|
|
07-25-2017, 01:45 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 11,371
Likes: 9,390
Liked 17,312 Times in 6,653 Posts
|
|
2A Case out of DC Circuit Court of Appeals
A DC Federal Court Just Ruled Carrying Guns In Public Is A "Core" 2nd Amendment Right
Quote:
A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down Washington, DC's latest attempt to limit residents from carrying guns in public.
The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit held in a 2-1 decision that public carrying of firearms is a "core" Second Amendment right, and that the District's regulations amounted to a "total ban" on exercising that right. The ruling breaks with several federal appeals courts that upheld similar regulations in other states.
"For that long struggle against gun violence, you might see in today’s decision a defeat; you might see the opposite. To say whether it is one or the other is beyond our ken here. We are bound to leave the District as much space to regulate as the Constitution allows — but no more," DC Circuit Judge Thomas Griffith wrote in the majority opinion.
|
For anyone who wants to read the entire opinion, here is the link.
__________________
Can open, worms everywhere.
|
The Following 5 Users Like Post:
|
|
07-25-2017, 05:09 PM
|
Banned
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 12,572
Likes: 21,054
Liked 32,463 Times in 7,773 Posts
|
|
It's interesting to me that Judge Griffith cites Heller.
He also states that, "... listening closely to Heller I reveals this much at least: the Second Amendment erects some absolute barriers that no gun law may breach."
That's pretty definitive, in and of itself. In effect, it's just another way of saying "shall not be infringed." It's a strong judicial opinion.
|
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
|
|
07-25-2017, 05:21 PM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: SE PA
Posts: 972
Likes: 292
Liked 2,548 Times in 653 Posts
|
|
Thrilled to read about the decision. We are moving closer to SCOTUS hearing a case on the question of open carry. Can't happen soon enough for me.
|
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
|
|
07-25-2017, 05:34 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Denver area
Posts: 6,255
Likes: 20,296
Liked 13,125 Times in 4,180 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by richardw
Thrilled to read about the decision. We are moving closer to SCOTUS hearing a case on the question of open carry. Can't happen soon enough for me.
|
Be careful what you wish for.
|
The Following 7 Users Like Post:
|
|
07-25-2017, 06:12 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 30,825
Likes: 58,106
Liked 53,123 Times in 16,570 Posts
|
|
Thank you once again Alan Gura. Also, a good reason why I financially support GOA and the SAF also.
__________________
Sure you did
Last edited by ladder13; 07-25-2017 at 06:34 PM.
|
The Following 5 Users Like Post:
|
|
07-25-2017, 06:17 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Arizona
Posts: 2,234
Likes: 2,809
Liked 5,796 Times in 1,453 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rpg
Be careful what you wish for.
|
I like our chances
|
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
|
|
07-25-2017, 06:27 PM
|
Banned
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 12,572
Likes: 21,054
Liked 32,463 Times in 7,773 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by richardw
Thrilled to read about the decision. We are moving closer to SCOTUS hearing a case on the question of open carry. Can't happen soon enough for me.
|
Are you referring to a specific case? If so, which one?
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
07-25-2017, 06:37 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Arizona
Posts: 2,234
Likes: 2,809
Liked 5,796 Times in 1,453 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by richardw
Thrilled to read about the decision. We are moving closer to SCOTUS hearing a case on the question of open carry. Can't happen soon enough for me.
|
From what I read this has to do with carry outside the home period to include concealed carry permits which is the basis of the suit.
|
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
|
|
07-27-2017, 10:51 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: PRNJ
Posts: 6,749
Likes: 477
Liked 16,757 Times in 3,313 Posts
|
|
This is really BIG!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ladder13
Thank you once again Alan Gura. Also, a good reason why I financially support GOA and the SAF also.
|
Thank you Alan Gura
First Heller
Then McDonald
Now Wrenn
Thank you Second Amendment Foundation
Second Amendment Foundation
Thank you
Joseph Tartaro
Alan M. Gottlieb
Julianne Versnel
Thank you Mathew Grace and the Pink Pistols
Pink Pistols – Pick On Someone Your Own Caliber
Thank you to all who have sworn to protect and defend the Constitution
I believe that the Supreme Court has been waiting for the right case out of the District of Columbia
This could be it
Did I say this is BIG?
