2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 111,970
- 52,237
- 2,290
Yep...a win for Civil Rights...
Appeals Court Denies D.C.'s Request for Full Court Hearing on Gun-Carry Law Struck Down in July
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."
Appeals Court Denies D.C.'s Request for Full Court Hearing on Gun-Carry Law Struck Down in July
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."
