kind Ralph, but let me confirm:

          1) I have all of my teeth and never had to wear braces
          2) yes, I am an attorney with an Ivy League education (I say that only to impress Shannon) and I come from a familial line of attorneys
          3) I am certainly black, although in the ‘hood, they would call me “high yellow with good hair”
          4) I have a stable job and a very nice income. Granted, I don’t make the millions Shannon’s hubby does, but Obama would call me “wealthy” and I qualify as an evil 1 percenter based upon income. Then again, I have all of my hair, too (see above).

        • “I have a stable job and a very nice income. Granted, I don’t make the millions Shannon’s hubby does, but Obama would call me “wealthy” and I qualify as an evil 1 percenter based upon income.”

          Golly gee willikers, he might even have a couple of bricks of .22 in the vault. That should make Dirk wealthy enough to be dateable as far as Shannon is concerned.

    • Clearly, yes. He uses both adjectives and adverbs in his writing. Not so much of the Latin, however. Kind of dissapointed in the semicolon usage.

  9. He should have given them a week, which I think is more than generous, and suggested they look into Virginia, Arizona and Vermont (for example) as examples to copy.

    • I think this language is critical to understand why 90 days is needed:

      SPECIAL LEGISLATION (this is where things get a bit complicated).

      Emergency Legislation
      Because of the long and time-consuming path a bill must take to become law under the District’s Charter, Congress has provided a mechanism whereby the Council may enact legislation quickly, on a short term basis. The District’s Charter allows the Council to enact special “emergency” legislation without the need for a second reading and without the need for 30 days of congressional review. Mayoral review is still required. Also, by rule of the Council, this emergency legislation is not assigned to a committee and does not go through the COW process. The Charter requires that emergency legislation be in effect for no longer than 90 days.

      Temporary Legislation
      Although emergency legislation allows the Council to immediately address a civic issue, it presents a situation where the law will expire after 90 days. Experience has shown that 90 days is not sufficient time for the Council to enact regular, “permanent” legislation before the emergency law dies. Therefore, by rule, the Council allows for the introduction of “temporary” legislation that may be introduced at the same time as emergency legislation and that bypasses the committee assignment and COW processes in the same manner as emergency legislation. Unlike emergency legislation, however, but like regular legislation, temporary legislation must undergo a second reading, mayoral review, and the 30-day congressional review period. Because temporary legislation bypasses the committee assignment and COW processes, it moves through the Council much faster than regular legislation. Temporary legislation remains in effect for no longer than 225 days, sufficient time for the Council to enact permanent legislation.

      • another wrinkle:

        Not done yet… the final steps to enactment.
        Although at this point the Bill has effectively become an Act, its journey to becoming a law that must be obeyed by the populace is not yet complete. Unique to the District of Columbia, an approved Act of the Council must be sent to the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate for a period of 30 days before becoming effective as law (or 60 days for certain criminal legislation). During this 30-day period of congressional review, the Congress may enact into law a joint resolution disapproving the Council’s Act. If, during the 30-day period, the President of the United States approves the joint resolution, the Council’s Act is prevented from becoming law. If, however, upon the expiration of the 30-day congressional review period, no joint resolution disapproving the Council’s Act has been approved by the President, the Bill finally becomes a Law and is assigned a law number.

        As I read this then, we WANT them to have a temporary law in place b/c we can run out the clock until Congress is back in control of the RIGHT and thus, any final law will have to be approved by Congress. . . . . Therefore, it should be less onerous.

        • If I read your summary right, congress doesn’t approve DC laws, it vetoes them.

          Congress would have to agree to say “No, that law sucks” (in non-technical terms) not that that law is good. That means of course that the Democrats could stonewall and prevent what is effectively a veto by the US congress.

          If congress had to approve, then I’d say go for it. Any proposed law could be dead in the water given the way congress (doesn’t) act these days, and DC would have an ideal carry situation (other than that ten round mag bull$#!+ restriction).

