TexasCHLforum.com

But not without restriction.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/amphtml/zoetil ... ublic-is-a


https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... -Wrenn.pdf

ETA another link to the opinion: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/ ... 6-7067.pdf

We pause to draw together all the pieces of our analysis: At the Second Amendment’s core lies the right of responsible citizens to carry firearms for personal self-defense beyond the home, subject to longstanding restrictions. These traditional limits include, for instance, licensing requirements, but not bans on carrying in urban areas like D.C. or bans on carrying absent a special need for self-defense. In fact, the Amendment’s core at a minimum shields the typically situated citizen’s ability to carry common arms generally. The District’s good-reason law is necessarily a total ban on exercises of that constitutional right for most D.C. residents. That’s enough to sink this law under Heller I.

2-1 panel decision.

David Kopel opines.

BTW, I think this decision is a big deal. It explicitly states that Heller I decided that "keep" and "bear" are equal requirements in 2A - if you are able to have a gun, then you must be able to carry it. Kopel notes that although this is a panel decision and the city of Washington DC can ask for a full en banc review, the last couple times they tried that with a 2A case the en banc review was not granted. If an en banc review does not overturn the panel's decision, then this sets up a serious split among the federal circuit courts, and that is something for SCOTUS to resolve.

I pray Trump is able to nominate another Gorsuch-caliber SCOTUS Justice AND our Republican Senators find their rear-ends with both hands long enough to get that nominee approved!

ELB wrote:But not without restriction.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/amphtml/zoetil ... ublic-is-a


https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... -Wrenn.pdf

ETA another link to the opinion: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/ ... 6-7067.pdf

We pause to draw together all the pieces of our analysis: At the Second Amendment’s core lies the right of responsible citizens to carry firearms for personal self-defense beyond the home, subject to longstanding restrictions. These traditional limits include, for instance, licensing requirements, but not bans on carrying in urban areas like D.C. or bans on carrying absent a special need for self-defense. In fact, the Amendment’s core at a minimum shields the typically situated citizen’s ability to carry common arms generally. The District’s good-reason law is necessarily a total ban on exercises of that constitutional right for most D.C. residents. That’s enough to sink this law under Heller I.

2-1 panel decision.

Great, now queue the En Banc decision that reverses this. Remember the left wing judges that Obama packed the DC court of appeals with using the "Harry Reid Option" aka Nuclear Option in the Senate. There will then be no circuit split between 9th and DC Circuit... so SCOTUS will not need to rule and we can all go back to the way things have been for 100 years...

The problem I have with their wording is when they say "responsible." The 2A doesn't say that and who gets to decide who is "responsible?" That can be pretty broadly applied and abused.

ScottDLS wrote:

ELB wrote:But not without restriction.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/amphtml/zoetil ... ublic-is-a


https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... -Wrenn.pdf

ETA another link to the opinion: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/ ... 6-7067.pdf

We pause to draw together all the pieces of our analysis: At the Second Amendment’s core lies the right of responsible citizens to carry firearms for personal self-defense beyond the home, subject to longstanding restrictions. These traditional limits include, for instance, licensing requirements, but not bans on carrying in urban areas like D.C. or bans on carrying absent a special need for self-defense. In fact, the Amendment’s core at a minimum shields the typically situated citizen’s ability to carry common arms generally. The District’s good-reason law is necessarily a total ban on exercises of that constitutional right for most D.C. residents. That’s enough to sink this law under Heller I.

2-1 panel decision.

Great, now queue the En Banc decision that reverses this. Remember the left wing judges that Obama packed the DC court of appeals with using the "Harry Reid Option" aka Nuclear Option in the Senate. There will then be no circuit split between 9th and DC Circuit... so SCOTUS will not need to rule and we can all go back to the way things have been for 100 years...

I hope we are both wrong because I made the same remark to a friend after I read the decision. It is so excellent and compelling that those opposed MUST do what they can to nullify it.

I wonder how legally independent the D.C. AG is from the DoJ. In other words, can DoJ/AG overrule a decision to ask the court for an en banc hearing. Even if so, any non-senior member of the court can do so sua sponte so this maybe moot.

SA-TX

C-dub wrote:The problem I have with their wording is when they say "responsible." The 2A doesn't say that and who gets to decide who is "responsible?" That can be pretty broadly applied and abused.

Just like NY and Cali say. Responsible = cash and political influence you have

SA-TX wrote:
...

I wonder how legally independent the D.C. AG is from the DoJ. In other words, can DoJ/AG overrule a decision to ask the court for an en banc hearing. Even if so, any non-senior member of the court can do so sua sponte so this maybe moot.
SA-TX

D.C. has an Attorney General independent of the DoJ to represent the District in cases like this. I'm sure he's somewhere left of Raul Castro, so never fear an en banc hearing will be forthcoming and it will reverse the panel... .

That is if he's not too busy joining MD AG in suing POTUS for violating the emoluments clause of the Constitution...

TreyHouston wrote:

C-dub wrote:The problem I have with their wording is when they say "responsible." The 2A doesn't say that and who gets to decide who is "responsible?" That can be pretty broadly applied and abused.

Just like NY and Cali say. Responsible = cash and political influence you have

I understand why you say that. However, in the vast majority of states, which now have "shall issue", that simply isn't the case. Most places, to be denied a license/permit to carry, one must been adjudicated with mental problems or of fairly serious crimes. Otherwise, the license/permit will be issued. Hopefully, if an en banc review is called, then that will be a factor taken into account.

DC has asked for en banc review:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... -carry/for en banc review:

ETA: for future searches, the case is Wrenn vs DC

ELB wrote:DC has asked for en banc review:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... -carry/for en banc review:

ETA: for future searches, the case is Wrenn vs DC

Prepare for the court 'en banc' to overrule the panel. DC Court of Appeals is packed with commies courtesy of the Reid Rule in the Senate.

Sadly, legal nihilism and postmodernism are eating up our courts. It is no longer a question of the rule of law--it is simply what the majority of justices want the law to be. Don't worry--they will fill in the "legal reasoning" as they need to. We see it everywhere on second amendment cases and especially in the ninth circuit.

ELB wrote:DC has asked for en banc review:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... -carry/for en banc review:

ETA: for future searches, the case is Wrenn vs DC

Link was broken: Here it is: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... led-carry/

En Banc review declined!

http://freebeacon.com/issues/appeals-co ... ruck-july/

On Thursday, the appeals court declined to hear the case again before the full court when no judge requested a vote on the potential hearing.

I need a explanation from some of you lawyer types, per the article a judge struck down the "good cause" portion of the D.C. law, this was also struck down by the 3 judge circuit court panel, D.C. appeals this to the En Banc Circuit Court, they denied hearing the case which leaves the previous ruling standing! How is it not contempt of court for D.C. to continue to use the "good cause" to block citizen from getting a permit??

crazy2medic wrote:I need a explanation from some of you lawyer types, per the article a judge struck down the "good cause" portion of the D.C. law, this was also struck down by the 3 judge circuit court panel, D.C. appeals this to the En Banc Circuit Court, they denied hearing the case which leaves the previous ruling standing! How is it not contempt of court for D.C. to continue to use the "good cause" to block citizen from getting a permit??

The original finding was immediately stayed pending the appeal.
Not sure where that stay stands now that the en banc appeal has been denied.
I guess still stayed pending appeal to SCOTUS.

ETA: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/09/29/co ... genda.html

D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine said in a statement that police can continue to enforce the "good reason" requirement until the appeals court issues what's called a mandate in about a week. Racine said he's reviewing options for how to proceed. The city could decide to ask the Supreme Court to hear the case.