Latest ruling from D.C.

District Court enjoins DC CCW law

May issue provisions which required a showing of "good reason" too restrictive.

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/local/judges-opinion-in-dc-gun-case/1996/

Beat me by 10 minutes, LOL

Judge Leon certainly pulled no punches there. Salient highlights: "borders on the frivolous" and "What poppycock!" You don't see that every day. Thanks for the post.

The ruling may be stayed pending appeal, but if it isn't and the District's Police Department or other law enforcement agencies continue to enforce it, they would be open to lawsuits brought by those who suffered injury as a result.

They might or might not prevail, but the possibility of substantial awards given to plaintiffs might cause D.C. to back off.

Hopefully this will also apply to Maryland.

roscoe said:

Hopefully this will also apply to Maryland.

Click to expand...

Unless it goes to SCOTUS and they find in favor of the plaintiffs, then no, not directly. Other courts may cite it as guidance, but it is not binding.

The only place this applies is DC until that point.

Doesn't apply to MD. Different Circuit.

May be the beginning of the end for "may issue"

Perhaps; we at least seem to have two judges at opposite coasts raising fundamental concerns with the institution, which we haven't really seen previously. It appears they are at least attempting to force discussion of the merits/justification, which is honestly all we've ever wanted. Logic should take care of the rest at that point

TCB

DC says it will appeal.

No surprise.

MPDC now accepting applications without "good reason" They will even waive fees.

I expect this to be rescinded when and if they appeal and get a stay

Meanwhile the First District rules in the complete opposite direction. Why this case even when to Federal court is a mystery since Rhode Island is a shall issue state.

http://www.providencejournal.com/ne...dge-upholds-bristols-concealed-weapons-policy

This was a District Court decision, not a Circuit ruling was it not?

This was a District Court decision, not a Circuit ruling was it not?

Click to expand...

Correct, my mistake.

Hopefully he'll appeal and create a circuit sp[lit. Needs to get to SCOTUS (with 9 justices)

Both the DC and RI decisions turned on whether there is a 2A right to bear arms outside the home. There is already a circuit split on that issue.

The real question is why anyone would want SCOTUS to resolve that circuit split right now. That was a crapshoot before Scalia died. The best we could hope for right now would be a tie (and I wouldn't even bet on that much), and frankly, I have a very uneasy feeling that we could end up with a very 2A unfriendly supreme court real soon...

FYI, logic means absolutely nothing in cases like these. If the current justices don't like the what Heller's logic dictates, believe me, they'll have no problem at all making something else up.

Frank Ettin said:

And that's an excellent question.

Personally, I don't think we want any Second Amendment cases going to SCOTUS right now.

Click to expand...

I tend to agree... however, Ive pondered the Peruta scenario in the 9th and I'm a little fuzzy.


My understanding is that if SCOTUS is tied, then the 9th's ruling stands or maybe SCOTUS can just kick it back to the 9th with out any ruling.

I'm not sure if my understanding is correct so far. But if it is....

Currently, the latest ruling from the 9th is in a pro 2A status, and the CA AG appealed to En Banc hearing.

If the en banc hearing rules consistent with the 1st decision by the 9th ... that's good!


I'm probably not wording this well.....

If the en banc determination is in conflict with the initial 9th decision, and it goes to SCOTUS, and then ends up in a tie, what happens?


I know this is a bit head of ourselves, and I don't want to argue the merit of the case itself, but what happens then? Which decision stands?

"FYI, logic means absolutely nothing in cases like these. If the current justices don't like the what Heller's logic dictates, believe me, they'll have no problem at all making something else up."
I wasn't talking about court splits so much as the fact that more prominent judges seem to be giving serious consideration to the arguments that have been made for some three decades, now. Typically, it's either "these aren't militia weapons per Miller, denied," or "not in common use per Heller, denied" while completely ignoring the obvious logical fallacy/circular argument these two oversimplifications create.

Could just be as simple as the DC judges taking some umbrage at the fact their rulings --plainly intended to increase the number of permits being issued to some significant degree at the very least-- are still being twisted and ignored to maintain the status quo of a de facto moratorium (that's all the Latin I know ) on concealed carry.

TCB

Thanks Frank.

That's roughly what I was afraid the answer would be.

D.C. Attorney General Ignores Court Order, Refuses Gun Permits

http://thefederalist.com/2016/05/25/dc-attorney-general-ignores-court-order-refuses-gun-permits/

D.C. Attorney General Ignores Court Order, Refuses Gun Permits

MAY 25, 2016 By Devin Watkins

Less than a year ago, Kim Davis ignored a court order from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky and refused to issue a marriage license to same-sex couples. She was held in contempt of court, served five days in jail, and was ruthlessly attacked in the media.

Now the office of Karl Racine, the Washington, D.C. attorney general, has ordered D.C. government employees to ignore a court order from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The order by the D.C. District Court Judge Richard Leon was to stop denying individuals applying for a concealed-carry permit from requiring a “good reason,” and to immediately update the forms to no longer require that.

Click to expand...

Well it would seem that the next move is up to the Court. Should the Judge do so he has various ways to enforce his Order.

But I suspect that the District may have filed a Notice of Appeal, and if so the Court may have decided to suspend enforcement, pending whatever the higher court may or may not decide to do.

In other words, stayed tuned.