Breaking News: The District's prohibition on carrying a firearm in public has been struck down by the U.S. District Court. Prepare for the liberals to throw a fit.
http://alangura.com/2014/07/victory-in-palmer-v-d-c/

Bitch slap!

The libs haven't admitted their failures in Heller and McDonald yet so this is going to take a while for it to soak in. I'm laughing my ass off. I can just hear the DC City Council now. How long until the Mayor's press conference? I'll bet Elanors Home-Snortin' will be on the news tonight. Thanks for posting! :)

Interesting. I am watching the news on its not even on it. I would think this would have been big news.

CapitolHillBilly Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The libs haven't admitted their failures in Heller
> and McDonald yet so this is going to take a while
> for it to soak in. I'm laughing my ass off. I can
> just hear the DC City Council now. How long until
> the Mayor's press conference? I'll bet Elanors
> Home-Snortin' will be on the news tonight. Thanks
> for posting! :)


Are you really one of the Capitol Hillbillies? I used to watch you guys play.

Hhhhhmmmm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Interesting. I am watching the news on its not
> even on it. I would think this would have been big
> news.

It's so fresh the mainstream hasn't picked up yet. I Googled and it's
all over the pro-gun sites. Alan Gura, the attorney representing Parker
has it on his site.

Must be the work of those evil Koch brothers.

As the Founders intended it to Be.


F Off Democrats and Leftist socialists

-
Attachments:

The Circuit Court in DC ruled this afternoonn Palmer vs. DC that DC’s ban on the carry of handguns in public by citizens is unconstitutional.

They went as far to say DC cannot enforce their current ban under any circumstance until such time as they pass a licensing scheme that allows citizens to fairly exercise their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

So basically one could theoretically walk into DC open carry and reap no consequences.

The court order now allows both city residents and non-residents to carry handguns outside their homes.

If this is appealed does the current ban on carrying a firearm stick?

Que? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The court order now allows both city residents and
> non-residents to carry handguns outside their
> homes.
>
> If this is appealed does the current ban on
> carrying a firearm stick?


Don't think so unless they get another judge/court to issue some kind of restraining order pending appeal.

A group of you should try to enter the city tomorrow afternoon with your six shooters strapped to your belt. Something tells me you would be met with heavily armed Police and zip ties. I'll be cheering you from the comfort of my living room.

I can't find any info about this except on the gun nut sites. And the supposed ruling only references one judge - a George Bush appointee. Something smells here.

Strange... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can't find any info about this except on the gun
> nut sites. And the supposed ruling only references
> one judge - a George Bush appointee. Something
> smells here.


You must be a half wit retard. http://news.msn.com/us/federal-judge-rules-dc-ban-on-handguns-unconstitutional

6uMnt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Strange... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I can't find any info about this except on the
> gun
> > nut sites. And the supposed ruling only
> references
> > one judge - a George Bush appointee. Something
> > smells here.
>
>
> You must be a half wit retard.
> http://news.msn.com/us/federal-judge-rules-dc-ban-
> on-handguns-unconstitutional

Yeah, I'm a half wit retard. There are a bazillion crazed gun nut sites reporting (celebrating) this, and one reasonably credible source. It appears that ONE right wing judge made this decision. Something tells me that this will not stand.

Strange... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 6uMnt Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Strange... Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I can't find any info about this except on
> the
> > gun
> > > nut sites. And the supposed ruling only
> > references
> > > one judge - a George Bush appointee.
> Something
> > > smells here.
> >
> >
> > You must be a half wit retard.
> >
> http://news.msn.com/us/federal-judge-rules-dc-ban-
>
> > on-handguns-unconstitutional
>
> Yeah, I'm a half wit retard. There are a bazillion
> crazed gun nut sites reporting (celebrating) this,
> and one reasonably credible source. It appears
> that ONE right wing judge made this decision.
> Something tells me that this will not stand.


Something tells me you are real fucking stupid.

It isn't what one could call elegant, but you can read the actual decision here...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2014/07/26/palmer-v-district-columbia-decision/

Strange... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can't find any info about this except on the gun
> nut sites. And the supposed ruling only references
> one judge - a George Bush appointee. Something
> smells here.


Different Bush. You didn't even get that part right.

