2A Case out of DC Circuit Court of Appeals

[bushmaster1313]

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.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Joint-Response-of-Wrenn-and-Grace-to-Petition-for-Rehearing-En-Banc.pdf

 

[les.b]

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

 

[Joe F]

En Banc DENIED!!! None of the Judges even requested a vote. Link to Alan Gura on Twitter:

Twitter

 

[GaryS]

Holy Guacamole! This YUGE, YUGE I tell you. Seriously, it's a very good decision.

En Banc DENIED!!! None of the Judges even requested a vote. Link to Alan Gura on Twitter:

Twitter

 

[ladder13]

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

 

[peyton]

So does this decision give the Supreme Court the signal to get involved since the country judicial courts are split?

 

[the ringo kid]

A fist-pumping YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS.

 

[Joe F]

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.

 

[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.

Only if the DC Government files for cert in SCOTUS. If they don't, the ruling will stand and DC will become Shall Issue.

 

[llowry61]

Saw this in my NRA Legislative updates. Seems like good news.

 

[7shooter]

Since this is a federal decision does it have implications for states that do not yet have shall issue laws ?

 

[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.

 

[GaryS]

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.

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.

 

[bushmaster1313]

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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

Fox is reporting that DC will not appeal. Worries about wide ranging impacts if SCOTUS rules against DC stated as one of the reasons.

 

[stansdds]

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".

 

[bushmaster1313]

No
Just DC

 

[bushmaster1313]

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