Appeals Court Denies D.C.’s Request for Full Court Hearing on Gun-Carry Law Struck Down in July

[RamRoddoc]

"Gun rights activists celebrate ruling"

http://freebeacon.com/issues/appeal...full-court-hearing-gun-carry-law-struck-july/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/25/dc-law-requiring-good-reason-carry-handgun-rejecte/

http://thefederalistpapers.org/second-amendment-2/appeals-court-denies-dc-rehearing

The shocking thing are these political elected and their unelected "officials" self-granted the power to deny a right based upon a perceived need required in order to exercise it.

When this occurs with any right it has ceased to be one... Any citizen who has a measure of understanding of just what a right is should be hopeful that this practice is not tolerated.

Wrenn v. D.C. is the latest in a long series of challenges to the city's strict gun laws. The case centers around the city's gun-carry law, put in place after the previous ban on all gun-carry was declared unconstitutional, which allows city officials to deny a permit application based on whether they believe the applicant has a "good reason" for obtaining one. The plaintiffs complained that in practice this has resulted in very few gun-carry permits being issued in the city, with only 126 permits issued as of July 2017, and said the restriction is an unconstitutional infringement on their Second Amendment rights.

This puts the few states who have enacted "may carry" laws directly in the sights of SCOTUS and sets a precedent for future rulings. However, these states are/will legally maneuver to prohibit the right most despised.

 

[RamRoddoc]

Will D.C. take this to the SCOTUS? Will they risk the few states that engage in the practice of "may carry" requirements in order to exercise a right potentially ending this unconstitutional and unlawful practice?

http://thefederalistpapers.org/second-amendment-2/appeals-court-denies-dc-rehearing

The issue now, that I discussed back in July when the law’s good cause requirement was held unconstitutional, is that there is a Circuit split. The Ninth Circuit had once ruled in favor of plaintiff Edward Peruta in his case against San Diego, making the same case against “good cause” requirements.

The Ninth Circuit definitively shut that down, but the D.C. Court’s decision now leaves a Circuit split, making the Supreme Court more likely to take up the case. If they do, it is more likely than not that the Court will affirm the right to bear arms again, especially with Neil Gorsuch now situated on the Court.

 

[StuP]

And would SCOTUS hear it if they do ?

 

[RamRoddoc]

And would SCOTUS hear it if they do ?

When two federal courts split decision it opens up a case for our SCOTUS but will D.C. take the risk like they did with the 2008 Heller vs. D.C. decision (5:4)?

 

[GAgunLAWbooklet]

The U.S. 2nd Circuit (covers the states of NY, CT, and VT) has also weighed-in on this issue, and upheld NY's law (or at least one County Clerk's interpretation of that law) that says a citizen must have " good cause" to seek a pistol permit. That citizen must face an extraordinary risk, well above any normal citizen's risk of being a crime victim.

Quote from article from 2012 about the KACHALSKY ruling:

"...courts are confronting a critical question: whether the Second Amendment requires states to issue concealed handgun licenses to virtually anyone who wants one.

This week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit addressed that question, holding that New York’s requirement that concealed carry applicants show “a special need for self-protection” does not violate the Second Amendment. In Kachalsky v. Cacace, the court explained that the requirement of a showing of need is substantially related to the government’s important interests in preventing crime and guaranteeing public safety. "

http://smartgunlaws.org/tag/kachalsky-v-cacace/

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/reply_to_state_bio.pdf

 

[RamRoddoc]

The U.S. 2nd Circuit (covers the states of NY, CT, and VT) has also weighed-in on this issue, and upheld NY's law (or at least one County Clerk's interpretation of that law) that says a citizen must have " good cause" to seek a pistol permit. That citizen must face an extraordinary risk, well above any normal citizen's risk of being a crime victim.

Quote from article from 2012 about the KACHALSKY ruling:

"...courts are confronting a critical question: whether the Second Amendment requires states to issue concealed handgun licenses to virtually anyone who wants one.

This week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit addressed that question, holding that New York’s requirement that concealed carry applicants show “a special need for self-protection” does not violate the Second Amendment. In Kachalsky v. Cacace, the court explained that the requirement of a showing of need is substantially related to the government’s important interests in preventing crime and guaranteeing public safety. "

http://smartgunlaws.org/tag/kachalsky-v-cacace/

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/reply_to_state_bio.pdf

And all three courts are notably left leaning and generally supporting the 4 dissenting SCOTUS judges on the Heller vs. D.C. decision.

The remarkable thing is that this left leaning court was not supportive of D.C.s request and let the more constitutional decision stand.

Are we seeing a trend? Is this another nail of progress in the coffin of unconstitutional "may carry" laws? And will D.C. risk forcing the issue to our SCOTUS?