US Court of Appeals for DC Eviscerates May Issue

[Delkal]

A federal appeals court on Tuesday blocked the District from enforcing strict limits on carrying concealed firearms in public, restrictions that police officials have said are necessary to promote public safety in the nation’s capital.

In a 2-to-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the District’s system, which requires a “good reason” to obtain a permit, is akin to an outright ban in violation of the Second Amendment.

Surprised they could even find 2 judges in the DC circuit that would rule this way. It is a very good sign!

[allenr]

Read about this development yesterday on another forum. I was elated. I hope that D.C. appeals to SCOTUS and the case gets heard. I read and reread the Circuit Court decision. It is one of the most reasoned decisions Imhave ever read, and I have read many as a nonprofit director who chairs the legislative advocacy committee for the past 7 years.

The clincher is the fact that the Circuit Justices denied the en banc appeal by not even voting on it shows they thought the DC law was simply wrong. That would influence SCOTUS. Unfortunately, SCOTUS might deny Cert simply for that reason and let the decision stand without review.

Hopefully, if an appeal is made it will be accepted on the basis if conflicting Circuit Court decisions. In aever other Circuits May Issue has been upheld. That make the issue in need of be finally determined by SCOTUS. I hope it happens but I doubt it will.

[American1776]

Read about this development yesterday on another forum. I was elated. I hope that D.C. appeals to SCOTUS and the case gets heard. I read and reread the Circuit Court decision. It is one of the most reasoned decisions Imhave ever read, and I have read many as a nonprofit director who chairs the legislative advocacy committee for the past 7 years.

The clincher is the fact that the Circuit Justices denied the en banc appeal by not even voting on it shows they thought the DC law was simply wrong. That would influence SCOTUS. Unfortunately, SCOTUS might deny Cert simply for that reason and let the decision stand without review.

Hopefully, if an appeal is made it will be accepted on the basis if conflicting Circuit Court decisions. In aever other Circuits May Issue has been upheld. That make the issue in need of be finally determined by SCOTUS. I hope it happens but I doubt it will.

When SCOTUS declined to hear the last two carry cases (NJ and CA), there was speculation that Scalia kept the court from taking the case due to fear that the court might not have enough votes to rule in favor of carry. Kennedy might be the vote that makes or breaks things for our rights. It could go either way here at SCOTUS. I say, wait till Trump replaces Kennedy, and then we'll have it in the bag.

[gizzymo]

Ill take it as a good second step.

[ungawa]

It's bullshit and going nowhere. The courts have already written the laws on this. Federal government can do whatever it wants (Constitution be damned) and states can violate most of the first Ten Amendments at will, at least in some measure. Not to mention I do not know where it says in The Constitution, "If you start a bill with '...may affect interstate commerce,' wave bones over it, and chant, then it is legal unless we decide otherwise. Don't bother to read The Constitution, it is simply an instrument for us to twist words and justify things we want." I don't think that's the way this Nation was set up.

[press1280]

When SCOTUS declined to hear the last two carry cases (NJ and CA), there was speculation that Scalia kept the court from taking the case due to fear that the court might not have enough votes to rule in favor of carry. Kennedy might be the vote that makes or breaks things for our rights. It could go either way here at SCOTUS. I say, wait till Trump replaces Kennedy, and then we'll have it in the bag.

Scalia was gone when the CA case came up to bat. The likely suspect in that one would have been Alito, who would surely rule for our side but may be uneasy about where Kennedy and Roberts fall. Then again, 4 are needed for cert. Only had Thomas and Gorsuch.
This case though, shows a clear, undeniable split.

[internet troll]

D.C is not taking it to the Supreme Court.


D.C. will not appeal concealed carry gun ruling to Supreme Court

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...=.e7379f81094a
District officials will not appeal a court order blocking enforcement of the city’s restrictions on the carrying of concealed guns in public, setting the stage for what could be a marked increase in firearms on the streets of the nation’s capital.

