Wrenn PI Granted (DC Shall Issue)

redeemed.man · Oct 1, 2015

swinokur said:
Probably because it would be even harder read impossible for a non resident to prove a G&S reason. They never planned on that part being struck down.

And it eliminates a possible 14A challenge.

It is appearing that way. As of late almost daily I get a request for more information from Sgt. Hall. He is a nice guy and I think he is trying to make it work but he is being told to push for more info. It is getting to be a little ridiculous. If I get approved and renewal is like this I would probably opt not to renew.

I gave less info to the IRS when I was audited.

swinokur · Oct 1, 2015

Are the proceedings at the DC Circuit recorded?

press1280 · Oct 2, 2015

swinokur said:
Are the proceedings at the DC Circuit recorded?

Yep-should have audio either same day or the next. Looks like around a month from orals we'll know the panel, which will make or break the case IMO.

EL1227 · Oct 3, 2015

Elliotte said:
Occasionally there have been amicus briefs filed by Governors in addition to ones filed by the AGs. I doubt he'd do it, but wouldn't it be funny if Hogan signed on to a Governors brief on the pro-2A side with Frosh on the anti-2A side?

Probably wouldn't happen, but if it did it would send a clear message that it's not the 'Official' position of the state. Frosh supposedly is offering legal opinion, but it is also a political statement. If the AG is subject to the Governor's wishes (as Doogie Gansler was to O'Malley), it may be an opportunity to knock Frosh down a peg or two.

At a minimum, Frosh should be summoned to a 'come to Jesus' meeting with the Governor.

press1280 · Oct 3, 2015

The briefs by Gura note that in Heller 3 the limiting of the number of guns registered was struck down, and this law's intent is identical-less "guns on the street".

fightinbluhen51 · Oct 6, 2015

Schipperke said:
If the Lanier's appeal fails, DC is kind of like shall issue? That would be funny as hell, with Maryland still hanging on to the same scheme.. What is interesting, I've read many states do not issue non resident permits. Why did DC opt to issue non-resident permits?

In Palmer, the District Court judge said in his opinion that the district could not discriminate between US citizens (essentially).

Since DC dropped their appeal of Palmer, they kinda lost their chance to argue the non-resident issue.

swinokur said:
Probably because it would be even harder read impossible for a non resident to prove a G&S reason. They never planned on that part being struck down.

And it eliminates a possible 14A challenge.

True, but see above.

EL1227 said:
Probably wouldn't happen, but if it did it would send a clear message that it's not the 'Official' position of the state. Frosh supposedly is offering legal opinion, but it is also a political statement. If the AG is subject to the Governor's wishes (as Doogie Gansler was to O'Malley), it may be an opportunity to knock Frosh down a peg or two.

At a minimum, Frosh should be summoned to a 'come to Jesus' meeting with the Governor.

Two entirely different offices and elections. Unfortunately, the AG is independent of the Gov.

I'm not sure how that can be, since they truly are executive branch, but that's how the state (and most states) select an AG.

press1280 said:
The briefs by Gura note that in Heller 3 the limiting of the number of guns registered was struck down, and this law's intent is identical-less "guns on the street".

Awesome! I've not yet had time to read it.

DC is boxing themselves into a corner.

1) Need an intellectually honest ruling from the DCA
2) Need DC to have enough stones to appeal (and arrogance).
3) SCOTUS needs to have enough balls to say what it means and stop dicking around with the language of the BOR!
3a) I also want to see SCOTUS and the non-compliant states squirm when Same Sex Marriage is used against them.

esqappellate · Oct 7, 2015

NRA amicus brief filed today in Wrenn

krucam · Oct 7, 2015

esqappellate said:
NRA amicus brief filed today in Wrenn

I've only read through half of it and am Wowed by its content and delivery! Pulling out the word "Bear" from the Second Amendment for all its worth. Again only halfway read, but wow....

krucam · Oct 7, 2015

Also, as a secondary thought, it should be noted that this Amicus is being brought forward in a SAF supported case. Kudos. I really hope that SAF and the NRA can continue to work together with each other...

danb · Oct 8, 2015

press1280 · Oct 8, 2015

krucam said:
Also, as a secondary thought, it should be noted that this Amicus is being brought forward in a SAF supported case. Kudos. I really hope that SAF and the NRA can continue to work together with each other...

