rubicon Posted May 19, 2015 at 12:38 AM Share Posted May 19, 2015 at 12:38 AM The good Ol' Boys of SAF have done it again... Winning an Injunction against D.C. in regards to their oppressive "Need" requirements, for a Conceal Carry License. YEAH! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
POAT54 Posted May 19, 2015 at 12:42 AM Share Posted May 19, 2015 at 12:42 AM The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) today won a preliminary injunction against the District of Columbia and Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy Lanier’s enforcement of a requirement to provide a “good reason” when applying for a concealed carry permit.https://www.saf.org/?p=6169 You have to justify why you might need to defend yourself??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transplant Posted May 19, 2015 at 12:43 AM Share Posted May 19, 2015 at 12:43 AM Nice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Posted May 19, 2015 at 12:49 AM Share Posted May 19, 2015 at 12:49 AM Wonderful! Hopefully this will help our friends in other May-Issue jurisdictions. -- Frank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted May 19, 2015 at 12:59 AM Share Posted May 19, 2015 at 12:59 AM Best news I've heard in months. Yeah! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Googe1227 Posted May 19, 2015 at 01:32 AM Share Posted May 19, 2015 at 01:32 AM Excellent! And I just renewed my membership last week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transplant Posted May 19, 2015 at 01:33 AM Share Posted May 19, 2015 at 01:33 AM ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transplant Posted May 19, 2015 at 01:35 AM Share Posted May 19, 2015 at 01:35 AM Preliminary injunction (for reals this time): 2015-05-18 Wrenn opinion prelim injunction.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chislinger Posted May 19, 2015 at 02:02 AM Share Posted May 19, 2015 at 02:02 AM w00t! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transplant Posted May 19, 2015 at 02:11 AM Share Posted May 19, 2015 at 02:11 AM IT IS SO ORDERED.Dated: May 18, 2015Syracuse, New York Apparently Judge Scullin has business in New York. He is likely at least somewhat aware of the UnSAFE Act and New York's handgun and carry infringements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrpapageorgio Posted May 19, 2015 at 02:32 AM Share Posted May 19, 2015 at 02:32 AM If anything, it puts more pressure on SCOTUS to answer the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlJ Posted May 19, 2015 at 02:33 AM Share Posted May 19, 2015 at 02:33 AM I'm just so burnt out. I've got so much going on and not enough hours in a day to do it all.And then 2 things happened. A Facebook post by a person who stiffed me on a job, complaining of a different problem that she's unable to get fixed at "friends and family" prices. - Grin And then this thread. Really Really Big Grin I've found my calm in the chaos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkroenlein Posted May 19, 2015 at 02:54 AM Share Posted May 19, 2015 at 02:54 AM A couple quotes from the analysis for those haven't the time to read. Plaintiffs argue that the District of Columbia's "good reason"/"proper reason" requirementfails intermediate scrutiny because it does not advance its interest in preventing crime or protectingpublic safety. See Dkt. no. 6-2 at 25. Specifically, this regulation is not directed at dangerouspeople, does not regulate the manner of carrying handguns, and does not impose any placerestrictions. See id. (citing Peruta, 742 F.3d at 1176-77). To support this position, Plaintiffs rely onFletcher v. Haas, 851 F. Supp. 2d 287 (D. Mass. 2012), and Bateman v. Perdue, 881 F. Supp. 2d709 (E.D.N.C. 2012). The fact that a person may have a greater need for self-protection says nothingabout how limiting the carrying of handguns to such individuals would result in a reduction of riskto other members of the public or reduce violent crime. Is the Court to conclude that people who donot have a heightened need for self-protection are more likely to commit violent crimes? This conclusion should not be read to suggest that it would be inappropriate for the Districtof Columbia to enact a licensing mechanism that includes appropriate time, place and mannerrestrictions on the carrying of handguns in public. The District of Columbia's arbitrary "good 13reason"/"proper reason" requirement, however, goes far beyond establishing such reasonablerestrictions. Rather, for all intents and purposes, this requirement makes it impossible for theoverwhelming majority of law-abiding citizens to obtain licenses to carry handguns in public forself-defense, thereby depriving them of their Second Amendment right to bear arms. Reality does not support their emotional pleas to disarm the good citizens of the USA! