Washington, D.C. goes SHALL ISSUE!!! Not appealing Circuit Court decision that "may issue" is unconstitutional!!!

See post on page 2!!!!
------------------------------------------------------------

I'll report more on this tomorrow, but the Cliff Notes are D.C. is a very restrictive "may issue" state.

DC got sued on a claim "may issue" is unconstitutional, and lost.

DC appealed. And lost.

They request a hearing before the entire appealate the court, and were denied the hearing.

DC now has two choices:
(1) Appeal to SCOTUS (which they will, and will likely be denied cert (SCOTUS rejects request), or
(2) Admit defeat and become a "shall issue" jurisdiction.

This is friggin' AWESOME.

Read more here, tomorrow.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Sig2340,

Become a "shall issue" state?

Why wait.

Here is a report on the original decision.

quote:

Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2017/...y-law/#ixzz4u1FKBIHw
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

Dean Weingarten
Dean Weingarten
Arizona -(Ammoland.com)- A three judge panel on the D.C. Court of Appeals has struck down the District of Columbia “may issue” concealed carry law.

The District of Columbia bans the open carry of firearms. With its law banning the concealed carry of firearms except in exceptionally rare cases, it has effectively banned the carry of weapons outside the home.

The three judge panel of the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled the law to be an unconstitutional infringement on the right to bear arms.

From foxnews.com:

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.”

From the decision:

Our first question is whether the Amendment’s “core” extends to publicly carrying guns for self-defense. The District argues that it does not, citing Heller I’s observation that “the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute” in the home. Id. at 628. But the fact that the need for self-defense is most pressing in the home doesn’t mean that self-defense at home is the only right at the Amendment’s core. After all, the Amendment’s “core lawful purpose” is self-defense, id. at 630, and the need for that might arise beyond as well as within the home. Moreover, the Amendment’s text protects the right to “bear”as well as “keep”arms. For both reasons, it’s more natural to view the Amendment’s core as including a law-abiding citizen’s right to carry common firearms for self-defense beyond the home (subject again to relevant “longstanding” regulations like bans on carrying “in sensitive places”). Id. at 626.

This reading finds support in parts of Heller I that speak louder than the Court’s aside about where the need for guns is “most acute.” That remark appears when Heller I turns to the particular ban on possession at issue there. By then the Court has spent over fifty pages giving independent and seemingly equal treatments to the right to “keep” and to “bear,” first defining those “phrases” and then teasing out their implications. See id. at 570-628. In that long preliminary analysis, the Court elaborates that to “bear” means to “‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” Id. at 584 (quoting Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 143 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting)). That definition shows that the Amendment’s core must span, in the Court’s own words, the “right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Id. at 592 (emphasis added).

From the examples of Peruta in the Ninth Circuit, the Maryland ban on “assault weapons” in the Fourth Circuit, and the 11th Circuit decision to uphold the chilling of Second Amendment rights by doctors as agents of the government, I expect the District of Columbia will ask for an en banc ruling from the entire D.C. appeals court.

It seems that any upholding of Second Amendment rights is appealed en banc, which is to say, to the entire court. An en banc appeal may not be granted in D.C. It requires a majority vote of the D.C. non-senior judges. The D.C. Court refused en banc appeals by the D.C. attorney general for two previous Second Amendment cases in recent years.

If the court refuses to grant the en banc request, or if the case is heard en banc, and if the D.C. circuit upholds the three judge panel, the case will be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Senate Democrats, lead by Harry Reid, used the “nuclear option” to stack the D.C. Court of appeals with President Obama's appointees exactly for such situations as this. The Republicans recently returned the favor by using the “nuclear option” to confirm Supreme Court justice Gorsuch.

The Supreme Court has been reluctant to hear Second Amendment cases. The decision of the three judge panel on the D.C. Court of Appeals has made Wrenn a case that upholds the Second Amendment. Most of the previous cases denied by the Supreme Court upheld infringements on the right to bear arms.

©2017 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.

Link

Was not expecting this. I guess the Obama/Reid plan to pack the court with liberals isn't working as they planned. I think there is a better chance that SCOTUS grants cert this time because they have a circuit split now. The 2nd, 9th and DC Circuits are often considered the most important ones, so that adds weight to the split.

"BELLEVUE, Wash., Sept. 28, 2017 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has turned down a request from the city for an en banc hearing on the concealed carry case of Wrenn v. District of Columbia, amounting to a strategic win for the Second Amendment Foundation.

According to the court, not a single judge on the court requested a hearing. Earlier, a three-judge panel had ruled in favor of plaintiffs Brian Wrenn and SAF. The case challenges the District's carry permit policy that requires citizens to provide a "good reason" to be issued a permit. The Appeals Court struck down that requirement.

"Ten years ago, Washington D.C.'s political leadership tried to extinguish Second Amendment rights before the Supreme Court," noted attorney Alan Gura, who represents the plaintiffs. "The result was D.C. v. Heller, a tremendous victory for the rights of all Americans. With the court of appeals again confirming the people's right to bear arms, Washington, D.C.'s politicians must once again ask themselves whether it makes sense to keep resisting our fundamental rights."

