Jump to content

Wrenn v. DC


rubicon

Recommended Posts

In Haynes v. US, the Supreme Court effectively ruled that state gun registration schemes are unconstitutional as they violate the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause. Well, unless criminals are exempted from registration requirements. The reasoning is that criminals must register their illegally possessed firearms, which is an explicit acknowledgement of criminal acts. Requiring one to incriminate oneself to comply with the law in question is unconstitutional.

 

Sent from my VK700 using Tapatalk

I looked at the history of the ruling, and although it doesn't apply to the NFA anymore (due to legislative changes), it still applies at the state level. So why didn't the courts rules in favor of Powell in Powell v. Tompkins?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why? I have no idea. One observation I've made is that I've never seen a brief filed in a state registration case citing the Supreme Court's holding in Haynes. The NFA issue is tangential to the state registration scheme issue. Real meat is in the Court's holding in re the constitutionality of state registration schemes creating subject classifications, criminal and law-abiding, where law-abiding citizens can be penalized for not registering but criminals cannot be prosecuted for the exact same offense. It's so clear-cut that I can't see how lawyers would simply ignore the case when it's the equivalent of a kill shot to the heart of any state registration scheme. States cannot argue that Haynes is not controlling simply because there are "other laws." The fact of the matter is that any state registration scheme creates classes and one class enjoys immunity from the law itself. "It's" not unconstitutional as applied. "It" is unconstitutional on its face because the law is black and white, there is no subjectivity as to whether a person has or has not violated the registration statute. Identical to the portions of the AUUW stricken by CA7.

 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

This is gonna be a disaster. Gun hater, former Chief FISA Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly has been assigned Wrenn. Clinton nominee. She green-lighted the NSA metadata crap. Her husband repped Bill's Secret Service Agents during his impeachment proceedings. Stated in the Redskins trademark case that there wasn't enough evidence to strip the trademark....but didn't comment on the pleadings that the name is racist (or not racist). Which leads me to believe she'd have stripped the organization of its trademark if she had enough to do it. She's in the Clinton's pocket. Judicial Watch has been trying to get her thrown off a bunch of FOIA cases involving Hillary due to conflict of interest and she refuses to recuse herself, dismisses their actions. Klayman even filed a complaint trying to get her censured.

 

On the upside, Scullin's orders, all documents drafted by him, filed, will be persuasive. Extremely persuasive and it would be interesting to see her depart from the findings.

 

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

As stated, Judge Kollar-Kotelly denied Plaintiffs' motion for a PI. Stated that, "assuming" that carrying a loaded firearm in public is protected by the Second Amendment, the good cause provision satisfies the "compelling government interest."

 

"In sum, the Court has concluded that, on this record, Plaintiffs have not established a likelihood of success on the merits, that the equities tip in their favor, or that the issuance of an injunction would be in the public interest. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that Plaintiffs have satisfied the irreparable injury factor as a result of their allegation of a Second Amendment violation alone, the Court concludes that the factors, taken together, favor denial of Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have not made the 'clear showing' that the 'extraordinary remedy' of a preliminary injunction is warranted in these circumstances. Winter, 555 U.S. at 22."

 

Allow me to translate.

 

"I've already judged this case prior to it being assigned to me. I'm grasping at straws to justify denying a preliminary injunction when the previous judge assigned to this case found the exact opposite. "

 

 

 

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Don't count on Henderson. She doesn't even speak during Gura's presentation. She knows how she's going to vote in Wrenn and Grace. D.C. tries to say the good reason standard doesn't implicate the Second Amendment, which is odd since the core right is burdened by the good reason standard, therefore that standard implicates the Second Amendment. Gah. Headache already after the grilling of Gura on every possible hypothetical, however insane it may be.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't count on Henderson. She doesn't even speak during Gura's presentation. She knows how she's going to vote in Wrenn and Grace. D.C. tries to say the good reason standard doesn't implicate the Second Amendment, which is odd since the core right is burdened by the good reason standard, therefore that standard implicates the Second Amendment. Gah. Headache already after the grilling of Gura on every possible hypothetical, however insane it may be. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

I was also pretty worried about Gura getting grilled by Griffith, who should have been a reliable ally. But he went off on DC's counsel way worse. No way I see him ruling against plaintiffs. Williams sounded positive although to be honest I had a lot of trouble hearing him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Griffith straight up laid into D.C.'s counsel. She's very angry. Very very angry, sounds like Griffith got under her skin with his hypothetical, her answer, and his calling that assertion "absurd."

