Go Back   Maryland Shooters > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues

Notices


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 18th, 2015, 06:25 PM #1
Patrick's Avatar
Patrick Patrick is offline
MSI Executive Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Calvert County
Posts: 7,678
Patrick Patrick is offline
MSI Executive Member
Patrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Calvert County
Posts: 7,678
Wrenn PI Granted (DC Shall Issue)

Results just in and it's a big win for our team. Preliminary Injunction Attached.

Judge Scullen essentially said that the District could not connect their interest in public safety with laws preventing lawful people from carrying in public. Likewise, the District could not demonstrate that a good cause requirement could even plausibly protect people who had not yet faced a violent crime.

Keep in mind DC copied Maryland law when crafting their rules.

Orders:

Quote:
After reviewing the entire file in this matter, the parties' submissions and the applicable law, and for the above-stated reasons, the Court hereby

ORDERS that Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED; and the Court further

ORDERS that Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction are enjoined from enforcing the requirement of D.C. Code 22-4506(a) that handgun carry license applicants have a "good reason to fear injury to his or her person or property or has any other proper reason for carrying a pistol," including, but not limited to, the manner in which that requirement is defined by D.C. Code 7-2509.11 and 24 D.C.M.R. 2333.1, 2333.2, 2333.3, 2333.4, and 2334.1, against Plaintiffs Brian Wrenn, Joshua Akery, Tyler Whidby, and other members of Plaintiff Second Amendment Foundation, Inc.; and the Court further

ORDERS that Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction, are enjoined from denying handgun carry licenses to applicants who meet the requirements of D.C. Code 22- 4506(a) and all other current requirements for the possession and carrying of handguns under District of Columbia law; and the Court further

ORDERS that, pursuant to Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs shall post security in the amount of $1,000.00; and the Court further

ORDERS that counsel shall appear for a conference with the Court on Tuesday, July 7, 2015, at 11:00 a.m. to discuss an expedited schedule for the resolution of this case.
Attached Images
File Type: pdf Wrenn opinion prelim injunction.pdf (173.4 KB, 592 views)
__________________
I needed a new sig and could not think of one, so I use this instead.
Patrick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18th, 2015, 06:30 PM #2
danb's Avatar
danb danb is offline
These are not your droids
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Howard County
Posts: 12,245
danb danb is offline
These are not your droids
danb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Howard County
Posts: 12,245
Did i read that right??
__________________
"More importantly, where a state permits individuals to openly carry firearms, the exercise of this right, without more, cannot justify an investigatory detention. Permitting such a justification would eviscerate Fourth Amendment protections for lawfully armed individuals in those states."

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions...d/115084.p.pdf
danb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18th, 2015, 06:31 PM #3
Patrick's Avatar
Patrick Patrick is offline
MSI Executive Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Calvert County
Posts: 7,678
Patrick Patrick is offline
MSI Executive Member
Patrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Calvert County
Posts: 7,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by danb View Post
Did i read that right??
Yup.

Let's tone down talk of the eventual Circuit stay, and just enjoy this moment for a bit, eh?
__________________
I needed a new sig and could not think of one, so I use this instead.
Patrick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18th, 2015, 06:31 PM #4
OrbitalEllipses OrbitalEllipses is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: People's Republic of Montgomery County
Posts: 3,727
OrbitalEllipses OrbitalEllipses is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: People's Republic of Montgomery County
Posts: 3,727
Whoa...
__________________
Painful to live in fear, isn't it?
OrbitalEllipses is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18th, 2015, 06:32 PM #5
boundlessdyad's Avatar
boundlessdyad boundlessdyad is offline
boundlessdyad
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: HoCo
Posts: 16,908
boundlessdyad boundlessdyad is offline
boundlessdyad
boundlessdyad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: HoCo
Posts: 16,908
Wow
boundlessdyad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18th, 2015, 06:39 PM #6
win296's Avatar
win296 win296 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 148
win296 win296 is offline
Member
win296's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 148
What is the status with the new DC carry law? I thought Congress (House oversight committee I think) had to give approval to all new laws in DC.
win296 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18th, 2015, 06:39 PM #7
Brooklyn's Avatar
Brooklyn Brooklyn is offline
I stand with John Locke.
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Plan D? Not worth the hassle.
Posts: 12,889
Brooklyn Brooklyn is offline
I stand with John Locke.
Brooklyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Plan D? Not worth the hassle.
Posts: 12,889
A win. Is a win.


But a win on a PI...that sends a message..
__________________
If one seeks light, you must avoid heat.

New motto for Baltimore contest winner???

Baltimore : It's not as f..ked as you think....

Liberty is NOT a loophole.

Thanks for a great slogan...now window stickers.
Brooklyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18th, 2015, 06:45 PM #8
krucam's Avatar
krucam krucam is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun...DFW, TX
Posts: 7,094
krucam krucam is offline
Senior Member
krucam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun...DFW, TX
Posts: 7,094


There was reason to be optimistic with this one given Judge Scullin had the case. He spelled out that the good cause/reason clause is toast. Time/Place/Manner can be regulated.

Wanna bet how far the District will take that one?...
__________________
Mark C.

Dallas/Ft Worth, TX

Post McDonald Second Amendment Cases/Links HERE
krucam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18th, 2015, 06:47 PM #9
J-Dog's Avatar
J-Dog J-Dog is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,376
J-Dog J-Dog is online now
Senior Member
J-Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,376
I had to look up "enjoined" and "preliminary injunction".

And now that I know what they mean.... Wow. In DC no less.
__________________
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
J-Dog is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 18th, 2015, 06:48 PM #10
SW6906user's Avatar
SW6906user SW6906user is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sykesville
Posts: 487
SW6906user SW6906user is offline
Member
SW6906user's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sykesville
Posts: 487
WOW I never thought that would happen in our MD, D.C. region anytime soon.
SW6906user is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Home Page > Forum List > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues

Tags
sisyphus


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
2017, Congregate Media, LP Privacy Policy Terms of Service