Jump to content


Photo

Wrenn v. DC


  • Please log in to reply
162 replies to this topic

#121 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,157 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 25 July 2017 - 11:06 AM

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.


Mr. Nichols has characterized Wrenn and Grace as "concealed carry cases."

http://newsblaze.com...-circuit_64817/

I guess this is the first big concealed carry "win" then for Gura et al!

Edited by kwc, 25 July 2017 - 11:13 AM.

"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#122 press1280

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 11

Posted 25 July 2017 - 11:40 AM

Gray has won several, only to have them reversed on appeal.this also cuts against the prediction that Judge Williams was going to rule against us.

#123 tkroenlein

    OFFICIAL MEMBER

  • Members
  • 7,970 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 13

Posted 25 July 2017 - 01:10 PM

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.

Mr. Nichols has characterized Wrenn and Grace as "concealed carry cases." http://newsblaze.com...-circuit_64817/
I guess this is the first big concealed carry "win" then for Gura et al!


Gasp!

#124 Hap

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,671 posts
  • Joined: 16-May 13

Posted 25 July 2017 - 01:27 PM

En banc rehearing or appeal to SCOTUS right away?


Ad utrumque paratus


#125 Patriots & Tyrants

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,089 posts
  • Joined: 05-May 11

Posted 25 July 2017 - 01:52 PM

En banc rehearing or appeal to SCOTUS right away?

 

 

DC is going to need to decide the odds if it goes En-Banc, whoever is "forced" to appeal to the SCOTUS right now is at the disadvantage given they seem to shun gun cases the last few years. If they feel an En-Banc hearing goes against DC then DC probably appeals now to the SCOTUS because once RGB and Kennedy are gone its all over.

 

If they feel and En-Banc hearing goes in DC's favor then DC probably goes that route betting the SCOTUS would refuse to hear the plaintiff's appeal.


Edited by Patriots & Tyrants, 25 July 2017 - 01:52 PM.


#126 transplant

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,394 posts
  • Joined: 14-May 13

Posted 25 July 2017 - 02:04 PM

My guess is en banc takes it without being asked (similar to CA9) then en banc reverses the ruling we like then scotus doesnt take it because we won't have new justices in time.

Hillary Clinton is an "Original Classification Authority" - she knows exactly what she did with her emails.

 

(4) the original classification authority determines that the unauthorized disclosure of the information reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism, and the original classification authority is able to identify or describe the damage.

 

Sec. 1.2. Classification Levels.

 

(a) Information may be classified at one of the following three levels:

 

(1) “Top Secret” shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.

(2) “Secret” shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.

(3) “Confidential” shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.

 

(tt) “Violation” means:

(1) any knowing, willful, or negligent action that could reasonably be expected to result in an unauthorized disclosure of classified information;

 

http://www.thegatewa...on-home-server/


#127 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,076 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 25 July 2017 - 02:35 PM

Sua sponte en banc is not common in the Circuit. It is, however, extremely common in the Fourth and Ninth Circuits which are, coincidentally (har har), also stacked with ultra-liberal judges. Uber-liberals have one thing in common, if they don't like the outcome of something, they will do everything in their power to "correct" the "injustice" including, but not limited to simply making it up as they go along. If SCOTUS refuses this case, essentially a watered-down version of Moore, that signals they're unwilling to hear ANY case that concerns carry outside the home. That or we're all nuts and they really wanna hear a case involving open carry. They can't allow this crap to continue where the law of the land in Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, and D.C. is "banning carry is unconstitutional" and...the rest of the sister circuits saying the opposite. They take up cases where no circuit split exists and ignore cases where a massive split exists. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#128 press1280

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 11

Posted 25 July 2017 - 03:37 PM

En banc rehearing or appeal to SCOTUS right away?

They'll appeal en banc. Makes no sense to go straight to SCOTUS.



#129 Ranger

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 813 posts
  • Joined: 22-February 09

Posted 25 July 2017 - 04:08 PM

We really need another pro-gun rights person on SCOTUS...



