« My new book is in release today! | Main | Nancy Pelosi has a .... »
DC Circuit denies en banc review in Wrenn v. DC
Order here. Wrenn struck down the strict "may issue" DC standard for carry permits, adopted to try to deal with Heller. David Kopel discusses the panel decision, which was upheld when the petition for en banc review was denied.
7 Comments | Leave a comment
and NJ and NY and a few other places
I'm guessing it's a circuit split, which might mean SCOTUS either takes it, or allows DC to have shall-issue while the others do not.
Hoping that RBG is feeling very tired right now, wants to spend more time with grandkids
This is how we win.
When we get the SC on a win, as we did in HELLER and MACDONALD then the SC will take the case.
If we get there on a loss then the SC denies cert for some reason.
This gives me hope that the same 5 who gave us the wins there (with Gorsuch replacing Scalia) will do the same thing here and confirm that "to bear" means to carry outside the home.
If we can get that then I think the 2A will actually be saveable.
of course that means that DC has to appeal the decision.
Well we finally and irrevocably have a circuit split on our hands here. That's the good news.
DC does not have to appeal unfortunately. If they don't the only way left to get this kind of case the US Supreme Court is to get an action going in Massachusetts because that's the only state left where they have this kind of screwed up gun laws still on the books called and it's also in the first circuit which is not yet ruled on this mess.
Does Alan Gura or anybody else reasonable have a case going against discretionary CCW in Massachusetts?
It's possible the DC will appeal it because they might be assuming at the fact that this kind of case was shot down when they came up from the second third fourth and ninth circuits that this is a signal the US Supreme Court doesn't want to support a right to carry. Or read that as they see Kennedy as weak on the issue.
I do no thing this constitutes the type of appellate split that makes a cert necessary or likely.
The classic split mandate for cert is a split that caused the problem of "venue shopping" and unpredictability for interstate issues, neither of which is present.
DC's case is different and may not be a precedent even if it goes to SCOTUS and Wrenn and Gura win. DC has uniquely set it self up as at much more risk than Peruta and other cases.Essentially DC has argued it can ration a right, with regulations intentionally set up to reduce access to the right to the smallest group of people possible as a public good and purpose of the law.
NJ, Cali, NY, Maryland have not taken that stance, and DC is uniquely exposed by having had its laws and the court material in defense of them ghost written by the gun control lobby. Can you imagine a law with preemptive limits on assembly, not targeting an individual who has presented a known risk, but the population as a whole, backed by the explicit contention of legislators that the purpose of the law is to limit assembly in general as a public ill?
Good. How will this affect the situation in California?