Jump to content

Wrenn v. DC


rubicon

Recommended Posts

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/business/legal/two-concealed-carry-cases-fire-blanks-in-u-s-court-of-appeals-for-the-district-of-columbia-circuit_64817/

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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/business/legal/two-concealed-carry-cases-fire-blanks-in-u-s-court-of-appeals-for-the-district-of-columbia-circuit_64817/

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

Gasp!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 -

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/home.nsf/Content/VL%20-%20RPP%20-%20Circuit%20Rules/$FILE/RulesDecember2016FRAPandDCCirFinalF.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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.uscourts.gov/internet/home.nsf/Content/VL%20-%20RPP%20-%20Handbook%202006%20Rev%202007/$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

 

 

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...