Gura successfully argued both the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller case and 2010 McDonald v. City of Chicago case before the U.S. Supreme Court. Both cases dealt directly with Second Amendment issues. Heller affirmed that the amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, and McDonald incorporated the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment.

SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb was delighted with the court's decision not to grant the en banc hearing.

"We are grateful," Gottlieb observed, "that the court has shown considerable wisdom, and this should help advance the effort to assure reasonable concealed carry for District residents. It represents one more advancement in our effort to win firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time."

The victory comes on the eve of the 32nd annual Gun Rights Policy Conference in Dallas, Texas. The event is co-sponsored by SAF and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control."

Link

wonderful news for a Thursday

GOD BLESS YOU, ALAN GURA!!

quote:

Originally posted by Micropterus:
Become a "shall issue" state?

Maryland is a "shall issue" state. Good luck getting a carry permit.

I like to see a push that "shall issue" means that unless there is a good reason not to issue(eg. criminal record).

If DC is a "may" issue jurisdiction, then what is there to prevent them from denying the issue?

Unless the court says the law is a "will/shall", then I still don't see how this is a win.

Govt doesn't or won't do anything unless they are forced to do it.

quote:

Originally posted by 2BobTanner:
If DC is a "may" issue jurisdiction, then what is there to prevent them from denying the issue?

Unless the court says the law is a "will/shall", then I still don't see how this is a win.

Govt doesn't or won't do anything unless they are forced to do it.

The present law is struck down, so DC must enact a new law if it choses to do so, hopefully consistent with the guidance of the court's opinion.

Hopefully some of this will help those of us behind the lines in Kalifornia. Some counties issue, while others do not. That is, unless you are well connected or a politician like Feinstein.

quote:

Originally posted by comet24:

quote:

Originally posted by Micropterus:
Become a "shall issue" state?

Maryland is a "shall issue" state. Good luck getting a carry permit.

I like to see a push that "shall issue" means that unless there is a good reason not to issue(eg. criminal record).

The Maryland law is on its face a "shall issue" law but the language of the statute tracks the same language as "may issue" states. It's not really a "shall issue" state.

Good. Looks like it puts them in the bind of either allowing open carry or going shall issue. As rabid pro 2A as I am, open carry or shall issue seems legally reasonable to me. Either one provides a lawful person an avenue to "bear" arms.

Good progress, but it should have never come to this point. The Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for personal self-defense, one that may not be infringed either by the federal government (2008’s D.C. v. Heller) or by the states (2010’s McDonald v. Chicago). As good as these rulings were, however, they nonetheless left unanswered a significant question of American firearm jurisprudence: how do you adjudicate state-level concealed-carry reciprocity? This is NEXT.

quote:

Originally posted by c1steve:
Hopefully some of this will help those of us behind the lines in Kalifornia. Some counties issue, while others do not. That is, unless you are well connected or a politician like Feinstein.

Whackyland is a "may issue" state, where issuing authority is given to each county. It's up to usually the Sheriff.

quote:

Originally posted by c1steve:
Hopefully some of this will help those of us behind the lines in Kalifornia. Some counties issue, while others do not. That is, unless you are well connected or a politician like Feinstein.

This is OT, but is it beginning to look like DiFi's gonna get put out to pasture by the CA Dems yet?

If I were a DC official pondering whether to appeal to the Supreme COurt, I'd have to wonder if I wanted to risk an adverse ruling that would impact not just DC but NY, MA, CA, MD and all the other liberal states that prefer "may issue".

It may be that the best course of actionwould be to go the route that Chicago took....going shall issue, but making the requirements onerous - Things like high application fees, long training requirements, no carry on public tranportation, no carry within 500 ft. of a federal building, gun stores and ranges allowed but steathily prohibited by complex zoning regulations.

They will force gun right advocates to go after each regulation in court and could drag it out for years.

Of course, I hope they appeal and settle it once and for all.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
This is OT, but is it beginning to look like DiFi's gonna get put out to pasture by the CA Dems yet?

I'm hoping its put out on a drift ice floe.

quote:

They will force gun right advocates to go after each regulation in court and could drag it out for years.

I haven't dug up the quote, but I'm pretty sure we've all heard at least some banners say explicitly that this was their intention.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:

quote:

They will force gun right advocates to go after each regulation in court and could drag it out for years.

I haven't dug up the quote, but I'm pretty sure we've all heard at least some banners say explicitly that this was their intention.

Why wouldn't they?

They oppose citizens having firearms. They can't get the law they want. Why not get as much as possible? Who really knows what that is? What will the courts let through? What if there is an incident that turns public opinion against firearms, like another mass murder?

You can't expect them to just give up, announce that they have seen the error of their ways since the court rulings, and they will enact a perfect ordinance allowing the simplest, easiest gun law in the country.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: JALLEN,