__________________
Buy American
Vote Responsibly
Last edited by bushmaster1313; 07-27-2017 at 11:18 PM.
|
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
|
|
07-27-2017, 11:13 PM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2015
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 5,372
Likes: 104,950
Liked 22,296 Times in 4,529 Posts
|
|
Well, this is good news, but I wouldn't get too excited. DC will request a hearing by the entire DC Circuit, which IIRC, (and I may be off a couple numbers) consists of 11 Justices, 7 of which were appointed by Democratic Presidents. They will probably over turn this decision, and then the Plaintiffs will try to appeal to SCOTUS, and I would not be at all surprised if they declined to hear the case, and we will be right back where we were a week ago.
I hope that I am wrong. Many things could happen in the meantime. This will not happen overnight. My predictions may not happen at all, and I may be completely off base. A liberal Justice might retire, and President Trump might replace him or her with a conservative. And they might join the court by then....although I'm not holding my breath.
I hope that this is a step forward, but I am pessimistic.
Best Regards, Les
__________________
SWCA 3084, SWHF 495, PGCA 3064
|
The Following 8 Users Like Post:
|
|
08-03-2017, 10:32 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: PRNJ
Posts: 6,749
Likes: 477
Liked 16,757 Times in 3,313 Posts
|
|
The District has 30 days from July 25 to ask for rehearing en banc
En banc ruling would likely be against the 2nd Amendment and result in Gura and the Plaintiffs appealing to the Supreme Court, who does not have to take the case.
If I recall correctly, the DC Circuit did not agree to hear Heller en banc and it went straight to the Supreme Court, who upheld the Circuit win fr the 2nd Amendment.
Here I suspect the Circuit will take a long time to decide whether to take the case en banc.
__________________
Buy American
Vote Responsibly
|
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
|
|
08-03-2017, 10:57 PM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2015
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 5,372
Likes: 104,950
Liked 22,296 Times in 4,529 Posts
|
|
Bushmaster, I wasn't trying to dash cold water on your post. I want to be as excited as you were in your first post. And I agree that we all owe a big thanks to Alan Gura and all of the others who you named above. Maybe I have just gotten pessimistic over the years, although I am still excited over the victories you cited. I sure hope that this is the right case, at the right time. Thanks to the OP and all of the others who posted here.
Best Regards, Les
__________________
SWCA 3084, SWHF 495, PGCA 3064
|
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
|
|
08-20-2017, 08:43 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: PRNJ
Posts: 6,749
Likes: 477
Liked 16,757 Times in 3,313 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bushmaster1313
The District has 30 days from July 25 to ask for rehearing en banc
En banc ruling would likely be against the 2nd Amendment and result in Gura and the Plaintiffs appealing to the Supreme Court, who does not have to take the case.
If I recall correctly, the DC Circuit did not agree to hear Heller en banc and it went straight to the Supreme Court, who upheld the Circuit win fr the 2nd Amendment.
Here I suspect the Circuit will take a long time to decide whether to take the case en banc.
|
District must decide this week to appeal en banc or to Supreme Court.
I hope it goes directly to Suprem Court but that is unlikely
__________________
Buy American
Vote Responsibly
Last edited by bushmaster1313; 08-20-2017 at 11:54 AM.
|
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
|
|
08-24-2017, 01:46 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: PRNJ
Posts: 6,749
Likes: 477
Liked 16,757 Times in 3,313 Posts
|
|
Update
Unclear whether District must file petition for rehearing by midnight tonight, August 25, or if it is an agency of the United States that has an extra 15 days.
__________________
Buy American
Vote Responsibly
Last edited by bushmaster1313; 08-24-2017 at 02:31 PM.
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
08-24-2017, 09:03 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: PRNJ
Posts: 6,749
Likes: 477
Liked 16,757 Times in 3,313 Posts
|
|
Petition for en banc review was filed today, August 24
This is a unfortunate but expected development. Just as in the Peruta case out of California, the en banc DC Circuit could negate the right to carry win and the Supreme Court could decline to take up the case
__________________
Buy American
Vote Responsibly
Last edited by bushmaster1313; 08-24-2017 at 09:25 PM.
|
08-29-2017, 05:13 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: PRNJ
Posts: 6,749
Likes: 477
Liked 16,757 Times in 3,313 Posts
|
|
I just looked up the rule
The winning party (in this case the pro 2A party) cannot file a response to the request for a rehearing en banc unless granted permission by the court.
