Gura asks Judge Scullin to hold D.C. in Contempt in Palmer Carry Case

Gun Watch ^ | 21 November, 2014 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

In the ongoing legal battle by Alan Gura to force the District of Columbia City Council to respect the second amendment of the Constitution, a request that the City government be held in contempt was file on Tuesday, the 18th of November, 2014.  It seems to come as a response to the city claiming that the Court lacked jurisdiction, because no request for a finding of contempt was fired.

Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr gave the DC government until the 4th of December, and Gura's reply by the 11th of December.  From us.archive.org:

TEXT SCHEDULING ORDER: regarding the # 83 Motion for Order to Show Cause. Response to Motion due by 12/4/2014. Reply to Response to Motion due by 12/11/2014. IT IS SO ORDERED by Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr. on 11/20/2014. (Scullin, Frederick) (Entered: 11/20/2014)

 #83 is the  proposed order asked for by Alan Gura:

This matter came before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion to hold Defendants in contempt.  Defendants are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, by ____________, 2014, why they should not be held in contempt for violating this Court’s injunction entered July 26, 2014.

Both parties are therefore to present arguments about whether Judge Scullin should issue an order asking the DC city government why they should not be held in contempt.

Actual lawyers, feel free to enlighten us as to what this likely means.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

[marktwain]

This may be very interesting. Two weeks before Christmas. It would be great if the judge placed a permanent injunction against the city at that time, or held them in contempt.

[Salvavida]

As with the IRS case, people need to be threatened with jail time to get feet moving. That is the only thing they understand. That or civil war.

[theBuckwheat]

The Iron Law of Bureaucracy is that the bureaucracy expands until some contrary power is sufficient in its resistance. Under normal government circumstances, the first limit on a bureaucracy is that government has finite amounts of money.

However, in the era of central banking, fiat money and near-infinite debt, government can create (at least for the short term) near-infinite amounts of money that it is free to spend on paying for anything it pleases.

Thus the mechanism of near-infinite money finances the bureaucracy without effective limits. One of those effects is that every level of government gets funded no matter what voters and politicians may want.

The solution is to remove from government the ability to create money out of thin air, either by expansion of credit or straight out printing of money. This will not be painless, but our future prosperity depends on it. At this moment we are either or beyond the economy’s ability to pay the interest on the debt we have already accumulated.

Every day more people are coming to the judgment that a carefully organized effort to repair the constitution via the States’ power to propose and ratify amendments has less risk to our liberty and prosperity than the present trajectory of the federal government and especially the federal bureaucracy.

The first order of business of an Article V Convention must be to limit government’s ability to spend and create near-infinite amounts of money.

[bunkerhill7]

"7. That the people have a right to bear arms for defence of themselves and their state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people, or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury,"

Robert Whitehill, Speech in the Pennsylvana State Ratification Convention, December 12 , 1787 1. Source: "Birth of the Bill of Rights: Major writings" - Page 5

books.google.com/books?isbn=0313331952 Jon L. Wakelyn - 2004 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions

"Samuel Bryan ("Centinel"), I, October 5, 1787 TO THE FREEMEN OF PENNSYLVANIA Friends, Countrymen and Fellow Citizens, Permit one of yourselves to put you in mind of certain liberties and privileges secured to you by the constitution ..."