The city’s decision not to risk appeal to the Supreme Court comes as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is expected to issue an order as soon as Thursday enforcing its recent ruling that struck down the District’s requirement that people seeking licenses to carry concealed weapons must demonstrate a “good reason” — such as a credible fear of violence — for carrying a gun in public.

“I continue to believe the District’s ‘good reason’ requirement is a common-sense, and constitutional, gun regulation,” D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine (D) said in a statement announcing the decision with the mayor and police chief. “However, we must reckon with the fact that an adverse decision by the Supreme Court could have wide-ranging negative effects not just on District residents, but on the country as a whole.”

The decision not to go to the high court means permit-seekers can begin applying to carry concealed weapons as soon as the appeals court issues a formal mandate officially eliminating the “good reason” requirement. It is not yet clear whether city officials will attempt to rewrite the law to enforce additional permit restrictions beyond the requirements the appeals court left intact.

“I don’t want to give anyone the misimpression that you can go out and carry a gun right now,” D.C. police chief Peter Newsham said Thursday, noting residents still must apply and abide by other strict requirements such as criminal background checks and firearms training.

D.C. council members could still try to tighten regulations without violating the appeals court ruling by adding more training requirements, for instance, or by creating new security zones – similar to those that already exist around schools and some federal buildings, where guns could not be carried in public.


The District’s choice of whether to appeal the case, Wrenn v. District of Columbia, was being closely watched by gun-control activists and state attorneys general across the country. The decision coincides with debate in Congress over heightened gun regulation in response to the Las Vegas massacre.

Many argued against an appeal in D.C. because of the risk that an unfavorable Supreme Court ruling could strike down similar concealed-carry regulations across the country in states such as California, New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, Hawaii, New Jersey and Connecticut.

“We reached consensus that abiding by the D.C. Circuit’s ruling was the wisest course of action to protect public safety in the District and nationwide,” Racine said, noting that he had consulted with Mayor Muriel Bowser, D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson (D), council member Charles Allen (D-Ward 6) who leads the Judiciary and Public Safety Committee and others.

Bowser said in a statement that “while the District will not pursue an appeal to the United States Supreme Court, this is certainly not the end of our work to reduce gun violence in Washington.”

The dilemma faced by city officials mirrors the choice made in 2007, when the same appeals court found D.C.’s handgun ban unconstitutional. Led by former mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D), the city took the case, District of Columbia v. Heller, to the high court — prompting a landmark decision that established for the first time that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms separate from military service.


The Supreme Court has shown little interest in going further to decide whether the Second Amendment applies outside the home. The high court has declined to consider challenges to decisions by other circuit courts that have upheld similar concealed-carry restrictions.

Adam Skaggs, chief counsel at the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said District officials had taken a “risk-averse approach” that avoids the possibility of an unfavorable Supreme Court ruling that would affect concealed-carry regulations in other states. On the other hand, he said, the choice preserves a tense status quo.

The city’s decision not to proceed to the Supreme Court to “give a definitive answer on the subject creates a situation where the Second Amendment means one thing in Washington, D.C. and something different across the border in Maryland,” he said.

“This is an area where it would be useful to have national uniformity, and the decision not to go to the Supreme Court means we’re not going to have that.”

The unfavorable ruling from the D.C. Circuit in July that found the “good reason” requirement unconstitutional was the latest legal setback to the District’s efforts to restrict the number of guns in the nation’s capital.

[American1776]

Well, that's good for DC. Let's see what shenanigans the law makers try and pull when rewriting the law to comply with the court's ruling in favor of shall issue. 5,000 hours of training requirement? Must have only a 5 shot revolver in 38 special only? Cannot carrying into restaurants, on playgrounds, in public gatherings with more than 3 people?

They can do a lot of bullshit here. I still think that NY, NJ, MD and CA have their days numbered. One way or another, they will be forced to let good guys carry.