Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31

Thread: WRENN et al v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al 2.0

  1. #1
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    450

    WRENN et al v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al 2.0

    WRENN et al v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al 16-7025

    The gods do have a sense of humor.

    Six days before the Caetano decision was published the District of Columbia appellate clerk laid out an accelerated briefing schedule, or at least it is by 9th Circuit Court of Appeals standards.

    Alan Gura must now prove that the district court judge did not abuse her discretion in denying him a preliminary injunction in a case where he asked the district court judge to issue a preliminary injunction which directly conflicts with the Heller decision. Wrenn is a concealed carry case, nobody can pretend it isn't. Gura does not challenge the district's separate bans on openly carrying handguns and long guns and of course Gura is not challenging either the registration or permit requirements because, in his words, doing so "[W]ould have probably made [him] very popular in some cabin somewhere out there in the woods..."

    I maintain a page dedicated to the Wrenn v. DC case at my website which I periodically update. You are welcome to bookmark the page as my updates here will be infrequent (if at all).

    NOTICE OF APPEAL Filed on 03/15/2016.

    APPELLANT docketing statement due 04/14/2016.

    APPELLANT certificate as to parties, etc. due 04/14/2016.

    APPELLANT statement of issues due 04/14/2016.

    APPELLANT underlying decision due 04/14/2016.

    APPELLANT deferred appendix statement due 04/14/2016.

    APPELLANT notice of appearance due 04/14/2016.

    APPELLANT transcript status report due 04/14/2016.

    APPELLANT procedural motions due 04/14/2016.

    APPELLANT dispositive motions due 04/29/2016.

    Directing party to file initial submissions:

    APPELLEE certificate as to parties, etc. due 04/14/2016.

    APPELLEE entry of appearance due 04/14/2016.

    APPELLEE procedural motions due 04/14/2016.

    APPELLEE dispositive motions due 04/29/2016.

    Edit:

    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    It appears that CRTC is commenting about the impossibility of Gura's appeal. The appellant has the burden. How does Gura show that the District Court Judge abused her discretion? Most states regulate concealed carry. The strategic error is not trying to win open carry. The tactical error is appealing the motion for preliminary injunction, which Gura will waste another year upon and then lose. We know DC wants to waste time. They have been very successful with this strategy and now have an even split in the Supreme Court.
    Exactly.

    I would add that to the extent the court of appeals looks to the merits of the case in this appeal of the denial of a preliminary injunction, the Caetano decision is one which benefits the District of Columbia. The District can now argue that the district court judge was wrong when she concluded that the denial of a concealed carry permit constitutes irreparable harm as that conclusion is in direct conflict with the Heller decision.
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 05-15-2016 at 07:10 PM. Reason: delete thread icon
    Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don't carry a purse.

    Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

  2. #2
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,862
    Quote Originally Posted by California Right To Carry View Post
    ...Alan Gura must now prove that the district court judge did not abuse her discretion in denying him a preliminary injunction in a case where he asked the district court judge to issue a preliminary injunction which directly conflicts with the Heller decision. ...
    Huh? Can you shorten that up or otherwise re-word it so it's more understandable?

    Thank you.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    743
    I agree, I missed the point of his post.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,885
    It appears that CRTC is commenting about the impossibility of Gura's appeal. The appellant has the burden. How does Gura show that the District Court Judge abused her discretion? Most states regulate concealed carry. The strategic error is not trying to win open carry. The tactical error is appealing the motion for preliminary injunction, which Gura will waste another year upon and then lose. We know DC wants to waste time. They have been very successful with this strategy and now have an even split in the Supreme Court.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Central Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    4,262
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    It appears that CRTC is commenting about the impossibility of Gura's appeal. The appellant has the burden. How does Gura show that the District Court Judge abused her discretion? Most states regulate concealed carry. The strategic error is not trying to win open carry. The tactical error is appealing the motion for preliminary injunction, which Gura will waste another year upon and then lose. We know DC wants to waste time. They have been very successful with this strategy and now have an even split in the Supreme Court.
    I think you just articulated the confusion in many minds, certainly that in mine. You see, CRTC said that "Alan Gura must now prove that the district court judge did not abuse her discretion", not that she did, as your post asserts. I sympathize with your confusion, because I don't get it either. Maybe we can get some further clarification from CRTC. He usually has a good grasp of these things and is very familiar with this particular case. So much so that I assume he is correct (as he usually is) and it is just me (and you) that lacks the facts of this case and the understanding of the appeal.
    Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

