Wrenn PI Granted (DC Shall Issue)

[swinokur]

sure like Esqapellate to weigh in.

 

[GTOGUNNER]

sure like Esqapellate to weigh in.

He must being doing Presidential stuff

 

[swinokur]

maybe he's in a security briefing.

lol

 

[mxrider]

maybe he's in a security briefing.

lol

You know, all that secret squirrel stuff

 

[esqappellate]

You know, all that secret squirrel stuff

Nope sorry. Just super TS work in the scif. I will listen to the tape tomorrow

 

[fidelity]

The Post had a write-up on today's proceedings as well ...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...a757a0-7f41-11e6-9070-5c4905bf40dc_story.html

 

[esqappellate]

Nope sorry. Just super TS work in the scif. �� I will listen to the tape tomorrow

Just finished with the tapes in Wrenn and Grace. Both Gura and Thompson gave absolutely correct answers to tricky questions and thus both stayed completely out of trouble with their answers. Very nice job by these counsel. Absolutely worth listening to Judges Griffin and Williams struggle with the theory DC is pushing, viz., that historically a city could ban all carry. Judge Griffin was very effective in pushing DC into admitting that is exactly the result their position would entail. Neither judge gave any indication that he was buying it (Judge Griffin: "But not in the city? That's absurd, that's absurd"), that's plain enough, so DC might well lose on that point. And that would be huge. That does not mean that plaintiffs are going to win these appeals, though. DC stressed (as would I in their shoes) the procedural posture on these appeal. Appeals on PI motions are always tough because there are no factual determinations in the court below. But I didn't hear any indication that the court was buying it. The likelihood of prevailing point on a PI motion is still a purely legal point and so the court will have to wade into that thicket. What I found particularly interesting was the extended exchanges over whether the DC was, in practical terms, a complete ban (Williams: "The difference between good reason and a ban exists but is subtle"). Thompson made the excellent point that, under Heller III, a desire to promote public safety by limiting or rationing the right itself was illegitimate. And that's exactly right. If the court thinks that is what DC has done here, then they issue a ruling to that effect, that ruling would be solidly supported by Heller III and would be *very* significant. So I could see a remand with a holding that *if* the facts showed on remand that the District was simply trying to ration the right, then the statute is unconstitutional. I could also see an opinion that stated that DC can limit public carry but it is too restrictive in effectively banning all public carry. That ruling would pick up on Judge Griffin's repeated suggestion that a woman has a right to defend herself against the *first* assault in a dangerous neighborhood, not merely wait until the second attack to get a permit. Can't wait to read the opinion. Judge Henderson said nothing (which is true most of the time so that is nothing unusual), but given her history we have to assume that she would rule for DC.

More generally, a lot has happened since the rulings in Woollard et al., on which the District places so much reliance. In particular, we have Judge O'Scannlain's historical analysis (and treatment of those cases) in Peruta, which the en banc court never addressed or refuted in its very narrow en banc holding. Judge O'Scannlain is a very highly respected jurist and the Peruta panel certainly didn't buy the arguments used by the District here. So, based on the oral arguments, I just don't see this panel buying DC's broad arguments. How the opinion will be written remains to be seen. Judge Griffin and Judge Williams are *very* smart judges. They are bound by Heller II and Heller III, so they have to work within those constraints. Unlike some other circuits (which I won't name), the D.C. Circuit is generally quite good at following circuit precedent, regardless of whether the individual judges agree with it or not (it is a core value in the D.C. Circuit). Heller III sets out the framework and en banc was denied in that case. I am really curious to see how they apply it here.

 

[swinokur]

well then I am encouraged by your analysis.

fingers crossed.

 

[DC-W]

well then I am encouraged by your analysis.

fingers crossed.

And extremely informed, as usual.

 

[fidelity]

... They are bound by Heller II and Heller III, so they have to work within those constraints. Unlike some other circuits (which I won't name), the D.C. Circuit is generally quite good at following circuit precedent, regardless of whether the individual judges agree with it or not (it is a core value in the D.C. Circuit). Heller III sets out the framework and en banc was denied in that case. I am really curious to see how they apply it here.

On this point, it seems that Gura/SAF seeking cases that might get heard by this circuit is also part of an overall strategy.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

[Klunatic]

Sooo, if one had applied during the break between the ruling and the injunction and was denied. If the ruling invalidates the injunction where does that leave one? Would I have the right to demand a permit or would I have to re-apply and wait another 90 days? I am guessing DC will continue to play games but will there be any legal implications for the District for denying based on the injunction?

