WRENN et al v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al 2.0

[davidmcbeth]

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 ..

 

[swinokur]

attached

 

[California Right To Carry]

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.

 

[swinokur]

Stay denied yesterday 2 to 1

Clerk was directed to schedule argument on an expedited basis in September.

 

[swinokur]

Clerk's order today: Oral argument set for Tuesday, Sept. 20, 2016

 

[California Right To Carry]

Don't forget the popcorn

Wrenn v. DC and Grace v. DC are both concealed carry cases and will both be heard before the same appellate panel.

Grace was granted a preliminary injunction which has been stayed. Wrenn was denied a preliminary injunction.

The basis for granting the preliminary injunction in Grace was the vacated (dead) divided three judge panel decision in Peruta v. San Diego. We now have an en banc panel decision which held that there is absolutely no right to carry concealed in public.

None of the plaintiffs challenged DC's Open Carry bans (sound familiar?).

Unlike the California Solicitor General's argument before the en banc panel in Peruta/Richards which conceded that the Second Amendment right extends beyond the curtilage of the home, but not for concealed carry (as per the Heller decision), the District of Columbia argues that it can constitutionally ban Open Carry and the Second Amendment is not infringed because DC provides for concealed carry permits (albeit with a good reason requirement).

As these are appeals of a preliminary injunction the court of appeals can easily kick Wrenn back to the district court under the circuit's "deferential standard" which generously defers to the district court as to whether or not a PI is granted.

The court can't rely on that standard in the Grace case. Either it agrees with the en banc decision in Peruta and reverses the grant of the preliminary injunction or it affirms the grant of the preliminary injunction which would in turn create a circuit split with Peruta (and every other Federal appellate case or state high court decision in which concealed carry lost).

In other words, lots of splits across the country, both state and Federal should Grace (or Wrenn) prevail.

But if the DC district court of appeals agrees with the en banc decision in Peruta then there are no circuit splits, other than a mushy one with Moore v. Madigan and only then if one erases the line where Posner said that Illinois can ban concealed carry if it wants to.

No SCOTUS Rule 10 split is pretty much a death sentence for a cert petition, particularly when SCOTUS has denied every other concealed carry cert petition.

These two cases are going to be a lot of fun to watch.

On a related note, if the DC circuit court of appeals finds the en banc decision in Peruta to be persuasive then DC can revoke all of the concealed carry permits it has issued and the Wrenn and Grace cases are, for all intents and purposes dead.

It would also set up a challenge for DC's Open Carry bans which will never happen because all of the leaders and attorneys for the so called gun-rights groups carry purses. :lol:

 

[press1280]

Wrenn v. DC and Grace v. DC are both concealed carry cases and will both be heard before the same appellate panel.

Grace was granted a preliminary injunction which has been stayed. Wrenn was denied a preliminary injunction.

The basis for granting the preliminary injunction in Grace was the vacated (dead) divided three judge panel decision in Peruta v. San Diego. We now have an en banc panel decision which held that there is absolutely no right to carry concealed in public.

None of the plaintiffs challenged DC's Open Carry bans (sound familiar?).

Unlike the California Solicitor General's argument before the en banc panel in Peruta/Richards which conceded that the Second Amendment right extends beyond the curtilage of the home, but not for concealed carry (as per the Heller decision), the District of Columbia argues that it can constitutionally ban Open Carry and the Second Amendment is not infringed because DC provides for concealed carry permits (albeit with a good reason requirement).

As these are appeals of a preliminary injunction the court of appeals can easily kick Wrenn back to the district court under the circuit's "deferential standard" which generously defers to the district court as to whether or not a PI is granted.

The court can't rely on that standard in the Grace case. Either it agrees with the en banc decision in Peruta and reverses the grant of the preliminary injunction or it affirms the grant of the preliminary injunction which would in turn create a circuit split with Peruta (and every other Federal appellate case or state high court decision in which concealed carry lost).

In other words, lots of splits across the country, both state and Federal should Grace (or Wrenn) prevail.

But if the DC district court of appeals agrees with the en banc decision in Peruta then there are no circuit splits, other than a mushy one with Moore v. Madigan and only then if one erases the line where Posner said that Illinois can ban concealed carry if it wants to.

No SCOTUS Rule 10 split is pretty much a death sentence for a cert petition, particularly when SCOTUS has denied every other concealed carry cert petition.

These two cases are going to be a lot of fun to watch.

On a related note, if the DC circuit court of appeals finds the en banc decision in Peruta to be persuasive then DC can revoke all of the concealed carry permits it has issued and the Wrenn and Grace cases are, for all intents and purposes dead.

It would also set up a challenge for DC's Open Carry bans which will never happen because all of the leaders and attorneys for the so called gun-rights groups carry purses. :lol:

Audio is up https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/recordings.nsf/

Limited discussion on open v. concealed carry. DC is not putting a whole lot of stock into Peruta and neither are Griffith and Williams. Instead DC was baited into essentially arguing for a total ban.

 

[California Right To Carry]

Audio is up https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/recordings.nsf/

Limited discussion on open v. concealed carry. DC is not putting a whole lot of stock into Peruta and neither are Griffith and Williams. Instead DC was baited into essentially arguing for a total ban.

And yet the second question asked of Gura was about Open Carry.

After an initial question by Judge Griffith regarding the US Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller which said that the need for self-defense is most acute in the home, the next question by Judge Griffith has proved to be fatal to every concealed carry lawsuit filed since the Heller decision was published in 2008.

Judge Griffith: There is a long history here of courts sustaining bans on concealed carry. Right?

Alan Gura: Sure.

Judge Griffith: And there is a long history … and the Court in Heller cited to some of those cases.

Alan Gura then proceeded to give his canned answer which claims that the government can choose to ban Open Carry in favor of concealed carry and the government can ban concealed carry in favor of Open Carry if it wants to when Judge Griffith interrupted.

Judge Griffith: And so you’re challenging the Open Carry [ban]?

Alan Gura: No!

Judge Griffith: Why not?

Alan Gura then concluded his canned answer that the government can choose one manner of carry over another and that the Heller decision said that government can ban Open Carry in favor of concealed carry.

Of course the Heller decision did not say that government can ban Open Carry in favor of concealed carry and no Federal court of appeals or state high court has read the Heller decision to say that. Just the opposite, every court has read the Heller decision to say that concealed carry can be banned and to the extent there is a right to carry arms in public, it is a right to openly carry arms.

http://newsblaze.com/business/legal/two-concealed-carry-cases-fire-blanks-in-u-s-court-of-appeals-for-the-district-of-columbia-circuit_64817/

 

[davidmcbeth]

There was a long history of slavery in the US too ... this part if Heller is always being used as an excuse for the .govs to tread on our rights.

I ignore all these ignorant .govs.