Jump to content

Wrenn v. DC


rubicon

Recommended Posts

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.uscourts.gov/internet/home.nsf/Content/VL%20-%20RPP%20-%20Handbook%202006%20Rev%202007/$FILE/HandbookJanuary2017WithTOCLinks22May2017.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?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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.

 

 

Wrenn.Order.response .pdf

 

 

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

 

wrenn everytown amicus brief enbanc .pdf

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

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...........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

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...