SAF files federal lawsuit challenging G&S in DC

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]SAF Sues DC Over 'Good Reason' CCW Requirement

[/FONT]​

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a federal lawsuit challenging the District of Columbia’s highly restrictive concealed carry permit requirement that applicants provide a “good reason” before such a permit is issued, which violates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. SAF is joined by three private citizens, Brian Wrenn and Joshua Akery, both of Washington, D.C., and Tyler Whidby, a Florida resident who also maintains a residence in Virginia. The city and Police Chief Cathy Lanier are named as defendants.

The lawsuit asserts that “individuals cannot be required to prove a ‘good reason’ or ‘other proper reason’ for the exercise of fundamental constitutional rights, including the right to keep and bear arms.” All three individual plaintiffs in the case have applied for District carry permits and have been turned down by Lanier because they could not “Demonstrate a good reason to fear injury to person or property.”

“The city’s requirements to obtain a carry permit are so restrictive in nature as to be prohibitive to virtually all applicants,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “It’s rather like a ‘Catch 22,’ in which you can apply all day long, but no reason is sufficiently good enough for Chief Lanier to issue a permit.

“Because of that,” he added, “the city has set the bar so high that it relegates a fundamental civil right to the status of a heavily-regulated government privilege. That is not only wrong, it also does not live up to previous court rulings. Law-abiding citizens who clear background checks and are allowed to have handguns in their homes are being unnecessarily burdened with the additional requirement of proving some special need.

“The last time we checked,” Gottlieb concluded, “we had a Bill of Rights that applied to the entire nation, including the District. It’s not, and never has been, a ‘Bill of Needs’.”

The city is still appealing its earlier loss in Palmer v. D.C., the SAF-sponsored case that struck down the city’s total ban on carrying handguns. The courts have not yet ruled on SAF’s claim that the city’s “may issue” law violates the Palmer injunction.

“We will give the courts every chance to bring Washington, D.C. into constitutional compliance,” said attorney Alan Gura, who represents SAF and the other plaintiffs in both cases.
​

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Second Amendment Foundation ([/FONT][FONT=&quot]www.saf.org[/FONT][FONT=&quot] ) 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.[/FONT]

​

​

[FONT=&quot]< Please e-mail, distribute, and circulate to friends and family >[/FONT]​

Copyright © 2014 Second Amendment Foundation, All Rights Reserved.​

[FONT=&quot]Second Amendment Foundation
James Madison Building
12500 N.E. Tenth Place
Bellevue, WA 98005[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Voice: 425-454-7012
Toll Free: 800-426-4302
FAX: 425-451-3959
email: InformationRequest@saf.org[/FONT]​

​

Click to expand...

Maestro Pistolero said:

In my dream world this new case would win on a motion for summary judgement based on Palmer, Peruta, and Moore.

Click to expand...

Gryphon said:

Excellent use of the funds I donate to SAF. I do not expect the "case" will be held up pending Palmer, since this matter wil almost undoubtedly be resolved on cross motions for summary judgment. However, Scullin can time his ruling however he sees fit.

This is good all around.

Click to expand...

Maestro Pistolero said:

In my dream world this new case would win on a motion for summary judgement based on Palmer, Peruta, and Moore.

Click to expand...

Date Filed # Docket Text
02/03/2015 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0090-3982157) filed by BRIAN WRENN, SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC., TYLER WHIDBY, JOSHUA AKERY. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons, # 4 Summons)(Gura, Alan) (Entered: 02/03/2015)

02/03/2015 2 NOTICE OF RELATED CASE by All Plaintiffs. Case related to Case No. 09-1482. (Gura, Alan) (Entered: 02/03/2015)

02/03/2015 3 Corporate Disclosure Statement by SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC.. (Gura, Alan) (Entered: 02/03/2015)
02/03/2015 Case Assigned to Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr. (rd) (Entered: 02/03/2015)

02/03/2015 4 SUMMONS (3) Issued Electronically as to CATHY L. LANIER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, District of Columbia Attorney General, and the District of Columbia Mayor. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Form, # 2 Notice of Consent)(rd) (Entered: 02/03/2015)

02/06/2015 5 NOTICE of Appearance by Andrew J. Saindon on behalf of All Defendants (Saindon, Andrew) (Entered: 02/06/2015)

02/06/2015 6 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by JOSHUA AKERY, SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC., TYLER WHIDBY, BRIAN WRENN (Attachments: # 1 Request for Expedited Consideration (LCvR 65.1(d)), # 2 Memorandum in Support, # 3 Declaration of Brian Wrenn, # 4 Declaration of Joshua Akery, # 5 Declaration of Tyler Whidby, # 6 Exhibit A, # 7 Exhibit B, # 8 Exhibit C, # 9 Exhibit D, # 10 Exhibit E, # 11 Declaration of Alan Gottlieb, # 12 Text of Proposed Order)(Gura, Alan) (Entered: 02/06/2015)
02/06/2015 Set Deadlines as to the # 6 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction: Response to Motion due by 2/20/2015. Reply to Response to Motion due by 2/27/2015. (Scullin, Frederick) (Entered: 02/06/2015)

02/12/2015 7 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to the Complaint by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CATHY L. LANIER (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Saindon, Andrew) (Entered: 02/12/2015)

02/12/2015 8 ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the # 7 Consent Motion for Extension of Time is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that the District's response to the Complaint is due on or before two weeks from the date of the Court's decision on plaintiffs' pending Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr. on 2/12/2015. (Scullin, Frederick) (Entered: 02/12/2015)

Click to expand...

rem87062597 said:

Aren't we going to run out of appeals courts pretty soon? I keep thinking that we're waiting for some sort of appeals court split before the Supreme Court takes it but I'm wondering what will happen when all of the appeals courts make their decision and none of the G&S cases are taken. It's not like the split isn't already there. I'm assuming that it means that we're screwed until we eventually cram a case down the Supreme Court's throat in one of the courts that have ruled against G&S. Short of a change in the SCOTUS justices I'm not sure what will do it.

Click to expand...

krucam said:

Close...
SAF/Gura filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction (doc 6-2) on 2/6/15. They also filed a Request for Expedited Consideration (doc 6-1) in the matter.

Also, DC asked for and got an extension for filing their response. It will be 2 weeks following Judge Scullin's ruling on the Motion.

Click to expand...