Victory in Palmer v. D.C.
http://alangura.com/2014/07/victory-in-palmer-v-d-c/

Justice never sleeps…. not even on a Saturday afternoon, when this opinion was just handed down.

In light of Heller, McDonald, and their progeny, there is no longer any basis on which this Court can conclude that the District of Columbia’s total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns outside the home is constitutional under any level of scrutiny. Therefore, the Court finds that the District of Columbia’s complete ban on the carrying of handguns in public is unconstitutional. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and enjoins Defendants from enforcing the home limitations of D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4) and enforcing D.C. Code § 22-4504(a) 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.4 Furthermore, this injunction prohibits the District from completely banning the carrying of handguns in public for self-defense by otherwise qualified non-residents based solely on the fact that they are not residents of the District.

In 2012, I won Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2012), which struck down Illinois’ total ban on the carrying of defensive handguns outside the home. With this decision in Palmer, the nation’s last explicit ban of the right to bear arms has bitten the dust. Obviously, the carrying of handguns for self-defense can be regulated. Exactly how is a topic of severe and serious debate, and courts should enforce constitutional limitations on such regulation should the government opt to regulate. But totally banning a right literally spelled out in the Bill of Rights isn’t going to fly. My deepest thanks to the Second Amendment Foundation for making this victory possible and to my clients for hanging in there. Congratulations Americans, your capital is not a constitution-free zone.
Attachments:

Sonny Drysdale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CapitolHillBilly Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The libs haven't admitted their failures in
> Heller
> > and McDonald yet so this is going to take a
> while
> > for it to soak in. I'm laughing my ass off. I
> can
> > just hear the DC City Council now. How long
> until
> > the Mayor's press conference? I'll bet Elanors
> > Home-Snortin' will be on the news tonight.
> Thanks
> > for posting! :)
>
>
> Are you really one of the Capitol Hillbillies? I
> used to watch you guys play.

Not sure I know what you mean. I just happen to be a Hillbilly who lived on Capitol Hill for many years. One major reason I moved was because of DC's idiotic gun laws.

The Washtoncompost buried this story along with the smackdown Warner recieved in West Virginia debate. West Virginia?

True The Vote ! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Washtoncompost buried this story along with
> the smackdown Warner recieved in West Virginia
> debate. West Virginia?


Haven't seen the compost print copy yet but the story is on the home
page online. The comments are quite entertaining. Can't wait to see
the Brady Bunch reaction.

I wonder how this will affect the guy who brought a shotgun into the city? I think his name is Adam Kokesh? The NRA was right, again.

>It appears that ONE right wing judge made this decision

Leftist Bullshit. This judge has been avoiding making a decision on the case for several years to appease fuckers like you and finely had to issue a ruling.

As far as open carryong it looks like the ruling applies to DC residents who have registered guns, there is no ban on the registration requirements. The court case was that the registered gun owner residents cound not aquire a carry permit open or concealed.

Now If people from a state that have a CCW It would look like they can carry concealed. But I would not try it till more info comes out

This decision is not long for the world. Only uninformed extremists believe that there is an unlimited right. The Supreme Court does not, even in its current arch-conservative form. But Judge Scullin writes as if an unlimited right is the fundamental default and that every limitation upon it must be examined under strict scrutiny. The Judge is fundamentally incorrect.

The people who can now carry in DC are residents who are law abiding citizens who have gone through a registration process to obtain a firearm. only a very small number of DC residents have done this and there is NO DANGER to the public.

The right to bear arms means just that

Dewey, Cheatem & Howe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This decision is not long for the world. Only
> uninformed extremists believe that there is an
> unlimited right. The Supreme Court does not, even
> in its current arch-conservative form. But Judge
> Scullin writes as if an unlimited right is the
> fundamental default and that every limitation upon
> it must be examined under strict scrutiny. The
> Judge is fundamentally incorrect.

