We just won Palmer at the DC District Court!

So what happens if we take that two-page bulletin from the chief, make a ton of copies and staple 'em to telephone poles all over DC, esp. the "hood-rat" sections?
Click to expand...
I'm sure the posters would be arrested. Most municipalities have ordinances against tacking up signs on telephone poles and the like. This is the sort of thing the chief meant when he said other laws would still be applicable.
 
Brian Pfleuger said:
We need to stop expecting these people to capitulate, play by the rules or admit defeat. I don't even think they care about losing in court. It doesn't really change anything, it's just part of their tactic to either win, which they'd love, or delay right to carry essentially indefinitely. They really CAN'T "lose". They can only have one law struck down. Since they have an infinite variety of new laws available for the writing, they just write a new one.
Click to expand...

Sadly, I think Brian is correct. We have only to look at Chicago and Philadelphia for examples. Chicago you're all probably aware of, due to the shenanigans they pulled post-McDonald. In Philadelphia, both open and concealed carry are legal under PA state law,. The Philadelphia police department, nonetheless, routinely stops, detains, harasses, and often arrests open carriers ... even if they have a license. The city has been taken to court over this multiple times, has lost every time, and routinely pays out $25,000 or so to each victim of their official harassment.

But they don't stop. After all, it isn't their money -- it's the taxpayers' money. But in DC? There, it's ALL our money.
 
Dakota.Potts said:
My reading of it was that DC residents must register their handguns and that any one from another state need only have a carry permit.

Which makes me wonder about people from Arizona, Alaska, Vermont etc. where no permit is needed to carry a firearm.
Click to expand...
Arizona and Alaska issue permits, for those who need them outside of the state. Vermont is now the only state with no provision whatsoever for carry permits.

The language of the decision doesn't say non-residents must have a permit. It says that DC is enjoined from enforcing the carry law and the registration law against non-residents. On the face of it, I think Vermonters are good to go based on their own recognizance. (But ... if I lived in Vermont I would not volunteer to be the test case.)
 
Tom Servo said:
Now, consider that one can't throw a rock in DC without it landing on some sort of federal property, and things get risky.
Click to expand...
True, but the federal law prohibits carrying firearms in federal facilities -- and the same law defines "facility" as a building where federal employees normally work (paraphrased). So you can't legally walk into the Capital Building, but you can legally walk right up to the top step outside the entrance.
 
Jim March said:
OK. So what happens if we take that two-page bulletin from the chief, make a ton of copies and staple 'em to telephone poles all over DC, esp. the "hood-rat" sections?
Click to expand...
"Other charges may apply."

You'll probably be arrested and charged with littering, defacement of public property, interfering with a public utility, obstruction of traffic, creating a public nuisance, and disturbing the peace.

KyJim said:
This is the sort of thing the chief meant when he said other laws would still be applicable.
Click to expand...
Umm, err, ahh -- Jim, "he" is a "she." The chief of police in DC is a woman, Kathy Lanier.
 
I think the deafening silence from the normally exuberantly (and irritatingly) over-garrulous Mom's, MSM and others on this is fascinating... since when have they ever been savvy enough to avoid the Streisand Effect?

Just wondering... :)
 
We need to stop expecting these people to capitulate, play by the rules or admit defeat. I don't even think they care about losing in court. It doesn't really change anything, it's just part of their tactic to either win, which they'd love, or delay right to carry essentially indefinitely. They really CAN'T "lose". They can only have one law struck down. Since they have an infinite variety of new laws available for the writing, they just write a new one.
Click to expand...

Sadly I agree.

Apologies if this is a stupid question...my understanding of the law might be way off here, but if they enact a law to regulate carrying, wouldn't that mean they would lose their "standing" to appeal the ruling? So they have a big decision to make - if they appeal they could have to allow carrying for a long time with no regulation whatsoever, only to probably loose in the end anyway. Therefore they will "accept" the ruling and enact as restrictive a law as possible - just enough to prevent anyone from suing on the basis of a "total prohibition". That way, the new law will be protected at least as long as it takes to bring a whole new case, which will be years.
 
Therefore they will "accept" the ruling and enact as restrictive a law as possible - just enough to prevent anyone from suing on the basis of a "total prohibition". That way, the new law will be protected at least as long as it takes to bring a whole new case, which will be years.
Click to expand...
That seems to be the general consensus of the posters here.
 
Though I can't find the text of the order, the Washington Times quoted this:

an immediate 90-day stay is appropriate to provide the city council with an opportunity to enact appropriate legislation consistent with the Court‘s.
Click to expand...

For a sweeping ruling like Palmer, that makes sense.
 
For a sweeping ruling like Palmer, that makes sense.
Click to expand...

Distasteful, but I have to agree.

I don't trust the rank and file LEO's to change their reflexes overnight, whatever the chief tells them to do.

