Wrenn PI Granted (DC Shall Issue)

[swinokur]

..

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]Federal Court Denies Admin. Stay In DC Concealed Carry Case

[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]BELLEVUE, WA – The federal district court judge handling the Second Amendment Foundation’s challenge to the District of Columbia’s “good reason” concealed carry permit requirement has denied the city’s request for an immediate administrative stay of his ruling last week granting a preliminary injunction against further enforcement of the requirement. The District is also seeking a stay pending appeal.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr., announced his decision this morning, and set two important dates. By June 22, SAF and its co-plaintiffs must file papers opposing the city’s stay pending appeal request, and the city must respond by June 26. This development is seen as a clear win by SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“The Second Amendment Foundation is pleased that the court ruled immediately against the city and has forced them to start issuing carry permits,” Gottlieb said. “By now they should realize that when we say we will do everything in our legal power to force them to recognize that people have Second Amendment rights we mean it.”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The city has required concealed carry applicants to provide justification for wanting a permit to carry firearms outside the home for personal protection. Judge Scullin ruled last week that the requirement “impinges on Plaintiff’s Second Amendment right to bear arms.”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“Bearing arms is a civil right,” Gottlieb observed, “not a government-regulated privilege subject to arbitrary discretion. This case isn’t about making a political statement, but about making the District of Columbia comply with an earlier court ruling, and with the constitution.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“The city is running out of wiggle room,” he added, “and should immediately start issuing permits to all citizens who meet the legal qualifications.”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Under Judge Scullin’s order, the attorneys representing SAF and the District will appear in court July 7 to present arguments for and against the city’s motion for a stay pending appeal of his initial May 18 ruling.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The case is Wrenn v. District of Columbia.[/FONT]
​

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

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]​

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

Copyright © 2015 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]​

​

 

[swinokur]

Has DC actually asked Scullin for a stay pending appeal? I didn't see anything posted? Kinda moot as pointed out as DC needs to file their appeal before Scullin's briefing schedule.

 

[Patrick]

Has DC actually asked Scullin for a stay pending appeal? I didn't see anything posted? Kinda moot as pointed out as DC needs to file their appeal before Scullin's briefing schedule.

No, DC cannot request a stay pending appeal cannot until they actually...file a notice of appeal. That's the rub: they haven't actually notified the court (in writing) they would appeal anything. Scullen's briefing schedule is based on the statutory time DC has to appeal his injunction (30 days). As someone above noted, Scullen set all the briefing dates for an assumed stay pending appeal after the latest date DC has to file notice of that appeal.

It's pretty simple really: you cannot request a stay pending appeal, until you actually file a notice to appeal. As Gura notes, it's a one-page document. DC knows how to do it, and they don't even have to work hard for it.

DC seems like it was going to draw out the clock, but once again they get out-played by Gura. Had DC filed their appeal notice immediately, they could have moved for a stay pending that appeal and briefed it immediately. But they didn't, so any stay they want to get is going to take much longer now because of their choices.

DC thought they could treat the time between the injunction and any stay they might receive as an "unofficial stay", per the filing we saw from Gura this week. They cannot. They got caught. I expect we'll see some interesting results on that soon.

People who previously applied in DC need to respectfully request their permits, or written cause why it was denied. Forget the "we're taking 90 days" claptrap - unless they have a reason to take those 90 days that is particular to you (meaning your background investigation turned up something bad), you are owed that permit per DC law.

We need permits on the street. Think of it this way: it's one thing to ask a court to continue preventing a practice; it's quite another to ask a court to recind a practice that has occurred without harm, and is ongoing. Witness the judges who would have said no to allowing gay marriages, but who openly said they would not force existing marriages apart or prevent others from joining in once the damn broke. Even though they were unsure the right existed, they were not going to risk the chance and pull someone's license to marry. It's not a perfect analogy, but I hope it explains why we need permits in good hands right now.

If you applied and their 90 day window is up, go ask for that permit. If they deny you anyway, send a fax of the denial to SAF with a quick (read: one page or less) explanation of who you are and any particulars. And if you are not a SAF member, become one immediately. SAF members are specifically mentioned in the injunction. It's a good measure, and frankly someone has to pay their bills.

I was never able to apply because I was out of town a lot. Wish I had. You'd see me in line next to you tomorrow.

 

[gre24ene]

As of May 9, 2015 I was told by someone in the permit section that 104 people had applied and 24 or 25 people have been issued permits.