#130 chislinger

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,368 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 25 July 2017 - 04:57 PM

Sweet!

Good news finally for me today. :)
"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams

#131 chislinger

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,368 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 25 July 2017 - 05:24 PM

My guess is en banc takes it without being asked (similar to CA9) then en banc reverses the ruling we like then scotus doesnt take it because we won't have new justices in time.

That would probably take 2 years at least for the DC circuit. Should have another justice on the SCOTUS by then I assume.
"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams

#132 C0untZer0

    Member

  • Members
  • 12,043 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 25 July 2017 - 08:05 PM

To confine the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second Amendment from the right of self-defense described in Heller and McDonald
this case, like Heller and McDonald is just about self-defense.
 
'The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside.
 
What does it mean to bear arms if there's no right to carry arms in a public place?
You don't bear arms in your house, you don't march around with a gun over your shoulder right?
 
Moore v Madigan
 
- Judge Posner - 

 

 

 

 
the Amendment’s text protects the right to “bear” as well as “keep” arms. For both reasons, it’s more natural to view the Amendment’s core as including a law abiding citizen’s right to carry common firearms for self defense
beyond the home 
 
Wrenn v. DC
 
- Judge Griffith -

 

 


Mayor Bloomberg himself has recently turned his attention from oversize soft drinks to gun control, confirming the tendency of the Progressive to go from nanny to tyrant.
- N. A. Halkides -
 

 


#133 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,076 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 25 July 2017 - 08:25 PM

Read the footnotes. Griffith takes a page out of Posner's book and goes after CA2 citing Lawrence (TX sodomy ban) in Kachalsky:

"The Second Circuit also finds that carrying outside the home matters less based on analogies to other individual rights. Thus, it asks: if our law '[t]reat[s] the home as special' when it comes to sexual privacy rights, why not when enforcing the right to use a gun? Kachalsky, 701 F.3d at 94. But of course, sex is different. In Judge Posner’s wry understatement, 'the interest in having sex inside one’s home is much greater than the interest in having sex on the sidewalk in front of one’s home,' while the need to fend off violence might arise on sidewalks and in bedrooms alike. Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933, 941 (7th Cir. 2012)."


Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk


NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#134 TomKoz

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,895 posts
  • Joined: 04-February 10

Posted 25 July 2017 - 09:45 PM

But what if you want to have sex on the sidewalk in front of your home WHILE carrying a firearm ?
Stay Alert ... Stay Alive !!

#135 chislinger

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,368 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 25 July 2017 - 09:57 PM

But what if you want to have sex on the sidewalk in front of your home WHILE carrying a firearm ?

Hoplonymphomania?
"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams

#136 C0untZer0

    Member

  • Members
  • 12,043 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 26 July 2017 - 09:49 AM

You can see the kind of damage Obama has caused with his Supreme Court picks. We have an obvious split among Circuits and the Supreme Court should take this up but the liberal leaning judges don't want to... One more conservative judge and SCOTUS will do away with the "may issue" infringement of our Constitutional Rights Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Mayor Bloomberg himself has recently turned his attention from oversize soft drinks to gun control, confirming the tendency of the Progressive to go from nanny to tyrant.
- N. A. Halkides -
 

 


#137 Plinkermostly

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 534 posts
  • Joined: 20-April 13

Posted 26 July 2017 - 01:42 PM

clarification of what "shall not infringe" means (and the test level for it) would be really nice



#138 ChicagoRonin70

    The Landlord of the Flies!

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,727 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 14

Posted 26 July 2017 - 07:31 PM

clarification of what "shall not infringe" means (and the test level for it) would be really nice

 

That really would be a fantastic thing to get in a court ruling, something that is completely unambiguous, stated with the specific intention to provide a standard by which future legislation and restrictions could be judged against. I would love to see SCOTUS do something like that in one of their rulings, to put an end to this nonsense once and for all.