        • Furthermore even if this happens with a republican senate, the president must sign the resolution. And that person will be someone with the initials BO

          Result: No matter how bad the new law Congress and POTUS will let it stand.

        • Presdent Barry Hussein Obama Soetoro also had to approve guns in federal parks as a part of a credit card reform bill, somehting he didn’t want, but Harry Reid didn’t have the votes to stop it and Barry didn’t want a veto. If the GOP takes back the Senate, Barry needs them to approve budgets and his laws. Reid can’t stop votes. Trust me, DC will fall in line or their budget gets screwed

          • If the GOP takes back the Senate, Barry needs them to approve budgets and his laws. Reid can’t stop votes. Trust me, DC will fall in line or their budget gets screwed

            “Republican Congress holds the city, nation hostage in pursuit of their misogynistic, homophobic, theocratic Wild-West agenda.”

        • @Dirk:

          That assumes it won’t be a showdown of “shutdown” proportins involved–the GOP will simply blink in the face of BHO and MSM opposition. National parks worked, somehow, because BHO didn’t calculate it would be worth the battle. This may or may not work.

          I’m extremely cynical with regards to DC because I see my side lose nerve and fold more often than not.

    • This puts Senators votes on shall-issue carry for DC on the table for mid terms, against Reids wishes. awesome.

  10. We knew this was coming boys n’ girls. We saw it from a mile away. We also know it should not have been issued, because the law was wrong and the City doesn’t “need” nor deserveany reprieve. No, they just couldn’t end that farce of addling the law-abiding with unjust laws that they could neither support or articulate any need for. No, they had to keep their pet project on life-support just a little bit longer.

    But, at least we do have the fact that D.C.’s bans on handguns and their carriage on paper, in plain black-and-white, were overturned for the Unconstitutional infringements they are and always were for the gun-grabbers to see just how fucking wrong they are. Hopefully, they’ll follow Chicago’s lead and just leave it be, letting the idea of total banishment of any right they chose to simply die on the vine as it should have long ago.

    They cannot and rightly should not be counted on to do the right thing, however. They have no incentive to and can be given no incentive to. They’re Washington, D.C., after all: not just the seat of power to whom we elect and pay so-called “representatives” to enforce the Rule of Law only to have them completely ignore it and operate outside of it, but the seat of ALL current judicial ills in this county since 1871. Expect them to appeal, but also expect them to lose.

    • I think you’re conflating the DC City Government with the United States Government located in and around Washington DC. Two separate entities. Back to Civics 101 for you.

  11. And yet any licensing system is going to be a privilege unless the right to carry, perhaps openly, goes unmolested by law. More and more I’m becoming convinced that when the dust settles in this nation there will be a system of privileges replacing the right to keep and bear arms. Licensing schemes are borderline acceptable stop-gap measures but are light years short of the actual individual right to keep and bear arms.

    America, in the final outcome don’t settle for mere privilege in lieu of the powerful inalienable right to keep and bear arms. You’re being leased back small portions of your own rightful possession that was stolen from you.

    • You know, today everyone is issued a SSN at birth. How about we issue everyone a CCL at birth, if you don’t screw up it lights up when you’re 18? I mean, your SSN is good for nothing until you’re 67. And it would help track gunowners not at all, since everybody has one, except criminals.

      • Not everyone has SSNs and they aren’t criminals. It’s possible to get a Tax Identification Number (TIN) for tax purposes and not have a SSN. I know several people without a Social Security Number.

        Any licensing system means that it would become a privilege. I cannot support such a system.

        • If “licenses” are issued to everyone at birth, how does that make it a “privilege”? Call it something other than a license if it makes you happier. But what the constitution says is you get that right at birth.

        • No matter what you call it, it would still be government permission to exercise the right to keep and bear arms. The People are in possession of rights. Government possesses only privilege granted it by the People. Government does not and cannot possess a right as it is not a living thing. As such, it can only confer privilege. Whatever you call the “permission” to carry issued by government at birth, it would still be mere privilege and I could not support a government privilege in place of the individual right to keep and bear arms.

