Appeals Court Denies D.C.’s Request for Full Court Hearing on Gun-Carry Law

[Cavalier Knight]

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Thursday denied a petition for a hearing from the full court after a three-judge panel declared portions of Washington, D.C.'s gun-carry law unconstitutional in July.

"D.C. Circuit denies en banc petition in Wrenn v. D.C.!" Alan Gura, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs in the case, said on Twitter. "On to #SCOTUS?"

Wrenn v. D.C. is the latest in a long series of challenges to the city's strict gun laws. The case centers around the city's gun-carry law, put in place after the previous ban on all gun-carry was declared unconstitutional, which allows city officials to deny a permit application based on whether they believe the applicant has a "good reason" for obtaining one. The plaintiffs complained that in practice this has resulted in very few gun-carry permits being issued in the city, with only 126 permits issued as of July 2017, and said the restriction is an unconstitutional infringement on their Second Amendment rights.

Appeals Court Denies D.C.'s Request for Full Court Hearing on Gun-Carry Law Struck Down in July

 

[fartgamer]

Fantastic news

https://t.co/cNCSbongvr?amp=1

 

[VietnamEraVet]

Call me shocked! Although I am pretty sure that D.C. will appeal to SCOTUS, at least this gets it to SCOTUS faster. Then again, until we can get another conservative pro 2A judge on SCOTUS, this could still end up going against gun rights.

But still nice to see at this point.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Alan Gura is the only one that's actually done something.

 

[hoodfu]

This is the first time I've been genuinely excited about any of this. This going to SCOTUS would be huge. Either it would give us what we want or settle it once and for all so we wouldn't be gnashing our teeth forever. This finally gives us a really solid circuit split which makes SCOTUS not granting cert very difficult.

 

[Saltwater60]

This is the first time I've been genuinely excited about any of this. This going to SCOTUS would be huge. Either it would give us what we want or settle it once and for all so we wouldn't be gnashing our teeth forever. This finally gives us a really solid circuit split which makes SCOTUS not granting cert very difficult.

Now if only Vader oh I mean Bader would resign or you know leave us we could get something done.

 

[VietnamEraVet]

I just read where the DC Atty General has 7 calendar days to decide whether or not to appeal this to SCOTUS. Supposedly until then, DC can continue to deny based on need. If they don't appeal to SCOTUS, then a permanent injunction takes effect (in DC only though).

So, to me this presents a bit of an interesting dilemma: if they don't appeal to SCOTUS, then D.C. becomes shall issue; if they appeal to SCOTUS and lose, then that should apply everywhere, and may issue dies.

Then again, if they appeal to SCOTUS, and they win,... well, then the anti gunners will pretty much have free reign.

I'm betting they appeal (100%), and think it is 50 / 50 chance they win with the current makeup of SCOTUS.

 

[Marine Cpl]

I just read where the DC Atty General has 7 calendar days to decide whether or not to appeal this to SCOTUS. Supposedly until then, DC can continue to deny based on need. If they don't appeal to SCOTUS, then a permanent injunction takes effect (in DC only though).

So, to me this presents a bit of an interesting dilemma: if they don't appeal to SCOTUS, then D.C. becomes shall issue; if they appeal to SCOTUS and lose, then that should apply everywhere, and may issue dies.

Then again, if they appeal to SCOTUS, and they win,... well, then the anti gunners will pretty much have free reign.

I'm betting they appeal (100%), and think it is 50 / 50 chance they win with the current makeup of SCOTUS.

This right here is why I say in other threads when people quote rulings to me that SCOTUS and other courts are just clowns dressed in robes and their rulings mean nothing. They aren't for the most part unbiased like they are meant to be and rule based on political affiliations and favors. I'm forced to accept their decisions because it's the law and I have no choice but their rulings are nothing more than nonsense not based on the Constitution.

 

[Onegunnotenough]

great, I cant remember anything good happening ever here in NYC,but well see I guess. Get it to SCOTUS

 

[masterswimmer]

Unfortunately SCOTUS hearing this now will work against us. Need to be rid of RBG and Kennedy before this is heard.

 

[Phauxtoe]

Ruth is about bat shit crazy these days when she can stay awake!

 

[Cooolone]

This being escalated to the SCOTUS is and can be nothing but a WIN for the 2A!

There is only one way a decision can be made, otherwise you'll have to show good cause to invoke your right to Vote, or take the 5th, and more.

Strict scrutiny is what needs to be attached and this type of decision is perfectly formated to push that very subject and DC instituted the lower scrutiny by applying artificial requirements in order to exercise a Right!

I look forward to the appeal and subsequent ruling!

 

[VietnamEraVet]

This being escalated to the SCOTUS is and can be nothing but a WIN for the 2A!

There is only one way a decision can be made, otherwise you'll have to show good cause to invoke your right to Vote, or take the 5th, and more.

Strict scrutiny is what needs to be attached and this type of decision is perfectly formated to push that very subject and DC instituted the lower scrutiny by applying artificial requirements in order to exercise a Right!

I look forward to the appeal and subsequent ruling!

I hate to sound at all pessimistic about this, but there have been other cases (Drake, and Peruta) that come to mind that SCOTUS fucked us on.

So,- until I see a full throated win @ SCOTUS on this, I'll be waiting...

 

[masterswimmer]

This being escalated to the SCOTUS is and can be nothing but a WIN for the 2A!

There is only one way a decision can be made, otherwise you'll have to show good cause to invoke your right to Vote, or take the 5th, and more.

Strict scrutiny is what needs to be attached and this type of decision is perfectly formated to push that very subject and DC instituted the lower scrutiny by applying artificial requirements in order to exercise a Right!

I look forward to the appeal and subsequent ruling!