The ruling is stayed pending resolution of the request for rehearing
Anything other than a denial of rehearing would be bad for the 2A
__________________
Buy American
Vote Responsibly
|
08-29-2017, 07:05 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 11,371
Likes: 9,390
Liked 17,312 Times in 6,653 Posts
|
|
It would be most unusual for the winning party to request a rehearing on a case that they had, uh, won.
An en banc rehearing wouldn't necessarily be bad for 2A supporters. When an appeal is heard, the rule is that the evidence must be looked at in the light most favorable to the non moving party. The non moving party being the side that won the last round.
Of course if the court refuses to rehear the case, it effectively becomes the law of the land due to the fact that it's the Appeals Court for the District of Columbia. At least that's how I understand it. Not being a lawyer and all, there is a good chance I don't understand it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bushmaster1313
I just looked up the rule
The winning party (in this case the pro 2A party) cannot file a response to the request for a rehearing en banc unless granted permission by the court.
The ruling is stayed pending resolution of the request for rehearing
Anything other than a denial of rehearing would be bad for the 2A
|
__________________
Can open, worms everywhere.
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
08-29-2017, 07:39 PM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2015
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 5,372
Likes: 104,950
Liked 22,296 Times in 4,529 Posts
|
|
Well, not going to predict how this is all going to pan out, but to the best of my knowledge, here are the 11 judges who compose the DC appellate court. And the presidents who appointed them...which may give us a clue as to their judicial philosophy. Or not. Out of the 11, 7 were appointed by Democratic Presidents, and 4 by Republicans. One, I hear, is retiring at the end of August, this year. Janice Rogers Brown. I'm not an expert on this, but I am just throwing this out there FWIW.
Chief Judge Merrick B. Garland 1997–present — Clinton
Circuit Judge Karen L. Henderson 1990–present — G.H.W. Bush
Circuit Judge Judith Ann Wilson 1994–present — Clinton
Circuit Judge David S. Tatel 1994–present — Clinton
Circuit Judge Janice Rogers Brown 2005–present — G.W. Bush
Circuit Judge Thomas B. Griffith 2005–present — G.W. Bush
Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh 2006–present — G.W. Bush
Circuit Judge Sri Srinivasan 2013–present — Obama
Circuit Judge Patricia Ann Millett 2013–present — Obama
Circuit Judge Cornelia T.L. Pillard 2013–present — Obama
Circuit Judge Robert L. Wilkins 2014–present — Obama
Best Regards, Les
__________________
SWCA 3084, SWHF 495, PGCA 3064
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
08-30-2017, 10:33 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: PRNJ
Posts: 6,749
Likes: 477
Liked 16,757 Times in 3,313 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryS
It would be most unusual for the winning party to request a rehearing on a case that they had, uh, won.
An en banc rehearing wouldn't necessarily be bad for 2A supporters. When an appeal is heard, the rule is that the evidence must be looked at in the light most favorable to the non moving party. The non moving party being the side that won the last round.
Of course if the court refuses to rehear the case, it effectively becomes the law of the land due to the fact that it's the Appeals Court for the District of Columbia. At least that's how I understand it. Not being a lawyer and all, there is a good chance I don't understand it.
|
The losing party has petitioned the full circuit to rehear the case
The winning party is not allowed to say anything to the circuit about the petition to rehear unless the circuit grants permission.
A rehearing would be very bad. The full circuit would hear the appeal all over again. Moreover, INHO they would only agree to rehear if they were prepared to negate the pro 2A win
BTW I am a lawyer.
__________________
Buy American
Vote Responsibly
Last edited by bushmaster1313; 08-30-2017 at 10:36 PM.
|
09-03-2017, 10:51 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: PRNJ
Posts: 6,749
Likes: 477
Liked 16,757 Times in 3,313 Posts
|
|
On August 31 the D.C. Circuit ordered the plaintiff (the pro right to carry winning party) to file a response to the petition for rehearing en banc. It is due September 15.