    • Well, see, since it’s a “living document,” it can be told to “stay.” The constitution is a dog to them, it must do what they command. It should be seen more as a cat, that won’t listen at all. But now we’re talking metaphors and to me that’s like mixing apples and oranges…

  12. Dirk has pointed out that it will take DC time to pass a new law, so a 90 day stay is legally justified (even if it isn’t morally so) within the narrow context. (I would maintain that it’s wrong to leave an unconstitutional law in place for a microsecond, but that’s me.)

    It’s a good thing, on the whole, that laws take time to pass. The result of uber-fast ram-throughs can be seen in New York.

    • it is in our favor that DC needs time to craft a “final” bill . . . if all goes well (and the republicans don’t have a todd akin moment), they will control congress again in 2015. Hence, no a lot of sympathy for super restrictive gun laws. I can wait a few more months before getting to DC, just like we had to wait more than 7 months in Chicago. And I drove thru recently and didn’t have to unchamber the round from the gun and remove the mag. Patience.

      • See my counter-argument above… I don’t think it matters how long it takes them to draft a new law, Obama would still have to reject it (refuse to sign the vetoing resolution) for it not to take effect. He’d cheerfully let a bad law stand.

  13. With all the Damn lies and ulgy stuffff that’s in DC you expect playing by law.and rules? Bull!

  14. This judge isn’t stupid. He’s just another apparatchik of the system, clinging for a moment longer to a repugnant and racist anti-Constitutional caste system of separate and woefully unequal Second Amendment rights.

    When it comes down to it, this judge is a man who, but for a couple of super brief year+ stints in private practice in the early 1980s and late 1960s, hasn’t had to live life as a regular, non-government insider like the rest of us. If he genuinely gave a crap about firearms freedom and civil rights, I’m sure he could have taken an opportunity to demonstrate so at some earlier time during his nearly quarter century on the federal bench.

    Oh sure, he issued the ruling in the first place, when overwhelming legal precedent rendered anything otherwise laughably inept. He’s just trying to slither into legal lore and get on the right side of history before it’s too late. He needs to be able to have a decent answer for his grandkids when they ask “What did you do in the Civil Rights Movement, Grandpa?” After all, no one wants to be seen generations hence as having been the last guy standing on the steps and blocking access to equality. And “May Issue now, May Issue tomorrow, May Issue forever!” doesn’t have much of a ring to it, now does it?

    Still, the good judge does love him some, as they say in the South, Washington, D.C. cocktail parties. The only thing worse than never being invited to another one, is to be invited and grilled without having face saving cover as to why he let the peasants have their rights. Hence, the 180 stay fig leaf. “I held back the hordes as long as I could (without coming off looking like an ass in to-be-written history books).

    • or the ct of appeals would have granted a stay for a longer period of time. The judge did us a favor. He laid out what the new DC law should look like and what passes constitutional muster. He also only gave them 90 days. Guess what? CONGRESS IS OUT FOR THE NEXT 5 WEEKS! There ain’t much time to get the 30 days of MANDATORY congressional review in here. Everyone needs to chill. Illinois got 210 days to come up with their licensing system. DC had a system and took it away from the Police Chief’s authority in 2008 so theoretically, they don’t need as long to craft something that give’s the power back (most of it is still codified in the DC Code). Anyhow, no need to bash the judge. If he didn’t give a stay here, we risked the ct. of appeals doing it.

      • “If he didn’t give a stay here, we risked the ct. of appeals doing it.”

        I agree with this argument in favor. Better him than those clowns. Unfortunate that a crappy appeals court can hold the power to suspend the constitution like this.

      • Do you think DC will play the “we need 90 more days” because Congress is out as a justification ultimately pulling a Chicago wrt stays?

