Jump to content

Wrenn v. DC


rubicon

Recommended Posts

 

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) today won a preliminary injunction against the District of Columbia and Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy Lanier’s enforcement of a requirement to provide a “good reason” when applying for a concealed carry permit.

https://www.saf.org/?p=6169

 

You have to justify why you might need to defend yourself???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just so burnt out. I've got so much going on and not enough hours in a day to do it all.

And then 2 things happened. A Facebook post by a person who stiffed me on a job, complaining of a different problem that she's unable to get fixed at "friends and family" prices. - Grin

 

And then this thread. Really Really Big Grin :)

 

I've found my calm in the chaos

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple quotes from the analysis for those haven't the time to read.

 

Plaintiffs argue that the District of Columbia's "good reason"/"proper reason" requirement

fails intermediate scrutiny because it does not advance its interest in preventing crime or protecting

public safety. See Dkt. no. 6-2 at 25. Specifically, this regulation is not directed at dangerous

people, does not regulate the manner of carrying handguns, and does not impose any place

restrictions. See id. (citing Peruta, 742 F.3d at 1176-77). To support this position, Plaintiffs rely on

Fletcher v. Haas, 851 F. Supp. 2d 287 (D. Mass. 2012), and Bateman v. Perdue, 881 F. Supp. 2d

709 (E.D.N.C. 2012).

 

The fact that a person may have a greater need for self-protection says nothing

about how limiting the carrying of handguns to such individuals would result in a reduction of risk

to other members of the public or reduce violent crime. Is the Court to conclude that people who do

not have a heightened need for self-protection are more likely to commit violent crimes?

 

This conclusion should not be read to suggest that it would be inappropriate for the District

of Columbia to enact a licensing mechanism that includes appropriate time, place and manner

restrictions on the carrying of handguns in public. The District of Columbia's arbitrary "good 13

reason"/"proper reason" requirement, however, goes far beyond establishing such reasonable

restrictions. Rather, for all intents and purposes, this requirement makes it impossible for the

overwhelming majority of law-abiding citizens to obtain licenses to carry handguns in public for

self-defense, thereby depriving them of their Second Amendment right to bear arms.

 

Reality does not support their emotional pleas to disarm the good citizens of the USA!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 4th Circuit overturned Judge Legg's decision in Woollard and SCOTUS decline to review it.

 

This is better than a loss, but I'm not sure how much of a win it is.

It still forces the 4th circuit to have to write an opinion defending their position if they wish to overturn it and it's another voice yelling at SCOTUS to answer the question. Look at how many cases it took for gay marriage to come before SCOTUS.

 

Edit: I didn't see this was based in DC, so that's a separate circuit, but it still puts pressure on SCOTUS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The simple fact that the standards were met for issuance of a preliminary injunction is quite telling. It tells me that D.C. is now fighting an uphill battle, and that hill is nearly completely vertical. I got an email from FPC last night about this, cackled. Remember that Palmer was assigned to Scullin by Chief Justice Roberts himself after years of inaction by the original district judge who was assigned the Palmer case back in 2009. I wouldn't doubt Scullin drew this case because of his familiarity with the issue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are still a few (maybe a lot) of elected officials in Illinois who think there is some hope of getting rid of concealed carry in this state and even of rolling back Heller and McDonald. Each decision like this is another nail in the coffin for their fantasies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two of the plaintiffs in Wrenn are residents of the district, and one is a Florida resident. The judge's order, I presume, applies equally to residents and non-residents.

 

Anyone planning to take a trip to D.C. , get the training, and submit an application? It's tempting--"just because."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two of the plaintiffs in Wrenn are residents of the district, and one is a Florida resident. The judge's order, I presume, applies equally to residents and non-residents.

 

Anyone planning to take a trip to D.C. , get the training, and submit an application? It's tempting--"just because."

DC's requirements and process is still really really terrible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if they rewrite the ordnance, it will most likely be garbage. These people just won't stop.

 

It's a combination of stupidity and stubbornness. How many lawsuits have been filed against the DC Council including Heller? Maybe eight or nine? They never learn.

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...