__________________
Buy American
Vote Responsibly
Last edited by bushmaster1313; 09-03-2017 at 11:24 PM.
|
09-18-2017, 07:47 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: PRNJ
Posts: 6,749
Likes: 477
Liked 16,757 Times in 3,313 Posts
|
|
The pro 2A plaintiffs today filed their brief as to why the full D.C. Circuit should not rehear the case.
Read this and be proud of those who work to defend the 2A in the courts
http://blog.californiarighttocarry.o...ng-En-Banc.pdf
__________________
Buy American
Vote Responsibly
Last edited by bushmaster1313; 09-18-2017 at 11:16 PM.
|
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
|
|
09-18-2017, 08:08 PM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2015
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 5,372
Likes: 104,950
Liked 22,296 Times in 4,529 Posts
|
|
Thanks for the update. That is a beautifully crafted document....sure hope it is effective.
Yes, I am proud of the work that these scholars do!!
Best Regards, Les
__________________
SWCA 3084, SWHF 495, PGCA 3064
|
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
|
|
09-28-2017, 04:05 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Liked 25 Times in 11 Posts
|
|
En Banc DENIED!!! None of the Judges even requested a vote. Link to Alan Gura on Twitter:
Twitter
|
The Following 4 Users Like Post:
|
|
09-28-2017, 05:01 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 11,371
Likes: 9,390
Liked 17,312 Times in 6,653 Posts
|
|
Holy Guacamole! This YUGE, YUGE I tell you. Seriously, it's a very good decision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe F
En Banc DENIED!!! None of the Judges even requested a vote. Link to Alan Gura on Twitter:
Twitter
|
__________________
Can open, worms everywhere.
|
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
|
|
09-28-2017, 06:43 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 30,825
Likes: 58,106
Liked 53,123 Times in 16,570 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe F
En Banc DENIED!!! None of the Judges even requested a vote. Link to Alan Gura on Twitter:
Twitter
|
Once again, thank you Alan Gura
Oh, how could I forget the GOA and The SAF for taking the fight to the enemy. Bravo!
Check is in the mail.
Appeals Court Denies D.C.'s Request for Full Court Hearing on Gun-Carry Law Struck Down in July
Last edited by ladder13; 09-28-2017 at 06:50 PM.
|
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
|
|
09-29-2017, 08:51 AM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,254
Likes: 1,218
Liked 2,481 Times in 714 Posts
|
|
So does this decision give the Supreme Court the signal to get involved since the country judicial courts are split?
|
09-29-2017, 12:23 PM
|
Banned
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 20,895
Likes: 85,108
Liked 22,838 Times in 10,553 Posts
|
|
A fist-pumping YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS.
|
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
|
|
09-29-2017, 12:34 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Liked 25 Times in 11 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by peyton
So does this decision give the Supreme Court the signal to get involved since the country judicial courts are split?
|
Only if the DC Government files for cert in SCOTUS. If they don't, the ruling will stand and DC will become Shall Issue.
|
09-30-2017, 02:48 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 11,371
Likes: 9,390
Liked 17,312 Times in 6,653 Posts
|
|
If they do petition for cert. and SCOTUS denies the petition, does this effectively become the law of the land? I ask in the context of Warren v. DC, but can't remember the details of how that worked other than Warren's petition was denied.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe F
Only if the DC Government files for cert in SCOTUS. If they don't, the ruling will stand and DC will become Shall Issue.
|
__________________
Can open, worms everywhere.
|
09-30-2017, 09:13 PM
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 2,510
Likes: 18,622
Liked 4,687 Times in 1,722 Posts
|
|
Saw this in my NRA Legislative updates. Seems like good news.
|
10-01-2017, 06:49 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: In the Cloud
Posts: 1,736
Likes: 2,252
Liked 1,872 Times in 582 Posts
|
|
Since this is a federal decision does it have implications for states that do not yet have shall issue laws ?
__________________
I like Ike.
|
10-01-2017, 03:54 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,770
Likes: 3,338
Liked 4,269 Times in 1,042 Posts
|
|
The anti-gun folks are backed into a corner from all sides. With National Reciprocity coming through Congress, and the this decision out of DC, and a possible SCOTUS ruling, anti-gun states days are numbered, one way or another. NY, NJ, CA, MA: soon to be shall issue, whether they like it or not.
|
10-01-2017, 05:30 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 11,371
Likes: 9,390
Liked 17,312 Times in 6,653 Posts
|
|
I'm not holding my breath on national reciprocity. Ryan is holding it up, no doubt for some sort of trade off. He'll kill it if he can get something that he really wants.