    William Pitt



    "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

    Samuel Adams









  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,968
    One can read the decision on the injunction ... seems a case specific opinion. They are free to appeal.

    All the questions really are questions of law that I see ... all reviewed de novo. The court memo has little value anymore since the appeal will be a de novo one...at least for the most part.

    IMO

  7. #7
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    450
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    It appears that CRTC is commenting about the impossibility of Gura's appeal. The appellant has the burden. How does Gura show that the District Court Judge abused her discretion? Most states regulate concealed carry. The strategic error is not trying to win open carry. The tactical error is appealing the motion for preliminary injunction, which Gura will waste another year upon and then lose. We know DC wants to waste time. They have been very successful with this strategy and now have an even split in the Supreme Court.
    Exactly.

    I would add that to the extent the court of appeals looks to the merits of the case in this appeal of the denial of a preliminary injunction, the Caetano decision is one which benefits the District of Columbia. The District can now argue that the district court judge was wrong when she concluded that the denial of a concealed carry permit constitutes irreparable harm as that conclusion is in direct conflict with the Heller decision.
    Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don't carry a purse.

    Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

  8. #8
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    450
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    One can read the decision on the injunction ... seems a case specific opinion. They are free to appeal.

    All the questions really are questions of law that I see ... all reviewed de novo. The court memo has little value anymore since the appeal will be a de novo one...at least for the most part.

    IMO
    "`A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish [1] that he is likely to succeed on the merits, [2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the public interest.'" Sherley v. Sebelius, 644 F.3d 388, 392 (D.C.Cir.2011) (alteration in original) (quoting Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008)). We review the district court's balancing of these four factors for abuse of discretion, while reviewing de novo the questions of law involved in that inquiry. Id. at 393." Aamer v. Obama, 742 F. 3d 1023 - Court of Appeals, Dist. of Columbia Circuit (2014) at 1038.

    The legal standards governing the appeal of the granting or denial of a preliminary injunction differ greatly from the legal standards which will apply to this case once final judgment is entered.

    Even if the court were to conclude, pursuant to a de novo review, that the plaintiffs do have a Second Amendment right to a permit to carry a handgun concealed in public that isn't enough to warrant the reversal of the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction because she abused her discretion.

    The one advantage the appeal of a preliminary injunction has is that it can be appealed to SCOTUS and the denial of the cert petition affects only the appeal of the preliminary injunction and would have no bearing on a subsequent appeal on final judgment.

    Assuming that Alan Gura truly believes that when the Heller decision said that Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution and that concealed carry can be prohibited the decision actually meant the opposite, the loss of Justice Scalia doesn't improve his chances of winning. As you may recall from the dissent in Heller, the dissenting justices approved of the majority's decision embracing prohibitions on concealed carry.

    "But the majority implicitly, and appropriately, rejects that suggestion by broadly approving a set of laws — prohibitions on concealed weapons..." Heller dissent at 2851

    Unless Gura thinks that the only reason why all of the other concealed carry cert petitions were denied is because Justice Scalia was still alive then I can see no reason why he is appealing the denial of his preliminary injunction. If Gura's intent is to stall for time then that is done much more easily in the district court than on appeal.
    Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don't carry a purse.

    Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

  9. #9
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    450
    Quote Originally Posted by gutshot View Post
    I think you just articulated the confusion in many minds, certainly that in mine. You see, CRTC said that "Alan Gura must now prove that the district court judge did not abuse her discretion", not that she did, as your post asserts. I sympathize with your confusion, because I don't get it either. Maybe we can get some further clarification from CRTC. He usually has a good grasp of these things and is very familiar with this particular case. So much so that I assume he is correct (as he usually is) and it is just me (and you) that lacks the facts of this case and the understanding of the appeal.
    See my post #8
    Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don't carry a purse.

    Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,968
    Quote Originally Posted by California Right To Carry View Post
    <snip>

    The legal standards governing the appeal of the granting or denial of a preliminary injunction differ greatly from the legal standards which will apply to this case once final judgment is entered.

    Even if the court were to conclude, pursuant to a de novo review, that the plaintiffs do have a Second Amendment right to a permit to carry a handgun concealed in public that isn't enough to warrant the reversal of the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction because she abused her discretion.

    The one advantage the appeal of a preliminary injunction has is that it can be appealed to SCOTUS and the denial of the cert petition affects only the appeal of the preliminary injunction and would have no bearing on a subsequent appeal on final judgment.
    Yeah, its a "freebie" as it were ...

  11. #11
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,862
    It's all as clear as mud now.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,885
    Quote Originally Posted by gutshot View Post
    I think you just articulated the confusion in many minds, certainly that in mine. You see, CRTC said that "Alan Gura must now prove that the district court judge did not abuse her discretion", not that she did, as your post asserts. I sympathize with your confusion, because I don't get it either. Maybe we can get some further clarification from CRTC. He usually has a good grasp of these things and is very familiar with this particular case. So much so that I assume he is correct (as he usually is) and it is just me (and you) that lacks the facts of this case and the understanding of the appeal.
    Scullin was the original judge that decided this case at the District Court level. The Court of Appeals said do - over because Scullin should not have been assigned the case. Gura asked for a preliminary injunction against the Federal District. The new District Court judge denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, apparently thinking that an illusionary right to bear arms such as the Federal District's is constitutional. (This is strange since in the Federal District the city council has a scheme that forbids open carry and for concealed carry converts the right into a seldom granted privilege granted at the whim of the chief of police). A Federal judge has significant discretion to grant or deny preliminary injunctions. When appealing a district judge's preliminary injunction ruling the standard for overturning the district court ruling is abuse of discretion. In his appeal Gura must prove the District Court Judge did abuse her discretion. This is a high and difficult job for Gura which will ultimately end in defeat and another year of delay.

    CRTC is correct. The judicial dance should not be about concealed carry, it should be about the right to bear arms.

    Live Free or Die,
    Thundar
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  13. #13
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    450

    Preliminary Injunctions compared to Final Judgments

    Although the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals isn't as hostile towards preliminary injunctions as is this circuit, the oral arguments in this appeal of the denial of a preliminary injunction which was argued by UCLA law professor Volokh illustrates the differences between a preliminary injunction and those involving the appeal of a final judgment in the district court as illustrated by the en banc oral arguments in Peruta v. San Diego/Richards v. Prieto.

    There are overlaps between the two (preliminary injunctions and final judgments) but they are fundamentally different beasts.

    Note: Although there is a Second Amendment nexus to the preliminary injunction appeal, it is primarily a First Amendment case.


    https://youtu.be/vQtTWZxxRD8 -> Tracy Rifle and Pistol LLC, et al. v. Harris, et al.

    https://youtu.be/anKfVru1des -> En banc oral arguments for Peruta/Richards.
    Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don't carry a purse.

    Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

  14. #14
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    450
    Quote Originally Posted by gutshot View Post
    I think you just articulated the confusion in many minds, certainly that in mine. You see, CRTC said that "Alan Gura must now prove that the district court judge did not abuse her discretion", not that she did, as your post asserts.
    The district court judge DID NOT abuse her discretion to deny the preliminary injunction for the reasons I gave in my original post. Alan Gura and his clients DO NOT seek to Open Carry. They seek to carry concealed and to carry concealed outside of the home and without being travelers while actually on a journey. The relief that Gura seeks lies outside the scope of the Second Amendment. Alan Gura and his clients have no more of a right to carry concealed under these circumstances than they have a right to perform a human sacrifice to their concealed carry god.

    This is not an invitation to debate concealed carry. You will not be able to provide any legal precedent or historical authority in support of the proposition that there is a general right to carry weapons concealed.
    Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don't carry a purse.

    Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

  15. #15
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,862
    Quote Originally Posted by California Right To Carry View Post
    The district court judge DID NOT abuse her discretion to deny the preliminary injunction for the reasons I gave in my original post. Alan Gura and his clients DO NOT seek to Open Carry. They seek to carry concealed and to carry concealed outside of the home and without being travelers while actually on a journey. The relief that Gura seeks lies outside the scope of the Second Amendment. Alan Gura and his clients have no more of a right to carry concealed under these circumstances than they have a right to perform a human sacrifice to their concealed carry god.

    This is not an invitation to debate concealed carry. You will not be able to provide any legal precedent or historical authority in support of the proposition that there is a general right to carry weapons concealed.
    Finally an understandable explanation.
    Last edited by BB62; 03-29-2016 at 01:17 AM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by California Right To Carry View Post
    The district court judge DID NOT abuse her discretion to deny the preliminary injunction for the reasons I gave in my original post. Alan Gura and his clients DO NOT seek to Open Carry. They seek to carry concealed and to carry concealed outside of the home and without being travelers while actually on a journey. The relief that Gura seeks lies outside the scope of the Second Amendment. Alan Gura and his clients have no more of a right to carry concealed under these circumstances than they have a right to perform a human sacrifice to their concealed carry god.

    This is not an invitation to debate concealed carry. You will not be able to provide any legal precedent or historical authority in support of the proposition that there is a general right to carry weapons concealed.
    Your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is just as wrong as the one you attribute to Alan Gura. The 2nd Amendment does not guarantee open carry anymore than it guarantees conceal carry. What the 2nd Amendment guarantees is carry, period!

    You constantly mischaracterize Gura's position. California and DC outlaw all types of loaded carry. Your position is that the Constitution guarntees open carry. Gura's position, when characterized properly, is that the Constitution guarantees some form of carry and since they have outlawed open carry and allow concealed carry with a permit then they must issue their permits to all law abiding applicants (shall issue).

    Therefore, from a legal perspective, you are the one who is wrong and he is right. Which is not surprising given that he has a legal degree and you do not.

    Being able to quote one line from a Scalia opinion (“This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.”) regarding open carry does not qualify you to render a legal opinion.

    This was not the Supreme Court's holding in the case. Rather, Scalia referenced this Pre-Civil War Louisiana case in his analysis of whether the right was an individual right or belonged solely to militias. The inclusion of this case in the analysis had nothing to do with open carry as opposed to conceal carry!

    Therefore, your use of this case for the proposition that the Supreme Court has in some way preferred or protected open carry over concealed carry is both misleading and legally incorrect!

  17. #17
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    450
    Quote Originally Posted by cocked&locked View Post
    Your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is just as wrong as the one you attribute to Alan Gura. The 2nd Amendment does not guarantee open carry anymore than it guarantees conceal carry. What the 2nd Amendment guarantees is carry, period!

    You constantly mischaracterize Gura's position. California and DC outlaw all types of loaded carry. Your position is that the Constitution guarntees open carry. Gura's position, when characterized properly, is that the Constitution guarantees some form of carry and since they have outlawed open carry and allow concealed carry with a permit then they must issue their permits to all law abiding applicants (shall issue).

    Therefore, from a legal perspective, you are the one who is wrong and he is right. Which is not surprising given that he has a legal degree and you do not.

