In a not unexpected turn of events, the District of Columbia filed a Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal today with the US District Court in the case of Palmer v. District of Columbia. They are asking for an immediate administrative stay, a stay pending appeal, or in the alternative, a stay of 180 days.
The Attorney General of DC and his legal team have communicated with the plaintiffs who would not oppose a 90 day stay if the city council would enact remedial legislation – that is, a carry law that would cover both residents and non-residents – “that complies with constitutional standards.” Alan Gura has indicated he will be filing a response by next Monday to the District’s Motion.
In their supporting Memorandum of Points, the District points out that the 7th Circuit granted the State of Illinois a 180 day stay which they extended for another 30 days.
In Moore v. Madigan, the Seventh Circuit found that Illinois’ prohibition on the public
carrying of guns, with very few exceptions, violated the Second Amendment. 702 F.2d 933. The
Seventh Circuit, however, ordered its mandate “stayed for 180 days to allow the Illinois
legislature to craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the
public safety and the Second Amendment as interpreted in this opinion, on the carrying of guns
in public.” Id. at 942.1 This Court should do the same.
I would note that there was broad support for a concealed carry bill in Illinois by both downstate Democrats as well as Republican members of the Illinois General Assembly. Such a bill had narrowly been defeated in an earlier session on the requirement for a super-majority. No such broad support exists within the DC City Council and they are likely to make a hash of it.
While I would like to think Judge Scullin would tell the District to go lump it, I fully expect that they will get some sort of stay. I hope I’m wrong.