The good Ol' Boys of SAF have done it again... Winning an Injunction against D.C. in regards to their oppressive "Need" requirements, for a Conceal Carry License. YEAH!
|
|
Wrenn v. DC
Started by
rubicon
, May 18 2015 06:38 PM
198 replies to this topic
#2
-
- Members
-
- 2,517 posts Joined: 15-March 13
Member
Posted 18 May 2015 - 06:42 PM
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.
You have to justify why you might need to defend yourself???
“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
― Benjamin Franklin
"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
#3
-
- Supporting Members Team
-
- 2,535 posts Joined: 14-May 13
Member
Posted 18 May 2015 - 06:43 PM
Nice
Edited by transplant, 18 May 2015 - 06:43 PM.
#4
-
- Supporting Members Team
-
- 2,552 posts Joined: 01-April 09
"Frank can Glock"
Posted 18 May 2015 - 06:49 PM
Wonderful! Hopefully this will help our friends in other May-Issue jurisdictions.
-- Frank
NRA Life Member - NRA Basic Pistol Instructor - NRA PPIH Instructor - NRA PPOH Instructor - IL Firearms Concealed Carry Instructor - ITWT Club Member #438
"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." -Moore v. Madigan, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, December 11, 2012
#5
-
- Supporting Members Team
-
- 3,404 posts Joined: 17-December 13
Member
Posted 18 May 2015 - 06:59 PM
Best news I've heard in months. Yeah!
"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)
"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)
#6
-
- Members
-
- 1,339 posts Joined: 28-May 13
Member
Posted 18 May 2015 - 07:32 PM
Excellent! And I just renewed my membership last week.
"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." - James Madison
NRA, ISRA, GOA, SAF
NRA, ISRA, GOA, SAF
#7
-
- Supporting Members Team
-
- 2,535 posts Joined: 14-May 13
Member
Posted 18 May 2015 - 07:33 PM
...
Edited by transplant, 18 May 2015 - 07:34 PM.
#8
-
- Supporting Members Team
-
- 2,535 posts Joined: 14-May 13
Member
Posted 18 May 2015 - 07:35 PM
Preliminary injunction (for reals this time):
Attached Files
-
2015-05-18 Wrenn opinion prelim injunction.pdf 173.42KB
290 downloads
#9
-
- Members
-
- 6,276 posts Joined: 21-November 13
Member
Posted 18 May 2015 - 08:02 PM
w00t!
"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams
#10
-
- Supporting Members Team
-
- 2,535 posts Joined: 14-May 13
Member
Posted 18 May 2015 - 08:11 PM
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 18, 2015
Syracuse, New York
Apparently Judge Scullin has business in New York. He is likely at least somewhat aware of the UnSAFE Act and New York's handgun and carry infringements.
#11
-
- Members
-
- 965 posts Joined: 08-June 12
Member
Posted 18 May 2015 - 08:32 PM
If anything, it puts more pressure on SCOTUS to answer the question.
Illinois Concealed Carry Firearms Instructor
NRA Range Safety Officer
#12
-
- Members
-
- 2,121 posts Joined: 20-November 12
Member
Posted 18 May 2015 - 08:33 PM
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
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
Edited by KarlJ, 18 May 2015 - 08:34 PM.
"Waiting periods are only a step.
Registration is only a step.
The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."
Janet Reno
U.S. Attorney General
1993-12-10
"If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the governments ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees."
Bill Clinton
1993-08-12
Registration is only a step.
The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."
Janet Reno
U.S. Attorney General
1993-12-10
"If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the governments ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees."
Bill Clinton
1993-08-12
#13
-
- Members
-
- 8,754 posts Joined: 12-January 13
OFFICIAL MEMBER
Posted 18 May 2015 - 08:54 PM
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!
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!
#14
-
- Members
-
- 1,561 posts Joined: 30-June 09
Member
Posted 18 May 2015 - 09:15 PM
Even if they rewrite the ordnance, it will most likely be garbage. These people just won't stop.
#15
-
- Members
-
- 8,754 posts Joined: 12-January 13
OFFICIAL MEMBER
Posted 18 May 2015 - 09:38 PM
My copy/paste is a train wreck in Tapatalk!