SCOTUS has a chance to decide that in McDonald. Justice Thomas agreed with the decision, but wanted it decided on the "Privileges or Immunities" clause in the 14th Amendment. SCOTUS killed that in the 1800s in the Slaughter House case, but Thomas would have resurrected it. Unfortunately, he was the only Justice who felt that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by American1776
The anti-gun folks are backed into a corner from all sides. With National Reciprocity coming through Congress, and the this decision out of DC, and a possible SCOTUS ruling, anti-gun states days are numbered, one way or another. NY, NJ, CA, MA: soon to be shall issue, whether they like it or not.
|
__________________
Can open, worms everywhere.
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
10-02-2017, 12:32 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: PRNJ
Posts: 6,749
Likes: 477
Liked 16,757 Times in 3,313 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryS
If they do petition for cert. and SCOTUS denies the petition, does this effectively become the law of the land? I ask in the context of Warren v. DC, but can't remember the details of how that worked other than Warren's petition was denied.
|
No!
Will only apply in DC and Supreme Court is able to take issue up later if it wants in another case.
Moreover, even if Supreme Court takes and decides this case in favor of right to carry, judges in anti carry states could still say the ruling only applies in D.C. This is why McDonald had to be decided for Illinois and the othe 49 states after Heller won in Supreme Court for DC. It has to do with which parts of the original Bill of Rights were made applicable against the states under the 14th Amendment.
__________________
Buy American
Vote Responsibly
Last edited by bushmaster1313; 10-02-2017 at 05:51 PM.
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
10-05-2017, 05:30 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: North Florida
Posts: 3,097
Likes: 5,674
Liked 5,191 Times in 1,861 Posts
|
|
Fox is reporting that DC will not appeal. Worries about wide ranging impacts if SCOTUS rules against DC stated as one of the reasons.
__________________
Reg. Magnum wants/Rossi wallet
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
10-05-2017, 07:31 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 11,371
Likes: 9,390
Liked 17,312 Times in 6,653 Posts
|
|
The DC Attorney General stated that he received calls from other "may issue" states that don't want this to go to SCOTUS.
Unfortunately, this leaves a serious circuit split, with only one Circuit (the 1st) with no case law on the subject. There is at least one case in MA, which is challenging their may issue law. What's going to happen with that is anyone's guess.
Circuits 2, 3, 4, and 9 have upheld may-issue. 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11 have no may-issue states. Add DC to that list, and it leaves only one, the 1 CA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bugkiller99
Fox is reporting that DC will not appeal. Worries about wide ranging impacts if SCOTUS rules against DC stated as one of the reasons.
|
__________________
Can open, worms everywhere.
|
10-06-2017, 07:33 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 8,778
Likes: 19,571
Liked 11,885 Times in 5,395 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bugkiller99
Fox is reporting that DC will not appeal. Worries about wide ranging impacts if SCOTUS rules against DC stated as one of the reasons.
|
Yep, should the SCOTUS have heard the case and ruled that "may issue" was unconstitutional, it would have forced all states to become "shall issue".
|
10-07-2017, 08:40 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: PRNJ
Posts: 6,749
Likes: 477
Liked 16,757 Times in 3,313 Posts
|
|
No
Just DC
__________________
Buy American
Vote Responsibly
|
10-07-2017, 08:56 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: PRNJ
Posts: 6,749
Likes: 477
Liked 16,757 Times in 3,313 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryS
The DC Attorney General stated that he received calls from other "may issue" states that don't want this to go to SCOTUS.
Unfortunately, this leaves a serious circuit split, with only one Circuit (the 1st) with no case law on the subject. There is at least one case in MA, which is challenging their may issue law. What's going to happen with that is anyone's guess.
Circuits 2, 3, 4, and 9 have upheld may-issue. 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11 have no may-issue states. Add DC to that list, and it leaves only one, the 1 CA.
|
I have not been dinged in over a year
I will be quiet and ask moderators to close the thread
__________________
Buy American
Vote Responsibly
|
|
Posting Rules
|
|
|
|
|