A victory, for the moment.

July 25

"A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down a District of Columbia gun-control measure that the court said is essentially an outright ban in violation of the Second Amendment.

D.C. requires gun owners to have a “good reason” to obtain a concealed carry permit.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down the regulation as too restrictive in a 2-1 decision, The Washington Post reported.

“The good-reason law is necessarily a total ban on most D.C. residents’ right to carry a gun in the face of ordinary self-defense needs,” Judge Thomas B. Griffith wrote, according to the paper.

“Bans on the ability of most citizens to exercise an enumerated right would have to flunk any judicial test.”

Judge Stephen F. Williams joined Griffith in the decision.

The decision deals another legal blow to efforts by city officials to rewrite gun regulations since the Supreme Court declared a Second Amendment right to gun ownership in a 2008 D.C. gun case, the paper reported.

John R. Lott, Jr. of the Crime Prevention Research Center called the decision huge.

Right now, there are about 124 concealed handgun permit holders in D.C., Lott told Fox News. “If D.C. were like the 42 right-to-carry states, they would have about 48,000 permits. Right now D.C. prevents the most vulnerable people, particularly poor blacks who live in high crime areas of D.C., from having any hope of getting a permit for protection.

The lone dissenter, Judge Karen Henderson, said the district’s regulation “passes muster” because of the city’s unique security challenges as the nation’s capital and because it does not affect the right to keep a firearm at home.

Gun rights groups and Republican attorneys general from more than a dozen states told the court that the District’s system is unconstitutional because the typical law-abiding citizen could not obtain a permit, the paper reported.

City officials could ask all the judges on the circuit to rule on the matter, if they elect to appeal the decision."

Link

quote:

The lone dissenter, Judge Karen Henderson, said the district’s regulation “passes muster” because of the city’s unique security challenges as the nation’s capital and because it does not affect the right to keep a firearm at home.

I missed that part of the second amendment. Will have to re-read I suppose ...

Here's another good article.

Link

quote:

Right now, there are about 124 concealed handgun permit holders in D.C.

Lawmakers?

Am I being overly optimistic in hoping that this could lead to Constitutional Carry in all 50 states (and territories)?

quote:

Originally posted by henryarnaud:
Am I being overly optimistic in hoping that this could lead to Constitutional Carry in all 50 states (and territories)?

Yes.

In my humble opinion that will never come by judicial decree. If it comes it will be by legislative action.

Being in northern Virginia and occasionally venturing into the District of Columbia (DC) I decided to reexamine my prospects for getting a concealed pistol license (CPL) issued by DC. I've examined this issue before, and concluded (as vast numbers of others have) that DC only issues CPLs to the elitists.

But the decision in BRIAN WRENN, ET AL., v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL struck down a lower court decision and injunction upholding the DC requirement to provide "... either a good reason to fear injury to themselves or their property, or any other proper reason" in order to get a DC CPL.

I just got off the phone with the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) Firearms Licensing Division who informed me that MPD is continuing to require "... applicants to explain their need for a Concealed Carry Pistol License by demonstrating either a good reason to fear injury to themselves or their property, or any other proper reason."

The person I spoke with said this was based on instructions received from the Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia.

The only written instructions I could find was the DC Attorney General's press release, dated July 25, 2017 on this ruling. That press release states:

quote:

As we consider seeking review of today's 2-1 decision before the entire D.C. Circuit, the ‘good reason’ requirement remains in effect.

So, at least for the time being, DC continues to enforce a law and regulation where the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that law and regulation was unconstitutional!. The Court even came right out and stated its reasoning:

quote:

... the individual right to carry common firearms beyond the home for self-defense — even in densely populated areas, even for those lacking special self-defense needs—falls within the core of the Second Amendment’s protections.

and

quote:

... resulting decision rests on a rule so narrow that good reason laws seem almost uniquely designed to defy it: that the law-abiding citizen’s right to bear common arms must enable the typical citizen to carry a gun.

I have a call into the Office of the DC Attorney General asking when they plan to file their request for a full en banc hearing.

So, at least for the time being, and in this specific instance we have a governmental authority refusing to follow a binding legal decision, absent any stay or injunction from the entire DC Appeals Court or the SCOTUS.

I think it is nice to know that DC is a zone where the Constitution has so little meaning. It gives me another reason not to venture there.

Here is a link where you can read the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decision in BRIAN WRENN, ET AL., v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL

Even after a Full SCOTUS decision, it will take at least a generation before the police department is retrained to believe that Citizens are allowed to have a weapon.
Have you ever found a Smart DC Cop or Prosecutor?

Appealed to the DC Circuit en banc

link

quote:

Originally posted by Palm:
In my humble opinion that will never come by judicial decree. If it comes it will be by legislative action.

.....and then promptly banned by judicial action...

LOL.

I live in Washington D.C.
I live in Chicago
I live in New York City
I live in Baltimore

Any of these statements should be sufficient reason for a carry permit for personal protection.

Just an update since I see this thread was bumped to the top.

The petition to rehear the case en banc was denied and DC decided not to appeal to SCOTUS.

From the Metro Police Website:

"Pursuant to the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Wrenn v. District of Columbia and Grace v. District of Columbia, applicants for a license to carry a concealed handgun in the District of Columbia no longer need to provide a good reason for carrying a handgun. All other suitability and training requirements as described in the regulations and application must still be met. All forms and information sheets will be updated shortly. In the meantime, if there is a reference to providing a good reason, please disregard.

If your application for a carry license has been previously denied because of a failure to provide a good reason, you may reapply for a license to carry. You will not be charged a fee for this application."

Link

Score one for the good guys.