Exactly wrong. It's not a question of unlimited rights but rather reasonable restriction. The point in this case was that DC can't play games by making a law saying that you need a permit and then not issue permits as a way to create a de facto ban. Apparently you're not aware the such practices were addressed in both Heller and McDonald. As much as you anti-gun extremists believe that you can find a way to ban guns through a "technicality" or through other unreasonable approaches like extraordinary permitting requirements or punitive taxes on ammo, etc., you cannot. The extension of rights beyond only the home and similar restrictions were addressed in the Moore and Aguilar cases which is why Chicago had to drop its ban and adopt a shall-issue policy with some reasonable training requirements and costs.

You're the uninformed one Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dewey, Cheatem & Howe Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > This decision is not long for the world. Only
> > uninformed extremists believe that there is an
> > unlimited right. The Supreme Court does not,
> even
> > in its current arch-conservative form. But
> Judge
> > Scullin writes as if an unlimited right is the
> > fundamental default and that every limitation
> upon
> > it must be examined under strict scrutiny. The
> > Judge is fundamentally incorrect.
>
> Exactly wrong. It's not a question of unlimited
> rights but rather reasonable restriction. The
> point in this case was that DC can't play games by
> making a law saying that you need a permit and
> then not issue permits as a way to create a de
> facto ban. Apparently you're not aware the such
> practices were addressed in both Heller and
> McDonald. As much as you anti-gun extremists
> believe that you can find a way to ban guns
> through a "technicality" or through other
> unreasonable approaches like extraordinary
> permitting requirements or punitive taxes on ammo,
> etc., you cannot. The extension of rights beyond
> only the home and similar restrictions were
> addressed in the Moore and Aguilar cases which is
> why Chicago had to drop its ban and adopt a
> shall-issue policy with some reasonable training
> requirements and costs.

You hit the nail right on the head. The lefties are living in a fantasy
world.

I just checked the Violence Policy Center website and they haven't said a word.
Guess they're licking their wounds. :)

Also the print edition of the Washington Post, so yes, you are a halfwit retard.

You win the BBS.



Strange... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 6uMnt Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Strange... Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I can't find any info about this except on
> the
> > gun
> > > nut sites. And the supposed ruling only
> > references
> > > one judge - a George Bush appointee.
> Something
> > > smells here.
> >
> >
> > You must be a half wit retard.
> >
> http://news.msn.com/us/federal-judge-rules-dc-ban-
>
> > on-handguns-unconstitutional
>
> Yeah, I'm a half wit retard. There are a bazillion
> crazed gun nut sites reporting (celebrating) this,
> and one reasonably credible source. It appears
> that ONE right wing judge made this decision.
> Something tells me that this will not stand.

Carry has always been legal in DC for niggers. That won't change.

You're the uninformed one Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The point in this case was that DC can't play games
> by making a law saying that you need a permit and
> then not issue permits as a way to create a de
> facto ban.

Really? How do you think 11 million undocumented immigrants got created?

> Apparently you're not aware the such practices
> were addressed in both Heller and McDonald.

What, no cite?

> As much as you anti-gun extremists believe that you
> can find a way to ban guns through a "technicality"
> or through other unreasonable approaches like
> extraordinary permitting requirements or punitive
> taxes on ammo, etc., you cannot.

Personally, I'm not anti-gun, just anti-gun-nut. Especially the low-life goober gun-nuts who try to misrepresent the Constitution and the law. In fact, the courts have held that the power to tax is a tough one to limit, and that any effects of creating barriers to commerce or markets are just too damned bad.

> The extension of rights beyond only the home and
> similar restrictions were addressed in the Moore
> and Aguilar cases...

Moore never got past a 3-judge panel in the 7th Circuit. Aguilar was a state Supreme Court decision that struck down one statute and upheld the other.

> ...which is why Chicago had to drop its ban and adopt a
> shall-issue policy with some reasonable training
> requirements and costs.

Actually, the state legislature -- that's a different branch from the judiciary -- passed a law mandating broader gun rights.

>The people who can now carry in DC are residents who are law abiding citizens who have gone through a registration process to obtain a firearm. only a very small number of DC residents have done this and there is NO DANGER to the public


"Actually" Asshole They have been "vetted " way beyond what most states require for a carry permit concealed or open.

What do you not understand?? "Goober"

How anyone can confuse Illinois with DC? Takes some dumb to do that.

Every time I hear the word goober it is Gerry. Hey Gerry, Do you even know what a goober is?

Trade yourself in for a new model, dummy.