        • Do you think DC will play the “we need 90 more days” because Congress is out as a justification ultimately pulling a Chicago wrt stays?

          Was Hitler rude to the Jews?

        • @rick point being that if they do pull it and are granted more time, using time pressure and the election as part of a strategy might be pointless.

      • That’s assinine. You make it sound like the judge made some stellar strategic move here. He didn’t. First, this judge has no track record of championing the Second Amendment. After all, this suit was filed back in 2009, within a year of Heller. Once a case moves from central calendar to being an assigned case, its scheduling is at the judge’s discretion. This on hasn’t exactly been on a rocket docket, now has it? He poked his head out of his hole in the ground, saw wiggle room in Heller and no Peruta ruling yet existed, and like a varmint determined there would be five more years of firearms freedom infringement in D.C. on his watch. So it makes no sense to give the judge unearned credit for supposedly saving us from the appellate court’s potential actions, when there’s nothing concrete demonstrating he’s even receptive to, let alone on, our side.

        Second, the judge himself has allowed D.C. the opportunity to return next month to argue for an extension of his own stay pending appeal. Sure, he also said that he’s not currently convinced that they’ll be able to win their appeal on the merits of the case, thereby justifying an extension of his stay. So what? That’s just what he *says* now. You don’t know what he’ll actually *do* next month. So once again, he’s owed no credit for mysterious potentiality.

        Besides, who’s to say he’s even accurate in foretelling the city’s prospects for success upon appeal? I say he’s wrong. Hell, even YOU are suggesting the appellate court would be so sympathetic as to give the city an even longer reprieve, were they asked. Why wouldn’t their sympathy carry over to ruling in the city’s favor on the case itself? After all, it’s not as though they’re risking being overturned by the Supreme Court, so their ruling would be the final say on this matter.

        The proof? Well, the D.C. Council is already looking to write a law that will pass constitutional muster, but not THIS judge’s version of such, however. So says D.C. Councilman Tommy Wells, who’s looking to Maryland’s law as an example.

        Maryland requires that someone seeking to carry a gun in public show a “good and substantial reason.” A federal appeals court decided LAST year that the rule balances the rights of the gun owner with the state’s “significant interest in protecting public safety and preventing crime.” Soooo……

        Then there’s the Drake case out of NJ. The two issues challenged in Drake were whether the 2A applied to carrying a concealed handgun outside the home for self-defense purposes and if it violated the Second Amendment to require those who sought to carry a concealed handgun outside their home to provide a “justifiable need” for doing so.  The Supreme Court refused even to HEAR that case, thereby letting the lower court rulings and NJ law against the 2A to stand. The same will happen here as D.C. ditches their outright ban, substitutes a ridiculous de facto may-issue ban like the others, the appellate court approve it, and the SC refuses to hear it. Hell, the SC doesn’t even want to *talk* about the 2A anymore, let alone hear major divisive, controversial cases about it.

        The proof? Look to last month’s Abramsky case. None of the opinions, majority or dissenting, even *mentioned* the 2A. Granted, that was a statutory case, not a constitutional one. Still, the 2A is undeniably the elephant in the room. Round robin refusal even to mention it reveals immense discomfort with actually addressing it.

        If anyone needs to “chill”, Dirk, my respected and admired friend, it is the 2A cheerleaders who think this judge’s faux ruling will actually change anything on the ground in D.C. for more than a cup of coffee. We cannot continue to look to the courts, with their infuriating, halfhearted half measures, as saviors. We must demand and secure our rights through the political process and that means voting every time and holding everyone accountable. Playing Pollyanna about this ruling just doesn’t cut it, especially from the comfort of outside of D.C.

    • Oh sure, he issued the ruling in the first place

      Wow, you just blew off a game-changing opinion with a couple of words. His decision was not a foregone conclusion. He could have just as easily ruled that, under Heller, people have a right to have a gun for home defense but not to carry on the street. He didn’t.

