Search found 3 matches
Return to “DC: Fed Court of Appeals rules public carry of firearms a "core" right”
- Thu Oct 05, 2017 5:07 pm
- Forum: Federal
- Topic: DC: Fed Court of Appeals rules public carry of firearms a "core" right
- Replies: 45
- Views: 15273
Re: DC: Fed Court of Appeals rules public carry of firearms a "core" right
So if DC is not planning to appeal the decision then what is the basis for a stay? Or am I mistaken and DC needs to start issuing permits today without requiring one to show "cause"?
- Thu Oct 05, 2017 3:47 pm
- Forum: Federal
- Topic: DC: Fed Court of Appeals rules public carry of firearms a "core" right
- Replies: 45
- Views: 15273
Re: DC: Fed Court of Appeals rules public carry of firearms a "core" right
Thanks. That makes sense in general terms.srothstein wrote:This is my understanding of how it works, with the standard disclaimer that IANAL.Soccerdad1995 wrote:Here's what I don't understand. Hopefully one of our resident lawyers can edumicate me a bit.
A lower court rules that parts of President Trump's travel ban are unconstitutional. So those parts get put on hold until the case is resolved, 6+ months later.
A lower court rules that parts of DC gun restrictions are unconstitutional. Yet those parts stay in force pending the eventual resolution of the case.
Setting aside who is right and who is wrong, in both cases we have a court deciding that the government is acting in an unconstitutional manner. And in both cases, that allegedly unconstitutional behavior is causing irreparable harm to the people. So why do we allow that harm to continue, pending final resolution, in one case and not in the other?
In any case where the court is asked for temporary restraining order, the court looks at two things. The first is whether or not the petitioner has a reasonable chance of winning the case. If not, no order. Then they ask which causes the greater potential harm - allowing the act or allowing the order. The TRO is granted if the harm is greater when the act is allowed than when it is stopped.
So, in the case of the immigration ban, the court decided that there was a good chance that Trump's order was illegal and that there was more harm to society by allowing it to take effect. In the case of the guns, they decided there was a good chance of winning, but that the harm to citizens was minimal if the law stayed in effect instead of being overturned immediately.
But I can not fathom how any reasonable person could think that denial of a fundamental human right causes "minimal" harm. The right to own the means for self defense is key to a person's very survival. It is a necessary tool to protect our inalienable right to life, and also to liberty. To me, the right of foreign citizens to visit the U.S. certainly pales in comparison. I would place the importance of the RKBA above the importance of free speech, free exercise of religion, and the right to vote. Others may disagree. But saying that there is more harm done by not letting you go on vacation or visit relatives in the US than there is by forcing you to be a defenseless victim? That defies logic, IMHO.
- Sat Sep 30, 2017 12:09 pm
- Forum: Federal
- Topic: DC: Fed Court of Appeals rules public carry of firearms a "core" right
- Replies: 45
- Views: 15273
Re: DC: Fed Court of Appeals rules public carry of firearms a "core" right
Here's what I don't understand. Hopefully one of our resident lawyers can edumicate me a bit.
A lower court rules that parts of President Trump's travel ban are unconstitutional. So those parts get put on hold until the case is resolved, 6+ months later.
A lower court rules that parts of DC gun restrictions are unconstitutional. Yet those parts stay in force pending the eventual resolution of the case.
Setting aside who is right and who is wrong, in both cases we have a court deciding that the government is acting in an unconstitutional manner. And in both cases, that allegedly unconstitutional behavior is causing irreparable harm to the people. So why do we allow that harm to continue, pending final resolution, in one case and not in the other?
A lower court rules that parts of President Trump's travel ban are unconstitutional. So those parts get put on hold until the case is resolved, 6+ months later.
A lower court rules that parts of DC gun restrictions are unconstitutional. Yet those parts stay in force pending the eventual resolution of the case.
Setting aside who is right and who is wrong, in both cases we have a court deciding that the government is acting in an unconstitutional manner. And in both cases, that allegedly unconstitutional behavior is causing irreparable harm to the people. So why do we allow that harm to continue, pending final resolution, in one case and not in the other?