« Thug Culture and "Stop Snitching" | Main | Issue regarding Independent Counsel »
Wrenn v. DC: Big Win on Carrying
Opinion here. Alan Gura racks up another win, a big one. Rather dramatic. It involves two joined appeals, and below one court had temporarily enjoined the DC "may issue" carrying license law, and the other court refused to do so. The DC Circuit says that it's not going to send the appeals back down to the lower court, or deal with whether a temporary injunction (based on likelihood of winning rather than giving an actual win) is proper, instead it's going to order the lower courts to jump ahead and issue a permanent injunction against the law.
"At the Second Amendment's core lies the right of responsible citizens to carry firearms for personal self-defense beyond the home, subject to longstanding restrictions. These traditional limits include, for instance, licensing requirements, but not bans on carrying in urban areas like D.C. or bans on carrying absent a special need for self-defense. In fact, the Amendment's core at a minimum shields the typically situated citizen's ability to carry common arms generally. The District's good-reason law is necessarily a total ban on exercises of that constitutional right for most D.C. residents. That's enough to sink this law under Heller I.
. . . . . .
[T]he 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.
We vacate both orders below and remand with instructions to enter permanent injunctions against enforcement of the District's good-reason law."
4 Comments | Leave a comment
So, next is an en banc reversal and then an appeal to SCOTUS?
Hopefully, this is the 1st hammer whack on the stake that will run through the heart of New York's Sullivan Act, especially in NYC.
While some view these cases as wins, the truth is that these cases simply transfer power to the courts. There is sufficient evidence from the time of the framing to prove that 1) the federal government was granted NO authority to allow the DC Council to legislate on ANYTHING (Article I Section 8 - exclusive legislation) and 2) the federal government was never granted power to legislate on the right to keep and bear Arms (Federalist 84). In addition, the claims that the Bill of Rights did not bind the States (Barron v Baltimore 1833) was so bogus that only idiots accepted it. The placement and wording of the 2nd, and of the preamble to the BoR, prove that it applies to all governments at all levels through the supremacy clause of the Constitution. The placement makes the 2nd circumscribe all prior grants in the Constitution just as latter law circumscribes prior law. The wording also provides evidence that no law concerning the keeping and bearing of Arms is legitimate. This is not to say that the improper use, say killing someone or using such Arms to intimidate another, cannot be punished only that the government do not have authority to legislate, license, or otherwise infringe. It is because of the wrong decision in Barron(1833) that we have the more than 20,000 state laws on firearms.
Is the fact that it's a permanent injunction, and wasn't returned to the lower courts significant?
Any tea leaves to be read from that?