 

[Afrikeber]

This is really getting interesting.

 

[robertgreen79]

Hmm, I may have to try for the non-res permit now

 

[Afrikeber]

I highly suggest people start showing up and demanding their permits, if their 90 day window is up. DC cannot take an additional 90 days unless they have a reason to investigate further (background investigation found something).

Strongly suggest.

Gathering my documentation as we speak to demand my permit .Not a SAF member but will look into it ASAP.

 

[press1280]

Hmm, I may have to try for the non-res permit now

Statute leaves wiggle room for DC to buy time The Chief shall issue a preliminary approval to carry a concealed pistol or provide a written denial of the application within a reasonable time after receiving an application containing all required supporting documents, with the exception of proof of completion of the firearms training requirements. A reasonable period of time shall normally be within ninety (90) days; however, the time may be extended by the Chief for an additional ninety (90) days where there is good cause for additional time to complete the investigation and the applicant is so notified in writing.

 

[csanc123]

Statute leaves wiggle room for DC to buy time The Chief shall issue a preliminary approval to carry a concealed pistol or provide a written denial of the application within a reasonable time after receiving an application containing all required supporting documents, with the exception of proof of completion of the firearms training requirements. A reasonable period of time shall normally be within ninety (90) days; however, the time may be extended by the Chief for an additional ninety (90) days where there is good cause for additional time to complete the investigation and the applicant is so notified in writing.

The only wiggle room is for incomplete investigations. (Just my read) The assumption must be that if someone is denied within that first 90 day window, the investigation is complete (or else how could a determination have been made)

 

[Schipperke]

A fire or data server crash is always a good excuse to delay things..

 

[Mr H]

The only wiggle room is for incomplete investigations. (Just my read) The assumption must be that if someone is denied within that first 90 day window, the investigation is complete (or else how could a determination have been made)

Again, even in their extension language, there is a nebulous "good cause".

I just wonder if DC would be so stupid as to try and play games with that, too.

 

[danb]

Right, they need another 90 days to investigate the constitution.


Seriously, I used to think the DC lawyers were playing some game so brilliant I could not fathom the logic. Now i just think they are idiots cutting their teeth at taxpayer expense.

I can't understand why they have not given notice of appeal. Is is possible they are contemplating not appealing?

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

Right, they need another 90 days to investigate the constitution. Seriously, I used to think the DC lawyers were playing some game so brilliant I could not fathom the logic. Now i just think they are idiots cutting their teeth at taxpayer expense. I can't understand why they have not given notice of appeal. Is is possible they are contemplating not appealing?

What court would the appeal go to next?

 

[swinokur]

Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.

 

[CypherPunk]

Gathering my documentation as we speak to demand my permit .Not a SAF member but will look into it ASAP.

After all the SAF.org has done, and have yet to do to protect your rights, don't they deserve your purchase of a $150 Life Membership?

$15 Annual
$50 5-Year
$150 Life (Defenders Club)
$1000 Patron (Committee of One Thousand)

www.saf.org

 

[Mark75H]

Right, they need another 90 days to investigate the constitution.


Seriously, I used to think the DC lawyers were playing some game so brilliant I could not fathom the logic. Now i just think they are idiots cutting their teeth at taxpayer expense.

I can't understand why they have not given notice of appeal. Is is possible they are contemplating not appealing?

Either DC is represented by Dewey, Cheatum & Howe or ... Allan Gura

 

[SWO Daddy]

After all the SAF.org has done, and have yet to do to protect your rights, don't they deserve your purchase of a $150 Life Membership?

$15 Annual
$50 5-Year
$150 Life (Defenders Club)
$1000 Patron (Committee of One Thousand)

www.saf.org

I wish I had got a life SAF membership first instead of a life NRA membership...

 

[esqappellate]

After all the SAF.org has done, and have yet to do to protect your rights, don't they deserve your purchase of a $150 Life Membership?

$15 Annual
$50 5-Year
$150 Life (Defenders Club)
$1000 Patron (Committee of One Thousand)

www.saf.org

Amen. Been a life member for some time now.

 

[GTOGUNNER]

And don't forget to use smile . amazon.com to donate to SAF

 

[LCPIWB]

And don't forget to use smile . amazon.com to donate to SAF

Or bookmark the link off the SAF page http://saf.org/amazon/