Being right and being shot-up due to a panicked LEO is not a good outcome for me.
 
They don't really need much time.

Likely one at a time or in smallest possible increments so as not to lose all at once, I predict...

They will pass a "May Issue" permit scheme, a la New York State. They will include fancy buzz words like "denials may not be arbitrary and/or capricious".

Instead of county judges like in NY, they'll either create a new position, "Handgun Permitting Officer" or something, or else simply assign it to the Chief of Police.

They will allocate a few thousand dollars a year for funding. It will take them about 1 day less than what would get them sued to set up the system. There won't be enough funding to do much of anything once it is set up.

Just like in NY, there will be a legal time limit (it's 6 months here) for permit processing but, just like in NY, that time limit will be arbitrarily ignored with impunity. Permit processing might take 18 months.

Just like in NY, permit denials will be arbitrary and capricious. Some of the county offices here will tell you point blank, right to your face, that they DO NOT issue concealed carry (unrestricted) permits. It's been that way for decades.

The system will include some variation of the "good cause" requirement, as NY's still does. It doesn't matter if it has been or will be struck down, it's another 2-5 years before that happens and many folks who see it on the application in the meantime will simply not apply.

They will include training/qualification requirements (a la Chicago) that are onerous and will regulate the start-up companies that try to to meet those requirements to the point that they are nearly impossible to get going. The ones that do get going will be political insiders who will try to make a fortune charging outrageous fees for the classes but scheduling as few as possible.

As they already do, they will not allow or they will place onerous requirements on FFLs in their jurisdiction, making opening a gun store nearly (as it is now) impossible.

That's just a start, but that's probably enough to get them out another 15-20 years.
 
Last edited:
Judge Scullin wrote that the court “enjoins Defendants from enforcing the home limitations of [D.C. firearms laws] unless and until such time as the District of Columbia adopts a licensing mechanism consistent with constitutional standards enabling people to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.”
Click to expand...

Who or what will determine if the "New" licensing mechanism meets these requirements?

Does Scullin have a say in this?
 
I'm not speaking only/specifically about "carry" permits or even current statutes. I'm pointing out examples of how it's been done before and how I expect DC to do it. NY State and Chicago, among other places, all have examples that DC can follow. It doesn't even matter if they've been struck down. Take out the sentence that was struck and add two new ones, start the clock all over again.
 
The article linked above doesn't say which federal judge issued the stay. Was it Scullin? I would have thought that unlikely since he could have issued the stay at the same time he released his decision? A judge on the DC CoA? Anyone know?
 
Here is the full text of the stay (document 53):

ORDER​

In a Memorandum-Decision and Order dated July 24, 2014, this Court concluded that the District of Columbia's total ban on the carrying of handguns in public was unconstitutional; and, therefore, the Court permanently enjoined Defendants from enforcing D.C. Code §§ 7-2502(a)(4) and 22-4504(a).

On July 28, 2014, Defendants filed a partially unopposed motion to stay pending appeal or, in the alternative, for 180 days and for immediate administrative stay. See Dkt. No. 52 at 1. In support of this motion, Defendants' counsel advised the Court that he had conferred with Plaintiffs' counsel, "who indicated that [P]laintiffs do not oppose a 90-day stay starting immediately 'pending the city council enacting remedial legislation that complies with constitutional standards.'" See id. at 1-2.

Based on the parties' agreement that an immediate 90-day stay is appropriate to provide the city council with an opportunity to enact appropriate legislation consistent with the Court's ruling,(1) the Court hereby

ORDERS that Defendants' motion for a stay is GRANTED to the extent that the Court's July 24, 2014 Order is stayed nunc pro tunc for 90 days, i.e., until October 22, 2014; and the Court further

ORDERS that Plaintiffs shall file their opposition to Defendants' motion for a stay pending appeal on or before August 4, 2014; and the Court further

ORDERS that Defendants may file a reply in further support of their motion for a stay pending appeal on or before August 11, 2014.(2)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 29, 2014
Syracuse, New York​


1
The Court notes that it sees no need to clarify its decision. The only issue before the Court was whether the District of Columbia's complete ban on the carrying of handguns in public was unconstitutional. Thus, the Court's injunction clearly applied only to handguns and not any other type of deadly dangerous weapon.

2
Based on the papers that Defendants have filed in support of their motion for a stay pending appeal, the Court is not convinced that Defendants will be able to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits to warrant such a stay. Nonetheless, the Court will provide the parties with an opportunity to present their arguments in full before ruling on this part of Defendants' motion.
Click to expand...

The Motion To Stay, can be found at document 52.
 
So, the window for carrying in DC has closed, at least until October 22. At least the clock is ticking.

Who makes such laws in DC? Is it just the city counsel, or would congress be involved?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top