      Instead of b!tching about the stay — to which even Alan Gura couldn’t disagree and to which he didn’t object — you should praise the judge for getting the case right.

      Or is Gura some kind of enemy too? Yeah, that’s it. Alan Gura is part of a vast left wing conspiracy.

      • Agreed with Dirk and Ralph. IANAL but having read quite a bit on the ongoing strategy and tactics of building a good base of precedent block by block, combiniing the latest historical study on fhe Founders, and choosing and managing sympathetic and on point plaintiffs, Gura, Clements, SAF, NRA, and others have done a superb job of patiently setting this up.

        90 days is a wink in the context of the ten year delay on Palmer, and given Peruta is still awaiting the 9ths decision on the Presidents Pretttiest AG to join the fray, and request en banc, AND the complicated procedure for DC law making/Congressional Approval that Dirk so succintly described,

        this seems more than reasonable- indeed- almost could say it was designed to put the pressure on DC but without seeming oppressive. We’ll have to see. More twists and turns to come, I think, but on the whole this validates the sense of a vast sea change underway that the law is just now confirming.

        I am still impressed with Kosinski’s decision on Peruta- that it would stand so strongly, even while the 9th is dithering on minor details, says an awful lot about the talent and wisdom of the attorneys and supporters who put it all together for him, and the proof is Palmer.

        Still- its only the law. We MUST win the Senate in 2014, or its all over. Money talks and you know what walks…

        • … and given Peruta is still awaiting the 9ths decision on the Presidents Pretttiest AG to join the fray, and request en banc…

          Hasn’t the clock run out on that?

        • No time limit- you will see some speculation at as to the sense of pressure that Palmer will put on the 9th, possibly.

          I dont personally see that as particularly “heavy” – my sense of what I’ve read by much more experienced posters at Calguns is the 9th will move when its ready. Its become a running joke there, as “two more weeks” based on some stage of the trial a couple years back, that ended up dragging out, months beyond the confident “two weeks” decision, then.

          However, where the pressure *may* be- and I see a possible ground swell of thoughtful opinion being expressed in the middle, and even *gasp* at HuffPo,
          (h/t to Paladin at for the catch, and since discussed also at TFL),

          by author Dennis Santiago, who makes the point that CA AG Harris has the opportunity now to do the right thing, and climb down, recognizing reality, with her reputation still intact for going to the rampart for the leftists in CA.

          expressed in a somewhat dumbed down way, appropriate for Huffpo, but also useful for lurkers from MDA:

          “Mom you can’t nanny your children forever. You can’t demand that they stay babies. Somewhere along the way it’s time to let Americans grow up and deal with the risks of the real world with all of the tools they need and the demands to be responsible that go along with them. Do not fret. They will make you proud of them, these Americans, if you just let them.”

        • Wishful thinking on all but winning the Senate, though even a GOP Senate isn’t much to brag about. What grand expansions of firearms freedoms have Congressional Republicans delivered recently? Ever?

          There was a nice filibuster last year, thanks to the leadership of a recalcitrant minority within the complicit Minority, but even that was a defense against an assault on our rights led by a former stalwart conservative, not an expansion of freedom. With friends like that, who needs Democrats?

          You all are getting all excited about this D.C. ruling when it means nothing. Charlie. Lucy. Football.

      • Game changing? I don’t think that means what you think it means. The proof? Go carry a firearm in D.C., open or concealed with a valid state-issued license. Then come tell us whether the jail you’re sittng in is any different from the one you’d have sat in last week for having done the same thing.

        I’ll wait right here. Do you want my number, or would you prefer to use your one phone call to make bail or contact an attorney?

        The fact is that absolutely nothing on the ground is different now in D.C. Further, there is nothing to suggest that this ruling will stand or that D.C. won’t just replace their de jure ban with a de facto one replete with impossible may-issue subjectivity. Meanwhile, there’s every indication that this judge’s ruling will cynically, knowingly go nowhere worthwhile.