3yEUY Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Circuit Court in DC ruled this afternoonn
> Palmer vs. DC that DC’s ban on the carry of
> handguns in public by citizens is
> unconstitutional.
>
> They went as far to say DC cannot enforce their
> current ban under any circumstance until such time
> as they pass a licensing scheme that allows
> citizens to fairly exercise their constitutional
> right to keep and bear arms.
>
> So basically one could theoretically walk into DC
> open carry and reap no consequences.


HAL LE LU JAH HALLELUJAH! HALLELUJAH! FREEDOM REIGNS! HALLELUJAH!!!

Dewey, Cheatem & Howe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're the uninformed one Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The point in this case was that DC can't play
> games
> > by making a law saying that you need a permit
> and
> > then not issue permits as a way to create a de
> > facto ban.
>
> Really? How do you think 11 million undocumented
> immigrants got created?


Irrelevant.


> > Apparently you're not aware the such practices
> > were addressed in both Heller and McDonald.
>
> What, no cite?


Don't need one for either case. If you're not familiar with or can't find them, then you really shouldn't even be discussing this.

>
> > As much as you anti-gun extremists believe that
> you
> > can find a way to ban guns through a
> "technicality"
> > or through other unreasonable approaches like
> > extraordinary permitting requirements or
> punitive
> > taxes on ammo, etc., you cannot.
>
> Personally, I'm not anti-gun, just anti-gun-nut.
> Especially the low-life goober gun-nuts who try to
> misrepresent the Constitution and the law. In
> fact, the courts have held that the power to tax
> is a tough one to limit, and that any effects of
> creating barriers to commerce or markets are just
> too damned bad.


Not when it comes to punitively taxing Constitutionally protected rights, e.g., it cannot tax speech, religious practice, etc.


> > The extension of rights beyond only the home and
>
> > similar restrictions were addressed in the Moore
>
> > and Aguilar cases...
>
> Moore never got past a 3-judge panel in the 7th
> Circuit.
>

Didn't need to since the court sent it back with instructions that the State's law was unconstitutional relying on Heller and McDonald.

> Aguilar was a state Supreme Court
> decision that struck down one statute and upheld
> the other.

The one struck down was that with relevance to Constitutional rights. The other was a simple charge of possession by a minor.


> > ...which is why Chicago had to drop its ban and
> adopt a
> > shall-issue policy with some reasonable
> training
> > requirements and costs.
>
> Actually, the state legislature -- that's a
> different branch from the judiciary -- passed a
> law mandating broader gun rights.


Under order of the Court resulting from Moore to do so within 180 days, further reinforced by the State Supreme Court's decision in Aguilar, or be left with nothing.

Dewey, Cheatem & Howe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How anyone can confuse Illinois with DC? Takes
> some dumb to do that.

No confusion. Apparently you don't understand how decisions of Federal courts and the US Supreme Court affect both.

Gerry doesnt know what a goober is. Gerry knows what a suck cock is, because he is one.

You're the uninformed one Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No confusion. Apparently you don't understand how
> decisions of Federal courts and the US Supreme
> Court affect both.

Hey goober. Moore and Aguilar are Illinois cases. 7th Circuit panels have no precedence in DC. Illinois State Supreme Court decisions have no precedence in DC. You have badly bobbled the ball here, a trend I expect to continue.

Dewey, Cheatem & Howe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're the uninformed one Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > No confusion. Apparently you don't understand
> how
> > decisions of Federal courts and the US Supreme
> > Court affect both.
>
> Hey goober. Moore and Aguilar are Illinois cases.
> 7th Circuit panels have no precedence in DC.
> Illinois State Supreme Court decisions have no
> precedence in DC. You have badly bobbled the ball
> here, a trend I expect to continue.


Moore was a decision of the US Federal Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit relying on the US Supreme Court's decisions in Heller (more correctly, District of Columbia v. Heller) and McDonald (McDonald v. Chicago) reversing the decision of the US Federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and binding other US Federal District Courts within that district.

Decisions from other courts at equal levels may not have binding stare decisis but they very often are used as input to and as a basis for decisions.

^ Should read ...binding other US Federal District Courts within that circuit (not district), i.e., stare decisis extends beyond the State of IL.