DC Court Refuses to hear city's challenge UPDATE

[Blackwater 53393]

Second Amendment Foundation sent me this tonight!!

 

D.C. COURT OF APPEALS DENIES EN BANC  HEARING ON WRENN, A MAJOR WIN FOR SAF 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 uto 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 14thAmendment. 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 32ndannual 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.

[Subdeacon Joe]

You beat me to it while I was reading up on it!

More here:  http://crpa.org/d-c-circuit-court-denies-washington-d-c-s-request-reconsider-win-nra-crpa-supported-right-carry-case/

 

Quote

As a result, the Court ruled D.C.’s “good reason” requirement, which requires individuals applying for a CCW in Washington D.C. to demonstrate a special need beyond mere self-defense, unconstitutional.

Washington D.C. immediately petitioned the D.C. Circuit to rehear the case by a larger “en banc” panel of judges, arguing that allowing ordinary, law-abiding citizens to carry firearms—as is allowed in 42 of the 50 states (including major cities like Chicago, Houston, Miami, and Philadelphia)—would somehow “increase crime and cost lives.”

If that strategy sounds familiar to you, it is because that is exactly what the California Attorney General did following a monumental 3-judge panel opinion in the NRA and CRPA supported case of Peruta v. San Diego, which held California’s restrictive “good cause” requirement unconstitutional. This new D.C. court ruling seems to create a circuit split that might cause the Supreme Court to pay closer attention to the case, or a future legal challenge.

In today’s unanimous decision from the D.C. Circuit Court, not a single judge dissented from denying Washington D.C.’s request for a rehearing. Washington D.C. is now left with no choice but to amend its policies to no longer require a “good reason” for the issuance of a CCW, or to appeal the decision to the United States Supreme Court. Either course of action has the potential to significantly change the legal landscape regarding the right to carry both in California and across the nation.

Both the NRA and the CRPA, along with several prominent law enforcement groups, joined the Grace plaintiffs in their fight for the right to carry as amicus curiae. To read the CRPA Foundation’s amicus brief, click here. To read the NRA’s amicus brief, click here.

 

 

This could be VERY good news for California  

[Charlie T Waite]

Great news for CA

 

CTW

[Subdeacon Joe]

1 hour ago, Charlie T Waite said:

Great news for CA

 

CTW

 

 

Maybe.

That ruling only applies to DC.  It does, however, create a conflict between two circuit courts, which MIGHT  incline SCOTUS to take up a new challenge to Peruta or other such case.

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

Since when does PRK follow a law it doesn't like? 

Little things, like drug and immigration laws never get in PRK's way. 

Oh-'Moonbean' must have forgot, we now have a real POTUS in office. 

OLG

[John Boy]

What is needed is a retirement one a liberal SCOTUS judge and the appointment of a conservative 2nd Amendment judge to move the Peruta case back into Committee for review ...

Mar 7 2017	Reply of petitioners Edward Peruta, et al. filed.
Mar 8 2017	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 24, 2017.
Mar 23 2017	Rescheduled.
Mar 27 2017	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 31, 2017.
Mar 30 2017	Rescheduled.
Apr 10 2017	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 13, 2017.
Apr 12 2017	Rescheduled.
Apr 17 2017	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 21, 2017.
Apr 20 2017	Rescheduled.
Apr 24 2017	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 28, 2017.
May 8 2017	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 11, 2017.
May 15 2017	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 18, 2017.
May 22 2017	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 25, 2017.
May 30 2017	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 1, 2017.
Jun 5 2017	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 8, 2017.
Jun 12 2017	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 15, 2017.
Jun 19 2017	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 22, 2017.
Jun 26 2017	Petition DENIED. Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Gorsuch joins, dissenting from the denial of certiorari. (Detached Opinion)

 

[Subdeacon Joe]

8 hours ago, The Original Lumpy Gritz said:

Since when does PRK follow a law it doesn't like? 

Little things, like drug and immigration laws never get in PRK's way. 

Oh-'Moonbean' must have forgot, we now have a real POTUS in office. 

OLG

 

 

You mean like this?
 

 

[Blackwater 53393]

Here is further news on the DC case!!

 

D.C. Declines to Take Wrenn CCW Case to SCOTUS    Apparently fearing a devastating loss that could crush arbitrary concealed carry laws in a handful of states, the District of Columbia has declined to appeal its loss of a concealed carry case that struck down its “needs based” permit requirement, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) learned today.   The SAF case is Wrenn v. District of Columbia. A three-judge panel on the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia struck down the city’s “good cause” requirement as unconstitutional in July. The court declined a request for an en banc panel review last month.   “We believe the city was under intense pressure to take the hit and not appeal the ruling by the U.S. District Court of Appeals,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “If the District had lost the case before the high court, it would have dealt a fatal blow to similar requirements in California, New Jersey, Maryland and New York, for example, and that prospect had anti-gun politicians in those states quaking in their shoes.”   Gottlieb recalled that the District’s loss in 2008 when the Supreme Court struck down its handgun ban as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment opened a floodgate for legal challenges to state laws. That led to SAF’s 2010 victory in McDonald v. City of Chicago, which not only nullified the Windy City’s handgun ban but more importantly incorporated the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment.   “Let’s face it,” Gottlieb said, “anti-gunners are determined to cling to their dogma of public disarmament rather than admit that their resistance to common sense concealed carry reform amounts to nothing more than stubborn denial. These people simply do not want to enter the 21st Century. They refuse to accept the Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment protects and affirms an individual right to not only keep arms, but to bear them as the Founders understood.   “However,” he added, “this decision opens the gate farther to an inevitable high court confrontation because there are now conflicting opinions on concealed carry from the different circuit courts. Common sense says that the 14thAmendment’s equal protection clause will not allow that conflict to continue.”