#16
-
- Members
-
- 381 posts Joined: 27-April 09
Member
Posted 18 May 2015 - 09:54 PM
This will continue until the Supreme Court rules in favor of shall issue. It's time for a decision now before more anti judges get added next term
#17
-
- Members
-
- 13,187 posts Joined: 14-October 11
Contributing Member in Arrears
Posted 18 May 2015 - 10:17 PM
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.
“Most gun control arguments miss the point. If all control boils fundamentally to force, how can one resist aggression without equal force? How can a truly “free” state exist if the individual citizen is enslaved to the forceful will of individual or organized aggressors?
It cannot.”
― Tiffany Madison―
#18
-
- Members
-
- 8,754 posts Joined: 12-January 13
OFFICIAL MEMBER
Posted 18 May 2015 - 10:31 PM
Well, it's a win for DC. And it's a win for any legal action after it, even if only as supporting case law.
#19
-
- Members
-
- 965 posts Joined: 08-June 12
Member
Posted 18 May 2015 - 10:50 PM
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.
Edited by mrpapageorgio, 19 May 2015 - 01:40 PM.
Illinois Concealed Carry Firearms Instructor
NRA Range Safety Officer
#20
-
- Members
-
- 8,480 posts Joined: 24-February 13
Member
Posted 19 May 2015 - 04:45 AM
First, this is not SCOTUS. It is an appeals court.
Second, it is only a preliminary injunction.
Still, Alan spanked the antis again.
The Second Amendment of the Constitution protects the rest.
#21
-
- Members
-
- 1,898 posts Joined: 05-October 12
Member
Posted 19 May 2015 - 06:50 AM
Alan is an anti gun butt kicker!
#22
-
- Supporting Members Team
-
- 3,074 posts Joined: 05-February 14
Member
Posted 19 May 2015 - 07:46 AM
I like that the Judge wants to expedite the case. How often does that happen?
“I have fought the good fight to the end; I have run the race to the finish: I have kept the faith." Timothy Chapter 4 verse 7
"Legitimate self-defense has absolutely nothing to do with the criminal misuse of guns." Gerald Vernon, veteran firearms instructor
#23
-
- Members
-
- 9,346 posts Joined: 03-January 07
David Lawson
Posted 19 May 2015 - 08:06 AM
First, this is not SCOTUS. It is an appeals court.
Second, it is only a preliminary injunction.
Still, Alan spanked the antis again.
Yep, my bad. Fixing title.
--George OrwellPeople sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
-- Certified something-or-other by various organizations and governmental entities.
#24
-
- Members
-
- 1,968 posts Joined: 26-April 11
Member
Posted 19 May 2015 - 10:19 AM
Appeals Court? I thought this was only at the District Court level.
yea everyone makes fun of the redneck till the zombies show up. . .
#25
-
- Members
-
- 6,540 posts Joined: 07-November 12
Member
Posted 19 May 2015 - 10:34 AM
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.
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder
SAF Member
C&R License Holder
#26
-
- Supporting Members Team
-
- 1,901 posts Joined: 16-May 13
Member
Posted 19 May 2015 - 10:46 AM
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.
Ad utrumque paratus
#27
-
- Supporting Members Team
-
- 3,404 posts Joined: 17-December 13
Member
Posted 19 May 2015 - 11:52 AM
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."
"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)
"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)
#28
-
- Supporting Members Team
-
- 2,535 posts Joined: 14-May 13
Member
Posted 19 May 2015 - 12:09 PM
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.
#29
-
- Members
-
- 8,994 posts Joined: 26-February 09
Member
Posted 19 May 2015 - 03:27 PM
Fantastic news! Hopefully they will overturn DCs de facto "no issue" may-issue law which is thumbing their noses at the courts' prior decisions.
NRA Lifetime Member
IGOLD 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018
CCW - 50 State Firearm Laws: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Posted anti-gun business listing: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Gun Range Tools & Logs: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Illinois Government: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
#30
-
- Members
-
- 1,893 posts Joined: 22-April 13
Member
Posted 19 May 2015 - 03:40 PM
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.
"The point of [so-called "assault weapon" bans]...is not to ban firearms that are dangerous, it's to ban firearms that gun owners want to own because the people making the laws don't like gun owners. If we want to buy non-semiauto AR-style rifles, they'll ban those too, and for the same reason."
-Hapless
-Hapless
