Wrenn PI Granted (DC Shall Issue)

[GTOGUNNER]

Wow, the Patriot Picket is effective!

 

[JC92]

well if that happens is a En Banc reversal grounds for SCOTUS to grant Cert?

Actually, an En Banc reversal would bring the DC CA more in line with other circuits (2nd, 3rd and 4th) and reduce or eliminate any circuit split. I believe only the 7th CA has a ruling (Moore) that is friendly to "shall-issue".

 

[esqappellate]

All: Here the decision and our message to the membership. https://www.marylandshallissue.org/jmain/index.php

 

[swamplynx]

The Court has already issued its standard order staying the court's mandate until 7 days after the disposition of any petition for rehearing or the expiration of the time to file such a petition. That the SOP for the DC Circuit, not unique to this case. See attached. So, the decision is NOT in effect, at least not yet.

How long can DC wait to petition for en banc? And how long does the court usually take to dispose of such petitions? i.e. What is our best case timeline for the DC gun gestapo to have to start issuing permits?

 

[kcbrown]

No, its not. Because unpublished decisions are not circuit precedent, which means that the next panel can decide the same question exactly the opposite way. You don't need en banc then.

You would need en banc if the court felt that the damage to the parties arising from the (in its view incorrect) panel decision was too high to tolerate. But yeah, other than that, published decisions are the only ones that count.

Where can I see the statistics for those?

 

[Mike OTDP]

My big worry is that we don't want a case to go to SCOTUS until we have five dead certain votes. This is about winning, not just getting there. Replace Kennedy and we probably have five. Replace Ginsburg and it's certain.

 

[esqappellate]

How long can they wait to petition for en banc? And how long does the court usually take to dispose of such petitions? i.e. What our best case timeline for the gun gestapo to have to start issuing permits?

Petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc are governed by Rule 35 (en banc) and Rule 40 (panel rehearing) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and local circuit rules. Unless a federal gov. entity or employee is a party, Rule 40 gives a party 14 days to file a petition for rehearing (and en banc since Rule 35 cross references the time set by Rule 40), but that time limit has been altered by local circuit rule to 30 days. DC may seek an extension for good cause shown and such requests are routinely granted when made by a gov. entity. As to how long it will take, that varies a lot. DC's en banc petition was denied in Heller III. The initial decision in that case came out Sept. 18, 2015, Heller v. District of Columbia, 801 F.3d 264 (2015), and DC's petition for rehearing en banc was denied January 26, 2016. Heller v. District of Columbia, 814 F.3d 480 (2016). That's a good ballpark for this case. Now, if rehearing is denied, DC still has the option of asking the D.C. Circuit (and failing that, the SCT) for a stay pending cert.

 

[esqappellate]

You would need en banc if the court felt that the damage to the parties arising from the (in its view incorrect) panel decision was too high to tolerate. But yeah, other than that, published decisions are the only ones that count.

Where can I see the statistics for those?

Good question. I haven't had a chance to look at uscourts.gov That's the first place to check.

 

[AssMan]

Wow. So what do us DC CHP rejects do now? I spent a bunch of time and money going down to DC to apply, only to be rejected for lack of good cause. Do we have recourse? Is there a remedy (other than reapply at some point)?

 

[fightinbluhen51]

https://twitter.com/EmilyMiller/status/889952563335790592

My best guess is that SCOTUS will not take up case to resolve appeals courts on gun carry until definite pro 2A majority.

 

[press1280]

Yes, well, en banc in the 9th Circuit was also "rare" until they started dealing with 2A cases...

En banc is supposed to be rare as a general rule. But the 9th does it more. Not sure if that's simply due to the overall size of the court or their caseload or something else......

 

[swamplynx]

Wow. So what do us DC CHP rejects do now? I spent a bunch of time and money going down to DC to apply, only to be rejected for lack of good cause. Do we have recourse? Is there a remedy (other than reapply at some point)?

If previous injunctions are any indication, they will let you reapply for free, then dick you around for another 90 days while your application is being "re-processed," until they figure out their next move for infringing on your God given, constitutionally enumerated rights (some other stay); and deny your permit. Nice try, play again. Rinse and repeat.

 

[swinokur]

SAF Announcement

Gura was the lead attorney IIRC
.

 

[kcbrown]

Good question. I haven't had a chance to look at uscourts.gov That's the first place to check.

Er, wait. How then do you know that the DC Circuit has more published decisions, as a proportion of the cases it takes, than the 9th Circuit?

 

[press1280]

Oddly enough Henderson did NOT vote to hear Heller (Parker) en banc, maybe overconfident that SCOTUS would overturn on appeal:

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 04-7041 September Term, 2006
03cv00213
Filed On: May 8, 2007 [1039073]

Shelly Parker, et al.,
Appellants
v.
District of Columbia and Adrian Fenty, Mayor of the
District of Columbia,
Appellees

BEFORE: Ginsburg, Chief Judge, and Sentelle, Henderson, Randolph,*
Rogers,* Tatel,* Garland,* Brown, Griffith, and Kavanaugh,
Circuit Judges

O R D E R

Appellees’ petition for rehearing en banc and the response thereto were
circulated to the full court, and a vote was requested. Thereafter, a majority of the judges eligible to participate did not vote in favor of the petition. Upon consideration of the foregoing and appellees’ Fed. R. App. P. 28(j) letter, it is
ORDERED that the petition be denied.
Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:
Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY:
Michael C. McGrail
Deputy Clerk

* Circuit Judges Randolph, Rogers, Tatel, and Garland would grant the petition for
rehearing en banc.

 

[fidelity]

Kind of pathetic ...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...bcbdfc-7146-11e7-9eac-d56bd5568db8_story.html

In her dissent Tuesday, Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson wrote that the District’s regulation “passes muster” because of the city’s unique security challenges as the capital and because it does not affect the right to keep a firearm at home.

The court, she wrote, should defer to District officials, including former police chief Cathy Lanier, who have backed the permitting system as a way to prevent crime.

If that's all she's got, what's Maryland's excuse?

 

[Schipperke]

Hogan should get a set and order MSP to accept self defense as meeting G&S forthwith.

 

[fidelity]

As Bob A quoted from the decision in the other thread ...

We are bound to leave the District as much space to regulate as the Constitution allows—but no more. Just so, our opinion does little more than trace the boundaries laid in 1791 and flagged in Heller I. And the resulting decision rests on a rule so narrow that good-reason laws seem almost uniquely designed to defy it: that the law-abiding citizen’s right to bear common arms must enable the typical citizen to carry a gun.

 

[CrueChief]

Hogan should get a set and order MSP to accept self defense as meeting G&S forthwith.

 

[swinokur]

Volokh/Kopel weight in

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rms-for-d-c-residents/?utm_term=.ff5f5246bd93