Wrenn v DC THIS IS BIG NEWS!!

[Nemo]

Really BIG News.

Remember Wrenn?  Short of long of it-- CCW in DC was may issue.  Wrenn sued because DC said no to him.  Fed Court said Shall Issue.  DC appealed to CoA.  Panel said District Court good, Shall Issue good.  But ruling on hold pending appeal.

DC said appeal to full Court of Appeals.  CoA said no, we won't hear it, District Court decision, as approved by CoA panel is binding law, DC is shall issue and any CCW from any state is valid in DC.

So, next time you go to DC you can carry.  But watch for signs and probably stay out of federal buildings.  They are probably posted.

ALSO!! Pay attention to SCOTUS  to see if they take this up for review.

If they do, burden of proof is on DC for asking for change to ruling and it will be binding on entire country.  THIS is the case that can make the entire country Shall Issue and you permit from your state valid in every state, subject to that states limits.  (which will likely be challenged over the next years)

Nemo


http://freebeacon.com/issues/appeals-court-denies-d-c-s-request-full-court-hearing-gun-carry-law-struck-july/

Appeals Court Denies D.C.’s Request for Full Court Hearing on Gun-Carry Law Struck Down in July
Gun rights activists celebrate ruling
BY: Stephen Gutowski   
September 28, 2017 5:16 pm

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Thursday denied a petition for a hearing from the full court after a three-judge panel declared portions of Washington, D.C.'s gun-carry law unconstitutional in July.

"D.C. Circuit denies en banc petition in Wrenn v. D.C.!" Alan Gura, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs in the case, said on Twitter. "On to #SCOTUS?"

Wrenn v. D.C. is the latest in a long series of challenges to the city's strict gun laws. The case centers around the city's gun-carry law, put in place after the previous ban on all gun-carry was declared unconstitutional, which allows city officials to deny a permit application based on whether they believe the applicant has a "good reason" for obtaining one. The plaintiffs complained that in practice this has resulted in very few gun-carry permits being issued in the city, with only 126 permits issued as of July 2017, and said the restriction is an unconstitutional infringement on their Second Amendment rights.

In a 2-1 ruling, the three-judge appeals court panel agreed with the plaintiffs.

"We are bound to leave the District as much space to regulate as the Constitution allows—but no more. Just so, our opinion does little more than trace the boundaries laid in 1791 and flagged in Heller I," Judge Thomas Griffith wrote for the majority. "And the resulting decision rests on a rule so narrow that good-reason laws seem almost uniquely designed to defy it: that the law-abiding citizen’s right to bear common arms must enable the typical citizen to carry a gun."

Washington, D.C., disagreed with the ruling and defended their gun-carry law by asking the full appeals court to hear the case.

"The District's requirement that those requesting concealed-carry permits must have a ‘good reason' for doing so is virtually identical to rules in other cities and states—requirements that four other federal appeals courts have left in place," Racine said in an August statement. "We at the Office of Attorney General believe our common-sense gun rules are very much in line with Supreme Court precedent on the Second Amendment, which is why we have asked the full D.C. Circuit to reconsider the earlier 2-1 ruling by a panel of that court."

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. Gun-rights activists celebrated the court's decision.

"Ten years ago, Washington, D.C.’s political leadership tried to extinguish Second Amendment rights before the Supreme Court," Gura told the Washington Free Beacon. "The result was D.C. v. Heller, a tremendous victory for the rights of all Americans. With the court of appeals again confirming the people’s right to bear arms, Washington, D.C.’s politicians must once again ask themselves whether it makes sense to keep resisting our fundamental rights."

"This is another landmark legal victory for the Second Amendment Foundation," Alan Gottlieb, the group's founder, told the Free Beacon. The Second Amendment Foundation is one of the plaintiffs in the case.

The Metropolitan Police Department and the city's attorney general's office did not immediately return requests for comment.

[JohnyMac]

Cool beans. Now will D.C. issue CCW requests without having to fight in the courts?

[Nemo]

Best nickel summary out there I have found.  From Maryland Shall Issue organization. 

Nemo


https://www.marylandshallissue.org/jmain/counselor-s-corner/70-dc-circuit-court-denies-rehearing-en-banc-in-wrenn-and-grace

Rehearing En Banc in Wrenn & Grace Denied!
28 September 2017, by Gregory Gambill   
 
Today, the D.C. Circuit denied the District of Columbia's petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc in the Wrenn and Grace cases!

In the consolidated appeal in those cases, a 3 judge panel of the D.C. Circuit had struck down as unconstitutional the DC requirement that an applicant show a "good reason" for a permit to carry a handgun outside the home.  Significantly, the court's order denying en banc noted that no judge even requested a vote on the petition.  What a contrast with the Ninth Circuit!  That circuit has granted en banc in every case from a favorable panel decision applying the Second Amendment.  You can find the panel's decision HERE.  The court's order denying rehearing can be found HERE.   This denial of rehearing makes the D.C. Circuit's decision final!

At this point, the DC government can choose either to file a petition for a writ of certiorari before the Supreme Court or accept the D.C. Circuit's decision.  In Heller, DC sought certiorari and ultimately lost on the merits.  Given how irrationally and rabidly anti-gun DC is, our expectation is that DC will once again seek certiorari in Wrenn.  If it does, there are good reasons to believe that the Supreme Court will agree to hear the case.  First, the Wrenn decision openly disagrees with the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Circuits, all which have sustained as constitutional similar "good reason" requirements.  Second, not only does the Wrenn decision create a square conflict in the circuits, it invalidates a DC law on Second Amendment constitutional grounds.  Third, we now have a full Court of nine Justices, including Justice Gorsuch, and while it takes five to win, it only takes four Justices to grant certiorari.  Not to get ahead of ourselves, but if the Supreme Court does take the case and the plaintiffs prevail, that Supreme Court decision will effectively overrule the 4th Circuit's decision in Woollard, which sustained Maryland "good and substantial reason" requirement. At that point, Maryland would become a "shall issue" state (as would the rest of the states that have imposed "good reason" requirements)!

DC has 90 days in which to file a petition for certiorari, subject to extension.  In the meantime, under its local rules and prior order, the D.C. Circuit will issue its mandate seven days from today, including its instruction to the district courts in Wrenn and Grace to enter a permanent injunction against DC's "good reason" requirement.  Once those permanent injunctions are issued by the district courts (it will take some time), applicants *should* be able to file carry applications with DC without regard to the "good reason" requirement, particularly if the applicant is a member of the Second Amendment Foundation, which was one of the plaintiffs in Wrenn.  Of course, it is still possible that DC may seek to delay the court's mandate or ask for a stay of the mandate pending a petition for certiorari.  Nothing in Wrenn changes Maryland's law.  It will take a Supreme Court decision to do that.   So stay tuned.

Mark Pennak, President, Maryland Shall Issue