 

[esqappellate]

Sooo, if one had applied during the break between the ruling and the injunction and was denied. If the ruling invalidates the injunction where does that leave one? Would I have the right to demand a permit or would I have to re-apply and wait another 90 days? I am guessing DC will continue to play games but will there be any legal implications for the District for denying based on the injunction?

In Grace, the PI was stayed pending appeal, IIRC. So DC is not technically defying the PI pending appeal. If the PI were sustained in Grace and the denial reversed in Wrenn, you could ask the District to revisit your old application and go from there. If you are an actual party in either case, then the District would be obligated, in theory, to reconsider the application and issue the permit if you were otherwise qualified.

 

[Klunatic]

In Grace, the PI was stayed pending appeal, IIRC. So DC is not technically defying the PI pending appeal. If the PI were sustained in Grace and the denial reversed in Wrenn, you could ask the District to revisit your old application and go from there. If you are an actual party in either case, then the District would be obligated, in theory, to reconsider the application and issue the permit if you were otherwise qualified.

I am a member of SAF, does that qualify me as a party to Wrenn? Will they rule quickly on the PI or can they sit on it?

 

[esqappellate]

I am a member of SAF, does that qualify me as a party to Wrenn? Will they rule quickly on the PI or can they sit on it?

Yes, SAF is suing in its representational capacity on behalf of its members. So, you should be able to take advantage of any ruling. IIRC, these cases were expedited for argument, so we may get a decision from the court of appeals in relatively short order. In the courts of appeals, short order means 3 or 4 months, roughly. We shall see. The D.C. Circuit is *not* the 9th Circuit in terms of speed of issuing rulings. Of course, we will have to see what the opinion looks like, viz., whether they reverse the denial of the PI in Wrenn or announce a legal holding and remand it back for further consideration and application of that holding. Again, this is only a PI posture.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

Yes, SAF is suing in its representational capacity on behalf of its members. So, you should be able to take advantage of any ruling. IIRC, these cases were expedited for argument, so we may get a decision from the court of appeals in relatively short order. In the courts of appeals, short order means 3 or 4 months, roughly. We shall see. The D.C. Circuit is *not* the 9th Circuit in terms of speed of issuing rulings. Of course, we will have to see what the opinion looks like, viz., whether they reverse the denial of the PI in Wrenn or announce a legal holding and remand it back for further consideration and application of that holding. Again, this is only a PI posture.

No comment on this but wanted to say, it is impressive that the art form as practiced by someone of Alan Guara's stature (and Esq too), is profound.

The ability to pull different case law from your brain or crib notes on the fly during orals is show the definition of "practicing your craft to perfection."

Specifically referencing Mills @ different checkpoints in different neighborhoods.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

Ooof. Not only is the lawyer for DC ignorant or badly informed (dealing with an indefensible position), she's snitty. Very snitty.

 

[Blacksmith101]

Originally Posted by esqappellate

That ruling would pick up on Judge Griffin's repeated suggestion that a woman has a right to defend herself against the *first* assault in a dangerous neighborhood, not merely wait until the second attack to get a permit.

That statement just resonated with me when I think how the MSP requires documented police reports to prove G&S. Shouldn't everyone have the right to defend oneself from the first attack or do criminals get a free pass on the first try at a victim?

 

[cdstraw]

Originally Posted by esqappellate


That statement just resonated with me when I think how the MSP requires documented police reports to prove G&S. Shouldn't everyone have the right to defend oneself from the first attack or do criminals get a free pass on the first try at a victim?

Whoever is up next for a Maryland Permit, really needs to ask this question of the HPRB...

 

[swinokur]

Originally Posted by esqappellate


That statement just resonated with me when I think how the MSP requires documented police reports to prove G&S. Shouldn't everyone have the right to defend oneself from the first attack or do criminals get a free pass on the first try at a victim?

The 4 CA doesn't think so.

sorry

 

[rambling_one]

Whoever is up next for a Maryland Permit, really needs to ask this question of the HPRB...

Time to make 'em squirm. The Board may be reticent to respond to Q's, but a statement to that affect could be effective. At a minimum, audio of said hearing put onto UTube could garner interest beyond our immediate family.