Your unbridled optimism is refreshing, but shortsighted. I see no reason whatsoever for any hope at this time. The left leaning scotus has done absolutely nothing to secure our rights. It'll require personnel change in order to accomplish the objective.

 

[spat]

If this goes to SCOTUS and loses, does that mean TX can require "good cause" for abortions ?

 

[Cooolone]

If this goes to SCOTUS and loses, does that mean TX can require "good cause" for abortions ?

How about "good cause" to be recognized as your gender of choice, or a marriage partner Of the same sex? Lol...

Your unbridled optimism is refreshing, but shortsighted.

Not shortsighted at all, explain otherwise. It's the rule of law and the application of scrutiny as applied to our Rights as defined in the Bill of Rights. The fact that the SCOTUS ruled to recognize sexual orientation and preference falls into scrutiny land... The SCOTUS can invalidate itself if it is to face the question, and rules otherwise. It's a slippery slope and if they do, ie, allow a lower scrutiny to be applied to the 2nd, then the same may be had for all.

So it has a choice, rule for strict scrutiny or place into a quagmire all the other Rights with one fell swoop! A women's right to choose, freedom of worship, association, remaining silent, warrantless search protections and more would be lost... Not sure what your reference to shortsighted means, lol

 

[Chuck D]

I'd be surprised if SCOTUS takes the case. They have a long history of kicking the can down the road.

If they take it, it will be one hell of a stretch to argue against shall issue.

 

[VietnamEraVet]

I'd be surprised if SCOTUS takes the case. They have a long history of kicking the can down the road.

If they take it, it will be one hell of a stretch to argue against shall issue.

I can see SCOTUS not taking the case for this reason: if they don't take it, then poor little D.C. becomes shall issue, BUT..., all of the other may issue states and anti cities including our own NYC would still stay may issue and keep fucking us over.

Think about it: CA,NY & NYC, NJ, MD, and others could put pressure on D.C. to NOT appeal, and put all of them at risk of having to be shall issue if SCOTUS ruled against D.C. in this case. The anti's would lose their shit over it!

Wouldn't surprise me if anti's like Bloomturd and others are already trying some backchannel communications with D.C. to try and get them to fall on their sword and not appeal to SCOTUS.

 

[masterswimmer]

Not shortsighted at all, explain otherwise. It's the rule of law and the application of scrutiny as applied to our Rights as defined in the Bill of Rights. The fact that the SCOTUS ruled to recognize sexual orientation and preference falls into scrutiny land... The SCOTUS can invalidate itself if it is to face the question, and rules otherwise. It's a slippery slope and if they do, ie, allow a lower scrutiny to be applied to the 2nd, then the same may be had for all.

So it has a choice, rule for strict scrutiny or place into a quagmire all the other Rights with one fell swoop! A women's right to choose, freedom of worship, association, remaining silent, warrantless search protections and more would be lost... Not sure what your reference to shortsighted means, lol

First, comparing the 2A to the other rights you listed is trying to create a 'false positive'. There is no correlation according to ruling after ruling.
The 2A already states 'shall not be infringed'. How has that worked out for us? We are the proverbial frog in the pot of warm>hot water. Our 'rights' have been eroding for 100 years. Any hope for reversal of those infringements with the current makeup of SCOTUS is beyond absurd. Change a couple of justices and I'll at least develop a modicum of hope. Just not today.

 

[Saltwater60]

How about "good cause" to be recognized as your gender of choice, or a marriage partner Of the same sex? Lol...



Not shortsighted at all, explain otherwise. It's the rule of law and the application of scrutiny as applied to our Rights as defined in the Bill of Rights. The fact that the SCOTUS ruled to recognize sexual orientation and preference falls into scrutiny land... The SCOTUS can invalidate itself if it is to face the question, and rules otherwise. It's a slippery slope and if they do, ie, allow a lower scrutiny to be applied to the 2nd, then the same may be had for all.

So it has a choice, rule for strict scrutiny or place into a quagmire all the other Rights with one fell swoop! A women's right to choose, freedom of worship, association, remaining silent, warrantless search protections and more would be lost... Not sure what your reference to shortsighted means, lol

You are correct. I'm interested to see how this shakes out for sure.

 

[Saltwater60]

I can see SCOTUS not taking the case for this reason: if they don't take it, then poor little D.C. becomes shall issue, BUT..., all of the other may issue states and anti cities including our own NYC would still stay may issue and keep fucking us over.

Think about it: CA,NY & NYC, NJ, MD, and others could put pressure on D.C. to NOT appeal, and put all of them at risk of having to be shall issue if SCOTUS ruled against D.C. in this case. The anti's would lose their shit over it!

Wouldn't surprise me if anti's like Bloomturd and others are already trying some backchannel communications with D.C. to try and get them to fall on their sword and not appeal to SCOTUS.

I could see that as well.

 

[kev74]

Alan Gura is the only one that's actually done something.

Alan Gura and the Second Amendment Foundation, who has been paying him for his efforts.

 

[RBean]

I'm shocked, simply shocked. And delighted. Maybe there is some hope. Unfortunately NY is in the 2nd Circuit, which has never seen or even imagined a gun law that was unconstitutional. The state of NY does not recognized Heller decision at all. Heller says possession of a pistol is a right, but NY says "oh no it's not, its a privilege and we can take it away any time we want." 2nd Circuit does not have the intellectual honesty to simply enforce the Heller decision.

 

[RBean]

That is what happened in Illinois when they lost in the 7th Circuit and state's "no carry" law was stuck down. They didn't appeal to the Supreme Court. If a state law is held unconsititutional and the state appeals the Court is much more likely to grant cert than if the law is found constitutional and the individual appeals.