Wrenn PI Granted (DC Shall Issue)

[shacklefordbanks]

Not the result. The panel might have been waiting on the cert decision in Peruta and Binderup. A decision in either case could have provided guidance. With cert denied, there is no longer any reason to wait.

But I do believe not granting cert does provide guidance. Gives them cover to contrive an opinion inline with Peruta knowing it will not get cert.

 

[Inigoes]

Found this write-up from Ammoland, which is arguing Wrenn is a better choice than Peruta for SCOTUS review.

https://www.ammoland.com/2017/06/vi...ry-is-coming-patience-patriots/#axzz4lUqTSXaF

 

[press1280]

Found this write-up from Ammoland, which is arguing Wrenn is a better choice than Peruta for SCOTUS review.

https://www.ammoland.com/2017/06/vi...ry-is-coming-patience-patriots/#axzz4lUqTSXaF

Other than a Wrenn victory at the DC Circuit I see nothing that makes it more likely that SCOTUS takes it. The article doesn't really point to anything either. The fact most of CA is virtual shall issue doesn't matter IMO.

 

[wjackcooper]

A WIN!

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3900192/7-25-17-DC-Circuit-Wrenn.pdf

From the opinion:


“To watch the news for even a week in any major city is to give up any illusions about “the problem of handgun violence in this country.” Heller I, 554 U.S. at 570. The District has understandably sought to fight this scourge with every legal tool at its disposal. For that long struggle against gun violence, you might see in today’s decision a defeat; you might see the opposite. To say whether it is one or the other is beyond our ken here. 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. We vacate both orders below and remand with instructions to enter permanent injunctions against enforcement of the District’s good-reason law. So ordered”

Regards
Jack

 

[danb]

 

[cechk01]

When can I apply? I might go back into DC now

 

[erwos]

Wow, this is the split we've been waiting for. I am double-plus tempted to apply for a DC permit, even if I have very little interest in CC.

 

[swinokur]

Yuge

 

[Dave]

that's great news indeed!

 

[MDFF2008]

Wow, this is the split we've been waiting for. I am double-plus tempted to apply for a DC permit, even if I have very little interest in CC.

Not yet. This decision still needs to survive an En Banc.

 

[Inigoes]

Wait to see if DC files for a stay upon appeal in the next day or so.

The last time registration was open, there was an avalanche of people getting their carry permits.

 

[Boxcab]

A WIN!

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3900192/7-25-17-DC-Circuit-Wrenn.pdf

From the opinion:


“To watch the news for even a week in any major city is to give up any illusions about “the problem of handgun violence in this country.” Heller I, 554 U.S. at 570. The District has understandably sought to fight this scourge with every legal tool at its disposal. For that long struggle against gun violence, you might see in today’s decision a defeat; you might see the opposite. To say whether it is one or the other is beyond our ken here. 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. We vacate both orders below and remand with instructions to enter permanent injunctions against enforcement of the District’s good-reason law. So ordered”

Regards
Jack

Thanks for the news Jack!



.

 

[mxrider]

Who would have ever thought that DC would see Shall Issue before MD..........Love it!

 

[whistlersmother]

Wait to see if DC files for a stay upon appeal in the next day or so.

The last time registration was open, there was an avalanche of people getting their carry permits.

Bingo, jingo...

stay upon appeal
en banc overturns
SCOTUS denies cert

deja vu all over again

 

[Inigoes]

Bingo, jingo...

stay upon appeal
en banc overturns
SCOTUS denies cert

deja vu all over again

Look at what happens for the stay. As I pointed out earlier in one of these threads, "Heller I" was denied En Banc.

 

[swinokur]

DC is not shall issue yet, DC will no doubt ask for a stay pending an En Banc hearing and then another if they lose there and request cert at SCOTUS.

we are very close but this needs to go a couple more steps before we can declare total victory

I'd like to see Frosh's face right now.
.
.

 

[whistlersmother]

DC is not shall issue yet, DC will no doubt ask for a stay pending an En Banc hearing and then another if they lose there and request cert at SCOTUS.

we are very close but this needs to go a couple more steps before we can declare total victory

I'd like to see Frosh's face right now.

He's wondering how he can frosh himself...

 

[Soda]

En Banc will be granted and will overturn this. The usual shenanigans. Pardon me if I seem jaded.

 

[swinokur]

then our side will will file a writ at SCOTUS.

this ain't over yet.

 

[DC-W]

Just received this:

Hello Mr. DC-W, the D.C. Injunction has not gone into effect at this time, and for now we will still be enforcing the concealed carry "good reason" and "other proper reason" of the law, until further notice. You can check back later for an update.

SPO King