        That doesn’t make me wrong nor does it make Gura a turncoat, although it does imply unpleasant things about you for dismissing my points with but a glib and disrespectful conspiracy comment.

    • Jon in HOU, not to be the speech nanny here, and you are entitled to your opinion-
      but if you are going to bash the judge, at least provide some facts to go with the bombast- otherwise you might even look like a loose screw troll sent here by the progtards to diminish the reputation for TTAG for hosting the “clean, well lit space” (Hemingway) for rational discourse on 2A issues, shared respectfully betwixt a wide range of diverse, and thoughtful readers.

      here’s his resume- Bush appointee, US Army, organized crime prosecutor in NY- maybe Ralph can comment more- IANAL and dont know the NE legal scene or insider info, but IMHO, Judge Scullin looks more conservative than the typical “apparatchik” type you allude to…

      An equally valid possibility is he is more like Kosinski, a canny and wise judge waiting patiently for the time to be right- the SCOTUS signal on Drake, and using the same carefully constructed strategic and brilliant foundation of precedent, crafted by Gura, Clements, Michel and others, in coordination, strategically, patiently, to create the foundation of case law stretching back thru Heller, McDonald, and the latest historical research, that set up the historic decision in Peruta, and
      created the opportunity for the irresistable legal majority decision, and historic ruling written by Kosinki, that Ralph and other lawyers have called masterful, brilliant, etc.

      We shall see. Stay chilly POTG, and press on.

      • I referenced the same damn facts of his career as you just did. You slam me, yet claim a halo for yourself? Tell me again, which one of us is loony?

        “Looks conservative”, is that the standard we’re going by. Ok, let’s play that game! Guess who?

        Professional Career:
        Private practice, San Francisco and Oakland, California, 1914-1917
        U.S. Army first lieutenant, 1917-1918
        Clerk, Judiciary Committee, California State Assembly, 1919
        Deputy city attorney, Oakland, California, 1919-1920
        Deputy district attorney, Alameda County, California, 1920-1925; chief deputy district attorney, 1923-1925
        District attorney, Alameda County, California, 1925-1938
        Attorney general, State of California, 1938-1942
        Governor, California, 1942-1953
        Republican candidate for vice president of the United States, 1948

        Renown “conservative” Earl Warren, that’s who. Same one whose appointment President Eisenhower later referred to as the worst damn fool mistake he ever did make (and that’s without living to see the full flowering of Warren’s apparent “conservatism.” That was fun, let’s do another. Guess who?

        Professional Career:
        Private practice, Newark, New Jersey, 1931-1942, 1946-1949
        U.S. Army colonel, 1942-1946
        Judge, Superior Court of New Jersey, 1949-1952; Law Division, 1949-1951; Appellate Division, 1951-1952
        Justice, Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1952-1956

        A U.S. Army colonel, no less! Appointed to the SC also by Ike. Wow….that looks conservative. Way to go ultra conservative……..William Brennan. lol. Let’s do another. Guess who?

        Professional Career:
        U.S. Naval Reserve lieutenant commander, 1942-1945
        Law clerk, Hon. Wiley Rutledge, Supreme Court of the United States, 1947-1948
        Private practice, Chicago, Illinois, 1948-1970
        Lecturer, Northwestern University School of Law, 1950-1954
        Associate counsel, Subcommittee on the Study of Monopoly Power, U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, 1951
        Member, Attorney General’s Committee to Study Antitrust Laws, U.S. Department of Justice, 1953-1955
        Lecturer, University of Chicago School of Law, 1954-1958

        Ahhh….looky there, yet another “conservative looking” military man, plus he worked in Ike’s Dept. of Justice and was later appointed to a federal judgeship by Nixon and to the SC by Ford. Give it up for my man, the quintessential conservative: John Paul Stevens!

