This one is complicated, so forgive me if I make a mistake.

 

After DC vs Heller in 2008 in  which the Supreme Court affirmed that citizens have a right to possess firearms in DC, DC implemented a huge number of regulatory hurdles and registration requirements, essentially denying citizens the right to own firearms in DC.

 

Heller II was a case that basically challenged almost all of those requirements.  The suit took a number of years to end up in the District Court.

You can see that case here: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/46AD1BE68518069B85257EC400534ABB/$file/14-7071-1573768.pdf

 

The district lost that case in September 2015.  They filed for an en banc hearing to overturn the loss.

 

That En Banc hearing was denied today.  http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/2-26-16%20heller%20II%20en%20banc%20denial.pdf

 

This has some implications for gun rights everywhere, but I'm not entirely sure what yet.  The general notion you can take from it is that strict regulatory requirements for gun ownership is unconstitutional.   The specifics of which I'm unclear on at this time.

From 5 minutes of reading 2/3 judges saw that re-registration every 3 years, one gun per month, and a knowledge test were overly burdensome but registration and an assault weapons ban were ok.

So that means that the original ruling declaring DC's gun laws unconstitutional stands?

 

And still we have no hope of getting CCW in NJ.  (See the thread on the SAPPA lawsuit.)

So that means that the original ruling declaring DC's gun laws unconstitutional stands?

 

And still we have no hope of getting CCW in NJ.  (See the thread on the SAPPA lawsuit.)

 

Pretty much.

So that means that the original ruling declaring DC's gun laws unconstitutional stands?

 

And still we have no hope of getting CCW in NJ. (See the thread on the SAPPA lawsuit.)

This has nothing to do with CCW