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tchostler Posted May 19, 2015 at 03:15 AM Share Posted May 19, 2015 at 03:15 AM Even if they rewrite the ordnance, it will most likely be garbage. These people just won't stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkroenlein Posted May 19, 2015 at 03:38 AM Share Posted May 19, 2015 at 03:38 AM My copy/paste is a train wreck in Tapatalk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jefferson24 Posted May 19, 2015 at 03:54 AM Share Posted May 19, 2015 at 03:54 AM This will continue until the Supreme Court rules in favor of shall issue. It's time for a decision now before more anti judges get added next term Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted May 19, 2015 at 04:17 AM Share Posted May 19, 2015 at 04:17 AM The 4th Circuit overturned Judge Legg's decision in Woollard and SCOTUS decline to review it. This is better than a loss, but I'm not sure how much of a win it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkroenlein Posted May 19, 2015 at 04:31 AM Share Posted May 19, 2015 at 04:31 AM Well, it's a win for DC. And it's a win for any legal action after it, even if only as supporting case law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrpapageorgio Posted May 19, 2015 at 04:50 AM Share Posted May 19, 2015 at 04:50 AM The 4th Circuit overturned Judge Legg's decision in Woollard and SCOTUS decline to review it. This is better than a loss, but I'm not sure how much of a win it is.It still forces the 4th circuit to have to write an opinion defending their position if they wish to overturn it and it's another voice yelling at SCOTUS to answer the question. Look at how many cases it took for gay marriage to come before SCOTUS. Edit: I didn't see this was based in DC, so that's a separate circuit, but it still puts pressure on SCOTUS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobPistol Posted May 19, 2015 at 10:45 AM Share Posted May 19, 2015 at 10:45 AM First, this is not SCOTUS. It is an appeals court.Second, it is only a preliminary injunction. Still, Alan spanked the antis again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armadroid Posted May 19, 2015 at 12:50 PM Share Posted May 19, 2015 at 12:50 PM Alan is an anti gun butt kicker! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hipshot Percussion Posted May 19, 2015 at 01:46 PM Share Posted May 19, 2015 at 01:46 PM I like that the Judge wants to expedite the case. How often does that happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federal Farmer Posted May 19, 2015 at 02:06 PM Share Posted May 19, 2015 at 02:06 PM First, this is not SCOTUS. It is an appeals court.Second, it is only a preliminary injunction. Still, Alan spanked the antis again. Yep, my bad. Fixing title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stm Posted May 19, 2015 at 04:19 PM Share Posted May 19, 2015 at 04:19 PM Appeals Court? I thought this was only at the District Court level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted May 19, 2015 at 04:34 PM Share Posted May 19, 2015 at 04:34 PM The simple fact that the standards were met for issuance of a preliminary injunction is quite telling. It tells me that D.C. is now fighting an uphill battle, and that hill is nearly completely vertical. I got an email from FPC last night about this, cackled. Remember that Palmer was assigned to Scullin by Chief Justice Roberts himself after years of inaction by the original district judge who was assigned the Palmer case back in 2009. I wouldn't doubt Scullin drew this case because of his familiarity with the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hap Posted May 19, 2015 at 04:46 PM Share Posted May 19, 2015 at 04:46 PM There are still a few (maybe a lot) of elected officials in Illinois who think there is some hope of getting rid of concealed carry in this state and even of rolling back Heller and McDonald. Each decision like this is another nail in the coffin for their fantasies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted May 19, 2015 at 05:52 PM Share Posted May 19, 2015 at 05:52 PM Two of the plaintiffs in Wrenn are residents of the district, and one is a Florida resident. The judge's order, I presume, applies equally to residents and non-residents. Anyone planning to take a trip to D.C. , get the training, and submit an application? It's tempting--"just because." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transplant Posted May 19, 2015 at 06:09 PM Share Posted May 19, 2015 at 06:09 PM Two of the plaintiffs in Wrenn are residents of the district, and one is a Florida resident. The judge's order, I presume, applies equally to residents and non-residents. Anyone planning to take a trip to D.C. , get the training, and submit an application? It's tempting--"just because."DC's requirements and process is still really really terrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xwing Posted May 19, 2015 at 09:27 PM Share Posted May 19, 2015 at 09:27 PM Fantastic news! Hopefully they will overturn DCs de facto "no issue" may-issue law which is thumbing their noses at the courts' prior decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTriple Posted May 19, 2015 at 09:40 PM Share Posted May 19, 2015 at 09:40 PM Even if they rewrite the ordnance, it will most likely be garbage. These people just won't stop. It's a combination of stupidity and stubbornness. How many lawsuits have been filed against the DC Council including Heller? Maybe eight or nine? They never learn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.