Wrenn PI Granted (DC Shall Issue)

Mr H said:

Wife just read me that exact quote off the Ch 7 article...

My response??

The residents generally either can't afford it, or know they'd be denied for 'other' issues... so they don't apply!

Click to expand...

Armadillofz1 said:

My guess is that when G&S goes there will be more than a few new applications. Even with the $400+ application fee (correct me if i'm wrong on that number). Then a lawsuit against DC for the defacto poll tax.

Click to expand...

press1280 said:

Last I heard very few had been denied because over half of the applications weren't listed as approved or denied (still in process I assume). So yea, she won't deny you for not having "good cause" but she'll sit on your application. IIRC the law is really vague on permit processing times, so she wouldn't be violating the law by holding until DC gets its stay.

Click to expand...

Armadillofz1 said:

"About 100 people have applied for permits, and very few have been denied, she said.

"The vast majority of people applying for permits to carry in the District are not D.C. residents," Lanier said on NewsChannel 8's "NewsTalk" program. "Our residents are very clear that this is not something they wanted."

Click to expand...

jbrown50 said:

In other words, if she sees a spike in applications from residents she'll go back to requiring G&S.

Click to expand...

Armadillofz1 said:

My guess is that when G&S goes there will be more than a few new applications. Even with the $400+ application fee (correct me if i'm wrong on that number). Then a lawsuit against DC for the defacto poll tax.

Click to expand...

TTMD said:

MPD Chief's interview on News8newstalk.com. Here's the permalink. Her discussion re the Wren case is up first & runs through about until about 5 minutes & 40 seconds into the clip.

http://www.wjla.com/blogs/news-talk/2015/05/monthly-q-a-with-dc-police-chief-cathy-lanier-25364.html

Click to expand...

teratos said:

I agree. Just like MD. People don't apply because they don't want to go through all the time and money to just be denied.

Click to expand...

Applehd said:

"the only thing that has been struck down was the provision that you have to demonstrate good reason, and the reasoning behind striking that down is it doesn't demonstrate that a person who DOESN'T have threats are any less likely to use the firearm illegally...uh... or commit crime."

Direct quote from Lanier... I am having trouble wrapping my head around this. Is she saying that a person(presumably, law-abiding, with a clean record) is going to apply for a permit only to turn around and commit crime with that permit? I'm sure that with Lanier spewing this kind of garbage, Bowser and Lanier get along swell...

I also noticed that she chose her words wisely in certain instances to dodge more questions about appeal... but we all know that's comin'.

Click to expand...

While, as stated, Defendants argue that the District of Columbia's "good reason"/"proper
reason" requirement relates reasonably to its interest in preventing crime and protecting public
safety, they have not established that relationship.
The fact that an individual may be able to demonstrate a greater need for self-protection, and
therefore meets the "good reason"/"proper reason" requirement, does not indicate, in any way,
whether that person is less likely to misuse handguns or may be less dangerous. See Drake, 724
F.3d at 454 (Hardiman, C.J., dissenting). Nor does the District of Columbia's "good 12
reason"/"proper reason" requirement make it less likely that those who meet this requirement will
accidently shoot themselves or others or engage in criminal activity than those who cannot meet this
requirement. See id. The fact that a person may have a greater need for self-protection says nothing
about how limiting the carrying of handguns to such individuals would result in a reduction of risk
to other members of the public or reduce violent crime. Is the Court to conclude that people who do
not have a heightened need for self-protection are more likely to commit violent crimes?
Furthermore, even if the Court were to accept the proposition that handguns are used
disproportionately in the commission of violent crimes, how is that use related to whether or not a
person has a greater need for self-protection? Moreover, isn't it possible that even persons who
cannot manifest a present need for self-protection are just as likely to be victims of a violent crime.
Simply put, the District of Columbia's "good reason"/"proper reason" requirement will neither make
See Drake, 724 F.3d at 454 (Hardiman, C.J., dissenting) (stating that "it seems odd to 12
suggest that one who obtains a handgun carry permit because he is in imminent danger is less
likely to mishandle a gun than one who obtains a carry permit because he might want to exercise
that right in the future even though he perceives no present danger").
-16-it less likely that those who meet this requirement will present a risk to other members of the public
or commit violent crimes than those who cannot meet this requirement. Therefore, after reviewing
the record in this case, the Court finds that Defendants have failed to demonstrate that there is any
relationship, let alone a tight fit, between reducing the risk to other members of the public and/or
violent crime and the District of Columbia's "good reason"/"proper reason" requirement.
This conclusion should not be read to suggest that it would be inappropriate for the District
of Columbia to enact a licensing mechanism that includes appropriate time, place and manner
restrictions on the carrying of handguns in public. The District of Columbia's arbitrary "good 13
reason"/"proper reason" requirement, however, goes far beyond establishing such reasonable
restrictions. Rather, for all intents and purposes, this requirement makes it impossible for the
overwhelming majority of law-abiding citizens to obtain licenses to carry handguns in public for
self-defense, thereby depriving them of their Second Amendment right to bear arms.
Accordingly, at this point in the litigation and based on the current record, the Court
concludes that Plaintiffs have shown that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that
See Heller, 554 U.S. at 626-27 (noting that its opinion should not be construed to cast 13
doubt on the validity of various "longstanding" time, place and manner restrictions on the
possession, carrying, and sale of handguns); Friedman v. City of Highland Park, No. 14-3091,
2015 WL 1883498 (7th Cir. Apr. 27, 2015) (holding that a city ordinance that generally
prohibited the possession, sale or manufacture of semi-automatic assault weapons and large
capacity magazines did not violate the Second Amendment); Heller v. Dist. of Columbia, 45 F.
Supp. 3d 35 (D.D.C. 2014) (holding that the challenged regulations pertaining to the registration
of handguns did not violate the Second Amendment); Parker v. Dist. of Columbia, 478 F.3d 370,
399 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (stating that "[t]he protections of the Second Amendment are subject to the
same sort of reasonable [time, place and manner] restrictions that have been recognized as
limiting, for instance, the First Amendment" (citation omitted)). Cf. Ezell v. City of Chicago,
651 F.3d 684, 714 (7th Cir. 2011) (stating that "historical context tells us that cities may takepublic safety into account in setting reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on thedischarge of firearms within City limits").
-17-
Case 1:15-cv-00162-FJS Document 13 Filed 05/18/15 Page 17 of 23

Click to expand...

Armadillofz1 said:

Similar tactic with the HQL. Many give up because of the hassle. Really, who came up with it, a background check that allows you to get another background check.

Click to expand...

swinokur said:

Either that or she was trying to quote Scullin and got it wrong.

Click to expand...

Maverick0313 said:

Take a wrong turn and go onto the NSA campus......

Click to expand...