        Professional Career:
        Law clerk, Hon. John B. Sanborn, U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 1932-1933
        Private practice, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1934-1950
        Counsel, Mayo Organizations, Rochester, Minnesota, 1950-1959

        Nothing “conservative looking” there, I admit, but Ike and Nixon must have seen something conservative there in order to Harry Blackmun on the federal bench and SC, respectively. Oh man, I’m on a roll. Shall I swat your insolent bottom with some more? Ok, let’s get more recent. Guess who?

        Professional Career:
        Private practice, San Francisco, California, 1961-1963
        California Army National Guard private first class, 1961
        Private practice, Sacramento, California, 1963-1975
        Professor of constitutional law, University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law, 1965-1987

        Granted PFC for a year isn’t much to hang your hat on, BUT he sure “looked conservative” enough for Ford to appoint him to the federal bench and for Reagan the Great to put him on the SC. Rock it out, Mr. Reliable Conservative Anthony Kennedy!

        Ok, one more, because it’s late, and I’m merciful on your undeserving rear end. Guess who?

        Professional Career:
        Rhodes scholar, Magdalen College, Oxford University, 1961-1963
        Private practice, Concord, New Hampshire, 1966-1968
        Assistant attorney general, State of New Hampshire, 1968-1971
        Deputy attorney general, State of New Hampshire, 1971-1976
        Attorney general, State of New Hampshire, 1976-1978
        Associate justice, Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1978-1983
        Associate justice, Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1983-1990

        Nice law & order AG positions for most of his first decade or so as a lawyer, plus a SC nomination later by H.W. Bush. Looking conservative, Justice Souter!

        So you see, pal, it goes by reality, not appearances, as you lamely suggest. The reality is this D.C. judge’s actions have changed nothing, and nothing out there but your ESP and “appearances theory” disputes that. So quit salivating over empty air and quit bringing me your weak ass pathetic excuses for an argument.

  15. Yep it does seem to be unfolding in an Illinois BS way. While I am not happy with the law it seems miles better than NY, Maryland, Connecticut and California. Or New Jersey. Fight for the best. We got your back DC.

  16. I want DC to appeal. Long term, either the ruling gets upheld, or the appeals court creates a direct split with Moore and a great case for SCT. If they are smart, they will just copy NY, NJ, or MD. Litigation will take more years, while this case is moot. If they are dumb they will appeal it. I never bet on politicians being particularly smart.

    • If they are dumb they will appeal it. I never bet on politicians being particularly smart.

      Yes. Ask Adrian Fenty how those repeated appeals of Heller worked out for him…

  17. In an alternate universe in which I am the judge, I would:
    1. Deny the stay.
    2. When they hurriedly try to implement a new set of regs, I would stay them.

  18. So an explanation on why status quo is meaningless.
    The old status quo was determined to be illegal by the court. Since the new one (in a just society) would be the least restrictive possible method to allow concealed carry, ie. no restrictions on non-criminals, the situation yesterday should have been ideal. Any further legislation is restrictive, not permissive. If someone threatens someone else with a gun (for no reason), they can still be arrested on brandishing charges/disturbing the peace, or even assault. There is no current loophole for a criminal to exploit, and thus no possible reason to justify status quo.

  19. PS: meant to say this in the earlier posting but my doggone Kindle locked up…

    and if it hasnt been said yet, h/t to Volokh- we all owe a HUGE thank you, and Congrats to Gura, Clements, Michel, NRA, SAF, and all the many others who helped get Palmer to this place- Heller, McDonald, Madigan, Peruta, etc. And dont forget to thank NRA and SAF and CalGuns and other state associations by giving $$$. Good lawyering doesnt come cheap…

    And a a h/t to Volokh for pointing this out- I didnt realize the history on the plaintiffs, until I read his WAPO article on this: (thank you Dean at GunWatch for the outstanding reporting and links too)

    “Palmer, by the way, was one of the original plaintiffs in the case that became District of Columbia v. Heller, although he did not make it all the way to the Supreme Court because of the D.C. Circuit’s particularly stringent rules on standing. His participation in Second Amendment cases is based on part on his personal experience of drawing a gun in California in 1982, to stop some gay-bashers who were about to assault a friend and him. (Affidavit here.)