    Being able to quote one line from a Scalia opinion (“This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.”) regarding open carry does not qualify you to render a legal opinion.

    This was not the Supreme Court's holding in the case. Rather, Scalia referenced this Pre-Civil War Louisiana case in his analysis of whether the right was an individual right or belonged solely to militias. The inclusion of this case in the analysis had nothing to do with open carry as opposed to conceal carry!

    Therefore, your use of this case for the proposition that the Supreme Court has in some way preferred or protected open carry over concealed carry is both misleading and legally incorrect!
    And yet every Federal court has held that I am right and you, Alan Gura, and the lawyers in every other concealed carry case are wrong.

    You are, of course, free to provide the pinpoint citations to the cases which prove me wrong. Here are a few which prove that you are merely blowing smoke. There are hundreds more which have held that the presumptively lawful prohibitions listed in the Heller decision are lawful.

    Hightower v. City of Boston, 693 F. 3d 61 - Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit (2012)
    "Under current Supreme Court precedent, Hightower cannot make out her Second Amendment claim as to the concealed weapon aspect of her revoked license, as she must for her as-applied challenge to succeed. Under our analysis of Heller, as follows, the government may regulate the carrying of concealed weapons outside of the home.
    In Heller, the Court explained that "the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited" and noted that "the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under Second Amendment or state analogues." 128 S.Ct. at 2816. We have interpreted this portion of Heller as stating that "laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons" are an "example[] of `longstanding' restrictions that [are] `presumptively lawful' under the Second Amendment." United States v. Rene E., 583 F.3d 8, 12 (1st Cir.2009) (quoting Heller, 128 S.Ct. at 2816-17 & n. 26); see also Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 281-82, 17 S.Ct. 326, 41 L.Ed. 715 (1897) (observing that "the first 10 amendments to the [C]onstitution" protect rights that are "subject to certain well-recognized exceptions" and stating, in dicta, that the Second Amendment right "is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons").[9] Licensing of the carrying of concealed weapons is presumptively lawful, and Hightower makes no serious argument to the contrary." Id at 73-74.

    Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F. 3d 81 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit (2012)
    "Notably, Chandler and Reid conflict with Plaintiffs' position, at least in part. Plaintiffs contend that a state may choose to ban open carrying so long as concealed carrying is permitted. But both Chandler and Reid suggest that open carrying must be permitted. The Reid court explained:
    Under the provision of our constitution, we incline to the opinion that the Legislature cannot inhibit the citizen from bearing arms openly, because it authorizes him to bear them for the purposes of defending himself and the State, and it is only when carried openly, that they can be efficiently used for defence.
    1840 WL 229, at *5; see also Chandler, 1850 WL 3838, at *1." Id at [fn 13]

    Drake v. Filko, 724 F. 3d 426 - Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit (2013)
    "New Jersey's longstanding handgun permitting schema is not an anomaly. Many recent judicial opinions have discussed historical laws regulating or prohibiting the carrying of weapons in public. See, e.g., Peterson v. Martinez, 707 F.3d 433*433 1197, 1201 (10th Cir.2013) ("extending" the recognized Heller exceptions to cover regulations on the carrying of concealed firearms, stating that "[i]n light of our nation's extensive practice of restricting citizens' freedom to carry firearms in a concealed manner, we hold that this activity does not fall within the scope of the Second Amendment's protections")." Id at 433

    Woollard v. Gallagher, 712 F. 3d 865 - Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit (2013)
    "The district court permanently enjoined enforcement of section 5-306(a)(5)(ii) of the Public Safety Article of the Maryland Code, to the extent that it conditions eligibility for a permit to carry, wear, or transport a handgun in public on having "good and substantial reason" to do so. Necessary to the entry of the court's injunction was its trailblazing pronouncement that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense extends outside the home, as well as its determination that such right is impermissibly burdened by Maryland's good-and-substantial-reason requirement. See Woollard v. Sheridan, 863 F.Supp.2d 462 (D.Md.2012). Because we disagree with the court's conclusion that the good-and-substantial-reason requirement cannot pass constitutional muster, we reverse the judgment without needlessly demarcating the reach of the Second Amendment." Id at 868