“One can never underestimate the idiocy of those determined to be offended by things that don't affect their real lives in the slightest.” —Me
 
“Hatred is the sharpest sword; the desire for peace is armor made of willow leaves in the face of an enemy who despises you, as neither alone will stop a strike that is aimed at your neck.” —Samurai proverb
 
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” —Robert Heinlein
 
“I reserve the right to take any action necessary to maintain the equilibrium in which I've chosen to exist.” —Me
 
"It ain't braggin' if you done it." —Will Rogers

 

Gb1XExdm.jpg
 
 

 
 
 
 


#139 Charles Nichols

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 178 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 16

Posted 28 July 2017 - 03:34 AM

 

En banc rehearing or appeal to SCOTUS right away?

They'll appeal en banc. Makes no sense to go straight to SCOTUS.

 

Given who the active judges are who will vote to grant/deny an en banc petition you are right, it makes no sense for the District to file a cert petition when there is an excellent chance of having the decision reversed en banc.

 

And once the decision is reversed by an en banc panel the SCOTUS Rule 10 split created by the 3 judge panel decision goes away, as does any chance of the plaintiffs cert petitions being granted in either Wrenn or DC.  I say either because Alan Gura did not file a cert petition in Richards v. Prieto which lost alongside of Peruta v. San Diego.  Unless there is a significant change in the composition of SCOTUS, I suspect we have seen the last concealed carry cert petition by Gura.  



#140 transplant

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,394 posts
  • Joined: 14-May 13

Posted 28 July 2017 - 08:03 AM

It will be a miracle if this ruling stands. :pinch:


Hillary Clinton is an "Original Classification Authority" - she knows exactly what she did with her emails.

 

(4) the original classification authority determines that the unauthorized disclosure of the information reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism, and the original classification authority is able to identify or describe the damage.

 

Sec. 1.2. Classification Levels.

 

(a) Information may be classified at one of the following three levels:

 

(1) “Top Secret” shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.

(2) “Secret” shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.

(3) “Confidential” shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.

 

(tt) “Violation” means:

(1) any knowing, willful, or negligent action that could reasonably be expected to result in an unauthorized disclosure of classified information;

 

http://www.thegatewa...on-home-server/


#141 chislinger

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,368 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 28 July 2017 - 02:31 PM

If it goes en banc then we'll get to see how Merrick Garland is towards guns, and probably see what a good thing it is that he's not on the SCOTUS.
"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams

#142 press1280

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 11

Posted 29 July 2017 - 09:40 AM

En banc rehearing or appeal to SCOTUS right away?

They'll appeal en banc. Makes no sense to go straight to SCOTUS.
Given who the active judges are who will vote to grant/deny an en banc petition you are right, it makes no sense for the District to file a cert petition when there is an excellent chance of having the decision reversed en banc.
 
And once the decision is reversed by an en banc panel the SCOTUS Rule 10 split created by the 3 judge panel decision goes away, as does any chance of the plaintiffs cert petitions being granted in either Wrenn or DC.  I say either because Alan Gura did not file a cert petition in Richards v. Prieto which lost alongside of Peruta v. San Diego.  Unless there is a significant change in the composition of SCOTUS, I suspect we have seen the last concealed carry cert petition by Gura.

I'd be interested why they didn't file for cert in Richard's.
Either way my hope is that decision to go en banc is delayed several months so that Norman is at Conference with this ruling standing. Norman may not want to cite this but the state of FL should.

#143 transplant

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,394 posts
  • Joined: 14-May 13

Posted 24 August 2017 - 09:31 PM

DC is asking for en banc hearing:

 

https://oag.dc.gov/r...trict’s-rules

 

http://markets.busin...Case-1002283863


Hillary Clinton is an "Original Classification Authority" - she knows exactly what she did with her emails.

 

(4) the original classification authority determines that the unauthorized disclosure of the information reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism, and the original classification authority is able to identify or describe the damage.

 

Sec. 1.2. Classification Levels.

 

(a) Information may be classified at one of the following three levels:

 

(1) “Top Secret” shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.

(2) “Secret” shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.

(3) “Confidential” shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.