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Judge Griffith gave Alan Gura the opportunity to challenge the DC Open Carry ban but Gura slapped him down. These two appeals are concealed carry appeals which means these two appeals will lose. Why would Judge Griffith and Judge Williams knowingly create a circuit split with every Federal circuit and with every state high court which has interpreted the Second Amendment as not permitting concealed carry?


Here is my latest article which includes links to my website where you can download audios of the hearings where I boosted the questions by Judge Williams which were almost inaudible from those obtainable at the DC Circuit Court website.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can this be the rock and a hard place issue for the courts. If the courts uphold may issue licensing systems, won't that make open carry less vulnerable to any restrictive regulation? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Not necessarily, as was shown in the NJ and MD cases which didn't distinguish between open and concealed carry. It'll depend on if the court sees CC and OC as two sides of the same coin or separate entities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only method of carry that should have strict regulation would be in hand at the ready form of open carry. There is never any public safety threat created by a loaded firearm in a proper holster.

Brandishing is strictly regulated through criminal law *grin*

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to know why stop-and-frisk in high crime areas is unconstitutional even though it obviously saves lots of lives (see the dramatic rise in Chicago murders this year after CPD was forced to stop) but pure conjecture with no evidence at all is all that it takes for judges to rule that draconian carry restrictions are OK.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to know why stop-and-frisk in high crime areas is unconstitutional even though it obviously saves lots of lives (see the dramatic rise in Chicago murders this year after CPD was forced to stop) but pure conjecture with no evidence at all is all that it takes for judges to rule that draconian carry restrictions are OK.

Because we are not a police state (yet), nor should we encourage it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'd like to know why stop-and-frisk in high crime areas is unconstitutional even though it obviously saves lots of lives (see the dramatic rise in Chicago murders this year after CPD was forced to stop) but pure conjecture with no evidence at all is all that it takes for judges to rule that draconian carry restrictions are OK.

Because we are not a police state (yet), nor should we encourage it.

 

The comment was about the double standard, not that we need more stop and frisk.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The former is viewed as racist, the latter is viewed as practical.

 

Ironically, judges aren't supposed to be viewers but impartial to outside influence.

Like I heard an attorney tell a couple battling over custody and division of assets during their divorce- "Come to terms between yourselves now, because no matter how much you dislike the result, you will like the judge's terms even less."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

every Federal circuit and with every state high court which has interpreted the Second Amendment as not permitting concealed carry?

You can keep repeating that all you'd like, it doesn't make it so.

 

So prove me wrong with a pinpoint citation to a case where a Federal circuit or state high court has interpreted the Second Amendment as protecting concealed carry.

 

And then send it to Alan Gura and the other so called gun-rights attorneys who have filed (and lost) concealed carry lawsuits because they have never cited such a case nor have they cited any historical authority which even suggests that concealed carry is a Second Amendment right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can't seem to get away from this splitting of hairs, the "OC vs CC" manure. You are correct, no court has ruled on the manner of carry. Only on the right to do so. We're aware. That's the beauty of the 10th Amendment. States may do as they please, so long as it is within the boundaries of the Constitution. One chooses concealed, another says "Hey, we'd like open carry because (insert reason here)." As long as the right isn't completely destroyed, then who cares. Now, let's get back to the matter at hand.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...

Attached is the opinion. I believe this says it all...

 

"The District’s good-reason law is necessarily a total ban on exercises of that constitutional right for most D.C. residents. That’s enough to sink this law under Heller I."http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/597770aec6437/16-7067.pdf

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Takeaway:

 

Self defense in general is at the core of 2A

"Keep" and "bear" are co-equal functions of 2A

Core of 2A thus includes carry outside the home for self defense

Bans are evaluated on the basis of how they impact the "everyman" law abiding citizen

No standard of scrutiny needed, as in Heller this constituted a total ban

Dispensed with the open carry nonsense

Identified that the "good cause" requirement appeared to be specifically engineered to infringe upon rights

No fact finding required by lower courts and would be a waste of time, ordered lower courts to issue permanent injunctions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...