The brief does a great job at exposing the other side's brief as a collection of half truths, omissions, and outright lies. Unfortunately most of the federal judiciary will simply look past the fact that one side is trying to trick them. Let's hope for a good panel draw.

Bob A · Oct 8, 2015

Nice brief.

Asking permission to exercise a right is a denial of that right.

The brief notes that the Dred Scott decision not to recognise African Americans as "people" under the Constitution was rooted in the desire to keep them from bearing arms.

Examining the 14th century Statute of Northampton, upon which the Bloomberg contingent hangs its hat, and demonstrating its narrowing over the centuries, effectively guts that argument.

To bear arms exhaustively shown to be applicable outside one's home.

The court would be hard pressed to fail to affirm the original decision, if it has any intellectual honesty.

CharlieFoxtrot · Oct 8, 2015

Great brief. I learned a new word: 'desuetude.'

fightinbluhen51 · Oct 8, 2015

Bob A said:
Nice brief.

Asking permission to exercise a right is a denial of that right.

The brief notes that the Dred Scott decision not to recognise African Americans as "people" under the Constitution was rooted in the desire to keep them from bearing arms.

Examining the 14th century Statute of Northampton, upon which the Bloomberg contingent hangs its hat, and demonstrating its narrowing over the centuries, effectively guts that argument.

To bear arms exhaustively shown to be applicable outside one's home.

The court would be hard pressed to fail to affirm the original decision, if it has any intellectual honesty.

Key words.

cad68m_m · Oct 8, 2015

CharlieFoxtrot said:
Great brief. I learned a new word: 'desuetude.'

Definition of DESUETUDE
: discontinuance from use or exercise : disuse

esqappellate · Oct 9, 2015

Wrenn Amicus Brief of Historians and CRPA

newmuzzleloader · Oct 9, 2015

That was a great read!! Someone really did their homework citing English law from the 1300"s showing the peaceful carrying of weapons was not against the law all the way up to the towns banning guns in the late 1800"s were mainly on the old cattle drive routes
.
Carrying weapons was only disallowed if you were doing so to terrorize or make people afraid.

I really liked the statement in the end of page 23 (and I'm paraphrasing here)
Our 1st 4 presidents openly carried firearms on them and did not share the Districts theory that a 1328 English statute made it illegal to do so in America. :party29:

Thanks for posting that.

GTOGUNNER · Oct 9, 2015

esqappellate said:
Wrenn Amicus Brief of Historians and CRPA

I can see it now,,, a cattle drive down Pennsylvania Ave!

danb · Oct 10, 2015

In 1623, Virginia forbade its colonists to travel unless they were “well
armed”; in 1631 it required colonists to engage in target practice on
Sunday and to “bring their peeces to church.” In 1658 it required
every householder to have a functioning firearm within his house and
in 1673 its laws provided that a citizen who claimed he was too poor to
purchase a firearm would have one purchased for him by the
government, which would then require him to pay a reasonable price
when able to do so.

This is my kind of entitlement program and government mandate!

Schipperke · Oct 10, 2015

danb said:
This is my kind of entitlement program and government mandate!

You do know what took place in 1622 don't you? All we need is a few hundred killed (25% of Jamestown) by Indians and we are all set again..

The other problem is when people start equating weapons laws of the 1600's, 1700's as if they should be analogous today. Firearms back then had nowhere near the multiple victim potential of today's firearms. When people try those arguments, they just fail in the face of intellectual honesty. If you want to tout those laws, then be quite, quite happy they give you ten rounds at your disposal in a few seconds. How many did the traveler have ready in 1623, he could fire off in a minute?

Wrenn PI Granted (DC Shall Issue)

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

In a State of Bliss

Ultimate Member

R.I.P.

Ultimate Member

"Quack Pot Call Honker"

President, MSI

Attachments

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

όυ φροντισ

,

"Quack Pot Call Honker"

Member MSI, SAF, NRA

President, MSI

Attachments

Ultimate Member

IANAL, PATRIOT PICKET!!

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics