Jump to content


Photo

Wrenn v. DC


  • Please log in to reply
198 replies to this topic

#151 C0untZer0

    Contributing Member in Arrears

  • Members
  • 12,245 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 27 August 2017 - 03:39 PM

This is a great flow chart for the Ninth Circuit but it only applies to CA9, I haven't found anything similar for the District of Columbia.

 

post-3474-0-74204400-1503869867.jpg

 

 

Attached Thumbnails

  • Ninth Circuit en banc procedure.jpg

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 -
 

 


#152 press1280

    Member

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

Posted 28 August 2017 - 06:44 AM

The DC Circuit rules spell it out. A vote sheet will go to all active judges plus senior judge Williams who was on the panel. This asks if they would request a reply to the petition. If no judge says yes, then en banc is denied. If one says yes, then briefings commenced and another vote is held for en banc. Williams is excluded from this.

#153 C0untZer0

    Contributing Member in Arrears

  • Members
  • 12,245 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 28 August 2017 - 11:58 AM

The DC Circuit rules spell it out. 

 

 

The timing requirements for a petition for rehearing en banc are the same as those for panel rehearing.

 

 

 

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

 

The timing requirements are spelled out on page 57

 

If you have any other documents that specify the maximum time allowed for the various steps and you could share those, that would be great.

 

Otherwise:

 

How long after the petition is filed is the Clerk’s Office required to transmit a vote sheet ?  3 days?  14 days?  21  days?  a month ???

 

If no judge asks for a vote within a specified time, and none requests more time to consider the matter, the Clerk will enter an order denying the petition.   What is that specified time?  30 days?  60 days 90 days ?
 
If a judge requests "more time" to consider the matter - how much time are they given?  6 months?  A year?  14 days?
 
If a judge calls for a vote - how long after the call will the judges actually be polled?  
 
If the majority of judges vote for a rehearing, how long after the vote will the rehearing actually be scheduled for ?  45 days, 60 days 90 days?

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 -
 

 


#154 press1280

    Member

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

Posted 28 August 2017 - 12:00 PM

I'll have to find the link. When I looked I don't think there were specific time frames. But, I'd guess if no judge calls for en banc it'll be quick, no reason to delay.

#155 C0untZer0

    Contributing Member in Arrears

  • Members
  • 12,245 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 28 August 2017 - 01:50 PM

Well if its the same as the 9th Cir. it will be 21 days, but it doesn't have to be the same, every Circuit Court makes there own rules.

 

The waiting is the hardest part...


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 -
 

 


#156 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,295 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 29 August 2017 - 09:36 AM

The good news is that no judge has called for a vote before the petition had been filed. That's telling. Now it's just a wait. I believe CA7 has a 45 day limit for action regarding an en banc petition. FRAP Rule 35 governs en banc, generally. Circuit Rules govern it specifically, but I see nothing about length of time for consideration of the petition. There MUST BE an unwritten rule that a judge must call for a vote within a specific period of time. They cannot just sit around, wait for a year, then deny or grant. That's justice delayed. Then again, it is the DC Circuit. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#157 C0untZer0

    Contributing Member in Arrears

  • Members
  • 12,245 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 29 August 2017 - 09:29 PM

I'm guessing the Chief Judge provides the impetus for moving the process along - unfortunately, that's Garland and I don't know if he'll slow-walk the case. 


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 -
 

 


#158 transplant

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,424 posts
  • Joined: 14-May 13

Posted 29 August 2017 - 10:20 PM

In my opinion, the slower this case and other federal 2a cases go, the better.

 

Slower means more time for Ginsburg or Breyer to croak.


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/


#159 press1280

    Member

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

Posted 30 August 2017 - 10:46 AM

That and the fact the case is "good law" and hasn't been vaporized by an en banc grant.

#160 C0untZer0

    Contributing Member in Arrears

  • Members
  • 12,245 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 11 September 2017 - 03:49 PM

Well, they moved to re-hear the case en banc.  Despite the lack of self-imposed rules for a timeline, the DC circuit moved fairly quickly and on August 31st, the parties were notified to file their briefs.

 

 

Attached File  Wrenn.Order.response .pdf   39.13KB   30 downloads

 

 

Also... Everytown For Gun Safety filed an Amicus brief:

 

Attached File  wrenn everytown amicus brief enbanc .pdf   233.51KB   24 downloads

 

 

I believe parties must have their briefs submitted by the 15th

 

 

 

 


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 -
 

 


#161 transplant

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,424 posts
  • Joined: 14-May 13

Posted 11 September 2017 - 04:31 PM

Name one en banc hearing that went in favor of gun rights.

GO!

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/


#162 press1280

    Member

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

Posted 11 September 2017 - 04:49 PM

Tyler v. Hillsboro and Binderup v. Sessions, although both were also wins with the 3 judge panels, then turned into very confusing, fractured en banc opinions (but still wins).



#163 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,295 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 12 September 2017 - 05:51 AM

Tyler v. Hillsboro and Binderup v. Sessions, although both were also wins with the 3 judge panels, then turned into very confusing, fractured en banc opinions (but still wins).

Binderup doesn't count IMO because CA3 initially heard it en banc. The court thought it be wise to hear it en banc the first time around because of the case's (genuine) exceptional importance. Tyler is...yeah, that's the only other case I can think of where the full court reached the same conclusion as the panel.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk


NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#164 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,191 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 28 September 2017 - 04:26 PM

The D.C. Circuit Court just declined to hear Wrenn en banc!
"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)

#165 chislinger

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,435 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 28 September 2017 - 04:47 PM

The D.C. Circuit Court just declined to hear Wrenn en banc!

w00t!

Did not expect good news!
"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams

#166 quackersmacker

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,381 posts
  • Joined: 21-September 12

Posted 28 September 2017 - 05:06 PM

This thread is filled with procedural issues and discussions.  Thanks for that, but can someone just please summarize what has happened and why it is important, so that we don't have to slog through 165 posts and figure it out the hard way?   Yeah...........I'm lazy...........


Life Member --- NRA
Life Member --- Second Amendment Foundation
Member        --- ISRA
Member        --- Single Action Shooting Society    [Lt John Dunbar]
Member        --- Aurora Sportsmen's Club
Member        --- Tri County Gun Club
 
Fellow Members:  Please consider making at least an annual $25 contribution to this fine organization, which has proven its worth -----and you will then become a member of the Supporting Members Team.   In this case, it's definitely about putting your money where your mouth is!   And, getting results.  Who knows what the future holds.....these may just be some of the best dollars you'll ever spend.

#167 lockman

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,564 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 28 September 2017 - 05:06 PM

Whats the temperature in  H e l l   Montana?


Edited by lockman, 28 September 2017 - 05:07 PM.

"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA,  CCRKBA, GOA, & SAF


#168 chislinger

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,435 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 28 September 2017 - 05:14 PM

This thread is filled with procedural issues and discussions.  Thanks for that, but can someone just please summarize what has happened and why it is important, so that we don't have to slog through 165 posts and figure it out the hard way?   Yeah...........I'm lazy...........

DC's "good reason" requirement for a concealed carry license was struck down by the federal appeals court panel. DC's request for an en banc hearing by the full 10 judge court was denied. DC's only recourse now is an appeal to the Supreme Court.
"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams

#169 gangrel

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,822 posts
  • Joined: 13-April 11

Posted 28 September 2017 - 06:50 PM

This thread is filled with procedural issues and discussions.  Thanks for that, but can someone just please summarize what has happened and why it is important, so that we don't have to slog through 165 posts and figure it out the hard way?   Yeah...........I'm lazy...........DC's "good reason" requirement for a concealed carry license was struck down by the federal appeals court panel. DC's request for an en banc hearing by the full 10 judge court was denied. DC's only recourse now is an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Question is, are they arrogant enough to do it? Oddly enough, in this instance I am cheering for self-righteous liberals...at least, until they get their Second Place trophy from SCOTUS...

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk


NRA Life Member

NRA Certified Range Safety Officer

NRA Certified Instructor - Basic Pistol, PPIH, PPOH, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Firearm Safety
ISP Approved Firearm Concealed Carry Instructor

Utah CCW Instructor


#170 Glock23

    I am no one.

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,790 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 13

Posted 28 September 2017 - 07:03 PM

Wouldn't the Heller ruling pretty much cover that, just not in so many words? I could see them appealing just for the sake of wasting time, but I don't know that SCOTUS would hear it, unless they wanted to use it as a way to strike down the "good cause" requirement nationwide, and that seems overly optimistic. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

** Illinois Carry - Supporting Member

** National Association for Gun Rights - Frontline Defender

** Illinois State Rifle Association - 3 year Member

** National Rifle Association - Patron Life Member

 


#171 Rail

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 209 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 08

Posted 28 September 2017 - 08:51 PM

The odds of SCOTUS hearing this case compared to previous ones are much higher now, primarily because we have multiple circuit splits on both sides, but even moreso because the government (DC in this case) will be the one petitioning for cert, not the individual.



#172 C0untZer0

    Contributing Member in Arrears

  • Members
  • 12,245 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 28 September 2017 - 09:00 PM

IMO we have split circuits.  Why is it that Raymond Woollard can be denied a permit to carry a firearm for lack of good cause, (even though his life had been threatened) but Brian Wrenn cannot be denied a permit?

 

According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, "the Second Amendment does not protect in any degree the right to carry concealed firearms in public." According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit  "The right to "bear" as distinct from the right to "keep" arms is unlikely to refer to the home. To speak of "bearing" arms within one's home would at all times have been an awkward usage. A right to bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home.  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.  One doesn't need to be a historian to realize that a right to keep and bear arms in the eighteenth century could not rationally have been limited to the home."

 

We have Judges Davis, King and DIaz saying that Heller does not address carrying arms outside of the home, we have Judge Posner saying Heller does address carrying arms outside the home.


Edited by C0untZer0, 28 September 2017 - 09:02 PM.

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 -
 

 


#173 C0untZer0

    Contributing Member in Arrears

  • Members
  • 12,245 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 28 September 2017 - 09:07 PM

I think here is where we see the damage that Obama did to the Supreme Court and - whatever you think of Trump - having Trump in office got Gorsuch on the Supreme Court and if Hillary Clinton had been elected, we'd have a solid anti-gun majority on the Supreme Court right now.

 

The Supreme Court refused to review the 9th Circuit's denial of the right to carry in Peruta , prompting Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch, to criticize their colleagues for what they called a  "distressing trend" of refusing to hear any such cases and thereby treating "the Second Amendment as a disfavored right." As Thomas put it, "even if other Members of the Court do not agree that the Second Amendment likely protects a right to public carry, the time has come for the Court to answer this important question definitively."


Edited by C0untZer0, 28 September 2017 - 09:11 PM.

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 -
 

 


#174 borgranta

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,587 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 12

Posted 28 September 2017 - 11:07 PM

Previous precedent has established that concealed carry can be banned due to state's rights. DC is not a state and therefore cannot assert state's rights in order to ban concealed carry. Considering that DC bans open carry they risk the court ruling that bans of open carry as unconstitutional.
The following referral code will grant provide a new User of Uber a free ride up to $15
donaldd4557ui

#175 chislinger

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,435 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 29 September 2017 - 06:02 AM

Previous precedent has established that concealed carry can be banned due to state's rights. DC is not a state and therefore cannot assert state's rights in order to ban concealed carry. Considering that DC bans open carry they risk the court ruling that bans of open carry as unconstitutional.

It's not a state's rights issue at all since the 2A was incorporated in the McDonald decision. There is now a circuit split, which makes it more attractive to the SCOTUS. DC is in a bad place now, they hate to have to issue permits but there will be great pressure from the may issue states not to appeal so as to avoid a SCOTUS ruling that will overturn all may issue laws.
"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams

#176 Xwing

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,571 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 09

Posted 29 September 2017 - 08:23 AM

Just saw the news today on the denial.  I think this is headed to the SCOTUS.  Interesting that DC has decided to continue to enforce "good reason" in the meantime.  They surely like to thumb their noses at the court...  Or maybe they're expecting another temporary stay as they appeal?


NRA Lifetime Member
IGOLD 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016
CCW Laws: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Posted anti-gun business listing: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Gun Range Tools & Logs: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Illinois Government: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)


#177 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,295 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 29 September 2017 - 09:35 AM

This case definitely has the potential to go to SCOTUS now that "shall issue" (quasi-shall issue) is right in their backyard. Just like how Heller was right in their backyard. Plus CADC is the most influential of all circuits and many of its cases head up to SCOTUS. They didn't have to rule on the constitutionality of RKBA outside the home as that had already been stipulated to when DC abandoned Palmer. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#178 Kipp Jones

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,481 posts
  • Joined: 30-May 07

Posted 29 September 2017 - 07:23 PM

Been waiting to submit my application to DC for a permit. Is now the time?
C&R FFL 03

#179 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,295 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 30 September 2017 - 06:54 AM

Been waiting to submit my application to DC for a permit. Is now the time?

Well since CADC enjoined the "good reason" requirement, as long as you meet every other requirement then you're gtg. I don't see a better time to apply.

This case is very likely going to SCOTUS. Not because of what CADC said but what it didn't say: that carry outside the home is a constitutional right protected under the 2A. That was all stipulated to in Palmer and DC dropped that appeal so SCOTUS will likely have to answer the question whether it is protected under the 2A in order to answer the question about may issue. Moreso now have four circuits that say may issue is reasonable. We have another that says it isn't, and that "other" is CADC. Much more widely respected than CAs 2, 3, 4, and 9, and 1 if you count Hightower. That makes 4v1, or 5v1.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk


NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#180 Kipp Jones

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,481 posts
  • Joined: 30-May 07

Posted 30 September 2017 - 12:45 PM

I am going to apply this week.
C&R FFL 03




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users