    Not being reported by the StateRunMedia that Tom Palmer was defending himself, and a gay friend, over 20 years ago.

    Imagine that- it takes TTAG and the big tent of 2A rights believers, straight, gay, black, white, hispanic, men and women, young and old, cops and soldiers and civilians to point out what we ALL have in common, as gun owners- a natural god-given right to self defense, enshrined in law by a 200+ year old document that has served this nation well.

    • Let me repeat the conclusion, for those who found the above tl;dr.

      THANK YOU TOM PALMER for your COURAGE, INTEGRITY, and HONOR, as a man, standing up for your rights, against the political correctness of the democratic party and progtards, who would like nothing more than to keep the LBGT community from straying off the liberal plantation.

    • Thanks, this is a good one. Reminds me of heyJackass in Chicago, or SFgate in San Fran, or the Reader in San Diego. Indy press that is usually insufferably self-centered, and predictably prog-tarded, given the young hipster audience,

      but even so, sometimes an up-and-comer uncovers a pearl, or someone lays out the facts on a giant dog-turd the big guys dont dare touch…

      • Ps: apologies to heyjackass- a blog- not indy paper, and def not insufferable- great insight with gun flavor.

  20. When the dust settles from court cases and the notion that licensing can be required as a “reasonable restriction” on the right to keep and bear arms, what’s the move then? IMHO, a nearly impervious wall is being unwittingly built for future generations by those with good intentions and government is supplying the scaffolding. (I do support those bringing these cases, however.) Does anyone know how we will overcome that gigantic hurdle once court decision after court decision erroneously state that licensing systems are permissible in place of the free exercise of a right? Or are many just fine with licensing the RKBA?

    • Once “shall issue” licensing systems become nationwide, the next obvious step is national reciprocity, to include those people who do not need a license, as Chief Lanier did in her orders to her police. Then attacking the licensing systems themselves as being burdensome on the poor and minorities.

      This is already happening within the states. We have gone from one state with “Constitutional carry” to 5.95 (depending if you want to count most of Montana or not). There are active efforts in at least another half dozen to pass it. It has passed in at least three, and was vetoed by the Governor. There are strong state constitutional amendments that offer attacks on the permiting system in several states (carry as a fundamental, unalienable right, that is subject to strict scrutiny by the courts).

      So, do not give up. We are in far, far, better shape than we were 40 years ago. In fact, we are winning. We are now in the position of “only having to win once”. This is so because no shall issue CCW law has ever been repealed. The ratchet is on our side.

      • Thanks for the information and I do hope that you are right. I’m a bit gun shy (no pun intended) after what licensing did in Ohio. These court rulings that seem to equate licensing with the RKBA make me nervous. Also, I encounter, as we probably all do, so many gun owners that couldn’t conceive of people carrying a firearm without a license. It’s been a long and exhausting battle for some of us to get people to understand what a right is and why shall not be infringed is crucial. I was silent when Ohio was pondering licensing. I don’t think that wasn’t such a good idea and try not repeat my mistake again.

      • Side note: Probably an oddity but I’m in worse shape now than I was prior to 2000. Before that, I carried freely. Now I had to pay for training and I have to pay for license renewals and all the extra legal burdens that goe along with it in Ohio. What I used to do freely, I now need to pay and beg permission. I don’t like it.

        • Mostly concealed. Many people I knew did also. We relied on a “prudent man” defense if ever jammed up for it. Neither myself or anyone that I knew did. I had been handed back my sidearm by officers before. Since we weren’t committing a crime and going about our lawful business, it never became an issue for myself and acquaintances. It wasn’t until about 2000ish that it seemed to become an issue in some areas.

          From 2005 on, I had to pay for state approved training, the initial license fee, and renewal fees.

Comments are closed.