    National Rifle Ass'n v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 700 F. 3d 185 - Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit (2012)
    "From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues .... [N]othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." Id at 193

    National Rifle Ass'n of America, Inc. v. McCraw, 719 F. 3d 338 - Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit (2013)
    "For example, the Court said, "the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues."" Id at 346

    Moore v. Madigan, 702 F. 3d 933 - Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit (2012)
    "And a state may be able to require "open carry" — that is, require persons who carry a gun in public to carry it in plain view rather than concealed. See District of Columbia v. Heller, supra, 554 U.S. at 626, 128 S.Ct. 2783..." Id at 938

    US v. Fincher, 538 F. 3d 868 - Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit (2008)
    "[T]he majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues." Id at 873

    Peterson v. Martinez, 707 F. 3d 1197 - Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit (2013)
    "With respect to Peterson's claims against the Denver sheriff, we conclude that the carrying of concealed firearms is not protected by the Second Amendment or the Privileges and Immunities Clause." Id at 1201

    Heller v. District of Columbia (Heller II), 670 F. 3d 1244 - Court of Appeals, Dist. of Columbia Circuit (2011)
    "The Court identified other historical limitations upon the scope of the right protected by the Second Amendment. For example, it noted "the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues."" Id at 1252

    Peruta v. County of San Diego, 742 F. 3d 1144 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit (2014) (vacated)
    "To be clear, we are not holding that the Second Amendment requires the states to permit concealed carry." Id at 1172.

    "The majority's first — and crucial — mistake is to misidentify the "conduct at issue." Chester, 628 F.3d at 680. The majority frames the question as "whether a responsible, law-abiding citizen has a right under the Second Amendment to carry a firearm in public for self-defense." This is certainly an important issue, but it is not the question we are called upon to answer. The Plaintiffs are not seeking a general license to carry firearms in public for self-defense — they are seeking a license to carry concealed firearms in public." Peruta dissent at 1181.

    "Although all the nineteenth-century cases cited by the majority cautioned against restrictions on the open carrying of weapons, none of them — except the discredited, outlier Bliss — suggests that restrictions on carrying concealed weapons implicate the Second Amendment. See Chandler, 1 La.Ann. at 490; Nunn, 1 Ga. at 251; Reid, 1 Ala. at 616-17. And nothing in these cases or Chase's Blackstone even hints that a restriction on carrying concealed weapons would become invalid if restrictions were placed on open carry. Rather, they suggest that restrictions on concealed carry are always valid, while there are limits to restrictions on open carry." Peruta dissent at 1195

    Note that it is “the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller” which is binding on all states and local governments via the McDonald decision. Not the imagined right to carry concealed which the Supreme Court in Heller clearly states is not a right under the Second Amendment.

    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org
    Last edited by California Right To Carry; 04-04-2016 at 01:53 PM.
    Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don't carry a purse.

    Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
    Posts
    398
    Well here's an IL case just released that seems to hold an OC ban is OK if CCW is available: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...=2&as_sdt=6,49 Although it's a pro se (non criminal) stinker apparently

  19. #19
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    450
    Quote Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
    Well here's an IL case just released that seems to hold an OC ban is OK if CCW is available: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...=2&as_sdt=6,49 Although it's a pro se (non criminal) stinker apparently
    You forgot to mention that the decision is by the same judge who ruled in favor of the state in Moore v. Madigan and the "authority" she relied on in holding that Illinois can ban the Open Carry of long guns is the Friedman "assault" rifle case which in turn held that a ban on a Second Amendment right is constitutional in order to protect the "feelings" of people who don't like the Second Amendment right.