 

(tt) “Violation” means:

(1) any knowing, willful, or negligent action that could reasonably be expected to result in an unauthorized disclosure of classified information;

 

http://www.thegatewa...on-home-server/


#144 ghk012

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 281 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 13

Posted 25 August 2017 - 09:21 AM

Excuse my lack of knowledge.  But I believe the en banc request has to be approved by the appeals court.  Assuming this is correct, is there a deadline for the Appeals court to approve En Banc.  Does this request go away after 45 days if "nothing done" or do they have to be turned down?  I suppose the Appeals court can sit on this for months without making a decision and my 45 days is a pipe dream.

 

I would really like to see "good cause or good reason" of may issue thrown out since I travel to the East Coast frequently and always have to leave my firearm at home when I am going to NY.

 

Thanks for your thoughts.



#145 C0untZer0

    Member

  • Members
  • 12,043 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 25 August 2017 - 09:40 AM

Each court has its own rules. Here are the rules for the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

 

https://www.cadc.usc...DCCirFinalF.pdf

 

You can see that there are time limits on the parties filing a petition for en banc hearing but this circuit hasn't imposed time limits on itself regarding the time to hold a poll of the judges.  But anyway - no this request doesn't simply expire, the court must give a response, however, they is no self-imposed time limit with this circuit to respond.


Mayor Bloomberg himself has recently turned his attention from oversize soft drinks to gun control, confirming the tendency of the Progressive to go from nanny to tyrant.
- N. A. Halkides -
 

 


#146 press1280

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 11

Posted 25 August 2017 - 09:41 AM

Yes, the court has to vote for en banc. Normally en banc odds are extremely small. But of course, it's guns so who knows.

If all briefings are complete and nothing happens for a while then en banc is likely going to be denied and is just waiting on a judges dissent to be written.

#147 C0untZer0

    Member

  • Members
  • 12,043 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 25 August 2017 - 10:54 AM

Normally en banc odds are extremely small. But of course, it's guns so who knows.

 

 

Taken from rule 35:
 
 
An en banc hearing or rehearing is not favored and ordinarily will not be ordered

 

 

But the leftist judges don't take that into account.  

 

They'll try their damnedest to overturn any decision they don't like.


Mayor Bloomberg himself has recently turned his attention from oversize soft drinks to gun control, confirming the tendency of the Progressive to go from nanny to tyrant.
- N. A. Halkides -
 

 


#148 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,076 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 26 August 2017 - 10:33 AM

The fact that no active circuit judge sua sponte called for a vote for rehearing en banc is quite telling. It usually means that the panel majority judges' colleagues respect the holding, or respect the judges themselves. Same thing happened with CA7 in re Moore. Even Williams didn't call for en banc. I'd say the odds of this being reheard en banc are 50/50, they may not want this to get to SCOTUS as Wrenn has added to the already existing circuit split on carry outside the home. They may not want to risk it becoming the law of the land. Or expanded upon. And yes, they have 45 days to vote yay or nay on rehearing en banc. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#149 C0untZer0

    Member

  • Members
  • 12,043 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 26 August 2017 - 09:32 PM

I don't see where the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has a 45 day time limit to decide on an en banc re-hearing.

 

https://www.cadc.usc...ks22May2017.pdf


Mayor Bloomberg himself has recently turned his attention from oversize soft drinks to gun control, confirming the tendency of the Progressive to go from nanny to tyrant.
- N. A. Halkides -
 

 


#150 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,076 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 27 August 2017 - 11:34 AM

I don't see where the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has a 45 day time limit to decide on an en banc re-hearing.
 
https://www.cadc.usc... 2006 Rev 2007/$FILE/HandbookJanuary2017WithTOCLinks22May2017.pdf

Ah, I just assumed they placed a time limit on the petition. CA7 Circuit Rules have the "if no judge calls for a vote in...." type verbiage. Seems like CADC considers the petition for...an immeasurable amount of time. There has to be some sort of unspoken, unwritten guideline for disposition of petitions for rehearing en banc. Otherwise they could sit on it forever.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk


NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users