    Fortunately, in my California Open Carry lawsuit the State of California concurs that concealed carry substantially burdens my ability to defend myself, even if I lived in a jurisdiction where a concealed carry permit is available and I, in fact, had a concealed carry permit. Not to mention the state's concession during the en banc oral arguments for Peruta/Richards last June that the Second Amendment right extends beyond the curtilage of the home but for Open Carry, not concealed carry.

    Also, the "aggravated" statute (carrying a loaded firearm) which was struck down in Moore v. Madigan is the same statute I am challenging in California with the exception that California does not have incorporated "towns and villages" an unlike the invalidated Illinois statute, the California ban extends into unincorporated county territory. Were the court of appeals to uphold the same law in California that was struck down in Illinois constitutes a SCOTUS Rule 10 split which Peruta/Richards won't have when the 9th Circuit en banc court holds that there is no right to carry a concealed weapon in public, as per the Heller decision.

    Fortunately, a district court decision does not extend beyond the parties in a case and in this particular case, the defendant wasn't even the proper party to sue which makes the judge's conclusion of law non-binding on the Plaintiff. She is free to file a new lawsuit against the proper party (Attorney General of Illinois).

    The one thing we are certain of is that she will not receive any help from the NRA or SAF.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	NRA Suckers.jpg 
Views:	73 
Size:	97.4 KB 
ID:	13053
    Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don't carry a purse.

    Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

  20. #20
    Activist Member swinokur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Montgomery County, MD
    Posts
    968
    District Court denies request for a stay.

  21. #21
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    450

    Post Gura filed in court of appeals an emergency motion to stay district court proceedings

    Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – April 29, 2016 – There has been nothing new in the district court case. There has been a lot of activity in the appeal. The Plaintiffs’ attorney, Alan Gura, seems to have finally realized that if there is a judgment in his district court case before there is a decision in his appeal then his appeal becomes moot. On April 25, Gura filed a motion for an emergency stay of the district court proceedings followed shortly by the District of Columbia filing an opposition to the stay.

    If for any reason the links above to the motion and opposition do no work, they can be downloaded at my website under the April 29, 2016 Update -> http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=2619
    Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don't carry a purse.

    Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,968
    Quote Originally Posted by California Right To Carry View Post
    Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – April 29, 2016 – There has been nothing new in the district court case. There has been a lot of activity in the appeal. The Plaintiffs’ attorney, Alan Gura, seems to have finally realized that if there is a judgment in his district court case before there is a decision in his appeal then his appeal becomes moot. On April 25, Gura filed a motion for an emergency stay of the district court proceedings followed shortly by the District of Columbia filing an opposition to the stay.

    If for any reason the links above to the motion and opposition do no work, they can be downloaded at my website under the April 29, 2016 Update -> http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=2619
    Why would one ask the gov't to rule that their tyranny is perfectly OK ? Seems odd to me. IMO gov't officials cannot vote on laws that affect your rights - as rights are rights, we don't need further affirmation. This would include votes from people in robes.

    But I still like your posts Calf. Man ..

  23. #23
    Activist Member swinokur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Montgomery County, MD
    Posts
    968
    attached

  24. #24
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    450

    Post Today, Gura filed a Reply to D.C.'s opposition to emergency stay.

    From my website -> http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=2619

    Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – May 3, 2016 – Today, Gura filed a Reply to DC Opposition to Stay.

    Gura's emergency motion for a stay, D.C.'s opposition to the stay and Gura' reply to the D.C., opposition are all three available online at my website, above the fold, for those who are interested in reading those types of things.
    Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don't carry a purse.

    Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

  25. #25
    Activist Member swinokur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Montgomery County, MD
    Posts
    968
    Stay denied yesterday 2 to 1

    Clerk was directed to schedule argument on an expedited basis in September.
    Last edited by swinokur; 05-07-2016 at 09:45 AM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •