Hi Everyone

I just Read the article in the Political report in Shooting Illustrated about The July ruling By the US Court Of Appeals that found DC's "good reason" to be granted a CCW unconstitutional. Wouldn't the conflicting rulings between the DC Federal Court and the Jersey District Federal court force the SCOUS to a hearing to resolve the conflict? This is old news from back in July I'm just hearing about now. If its already been discussed  please direct me to the thread.

Thanks

It only forces a SCOTUS ruling if you think they care about consistency on an issue. They should, but maybe their willing to let it ride for a while

Probably waiting till someone files something to force them to make a decision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Daniel Schmutter a 2a lawyer that spoke at NJSAFECON yesterday https://njsafecon.net/featured-speaker-daniel-schmutter-esq/ said that these cases are all going in the right direction and its up to the right case to come along.

En Banc request denied!

http://freebeacon.com/issues/appeals-court-denies-d-c-s-request-full-court-hearing-gun-carry-law-struck-july/

23 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

En Banc request denied!

http://freebeacon.com/issues/appeals-court-denies-d-c-s-request-full-court-hearing-gun-carry-law-struck-july/

Yup!!!!!!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/appeals-court-order-blocks-enforcement-of-dcs-strict-gun-control-law/2017/09/28/04734362-a482-11e7-ade1-76d061d56efa_story.html 

 

Yup!!!!!!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/appeals-court-order-blocks-enforcement-of-dcs-strict-gun-control-law/2017/09/28/04734362-a482-11e7-ade1-76d061d56efa_story.html 
 

Is it likely to be pushed up to the Supreme Court?


Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

8 hours ago, deni said:

Is it likely to be pushed up to the Supreme Court?


Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
 

Some are saying.

"good reason" is dead in a week in D.C. 

14 minutes ago, Zeke said:

Some are saying.

"good reason" is dead in a week in D.C. 

That's the result of the ruling. No en banc means the original ruling stands and they have a week to adhere (or request a delay).  If they decide to challenge to SCOTUS they will also probably ask for an injunction. 

Just now, voyager9 said:

That's the result of the ruling. No en banc means the original ruling stands and they have a week to adhere (or request a delay).  If they decide to challenge to SCOTUS they will also probably ask for an injunction. 

I know 

That's the result of the ruling. No en banc means the original ruling stands and they have a week to adhere (or request a delay).  If they decide to challenge to SCOTUS they will also probably ask for an injunction. 

So they can either not challenge and have the reasonable need to carry abolished, or ask for an injunction from the Supreme Court?

Are there any other scenarios?

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

isn't dc one of the highest violent crime rates in the country? how can they justify not letting people carry proper self defense tools in light of that?

7 minutes ago, deni said:

So they can either not challenge and have the reasonable need to carry abolished, or ask for an injunction from the Supreme Court?

Are there any other scenarios?

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
 

Ask for an injunction from district court pending SCOTUS...

Quote

Washington, D.C., said it is deciding whether or not to appeal the case to the Supreme Court but has advised the Metropolitan Police Department to continue enforcing the "good reason" clause until the appeals court orders otherwise.

 just wondering if the above statement by Washington D.C. about continuing to enforce this good reason clause would amount to contempt of court and could those "enforcing" it can they be charged accordingly as well as adding the appropriate civil rights violations on as well.

 This should be of interest to us in NJ and the other few states that deny rights as if national reciprocity or the SAPPA case or any pending cases become wins for America our communist politicians will certainly "advise" our state to continue to require justifiable need. 

 Any legal scholars able to answer this.

 

 

20 hours ago, revenger said:

 just wondering if the above statement by Washington D.C. about continuing to enforce this good reason clause would amount to contempt of court and could those "enforcing" it can they be charged accordingly as well as adding the appropriate civil rights violations on as well.

 This should be of interest to us in NJ and the other few states that deny rights as if national reciprocity or the SAPPA case or any pending cases become wins for America our communist politicians will certainly "advise" our state to continue to require justifiable need. 

 Any legal scholars able to answer this.

 

 

Only after the court mandates otherwise.

Remember a few years ago when D.C. Was constitutional carry for like a weekend or sumtin.

On 9/29/2017 at 8:25 PM, 1LtCAP said:

isn't dc one of the highest violent crime rates in the country? how can they justify not letting people carry proper self defense tools in light of that?

Liberal minds are incapable of reasoning, logic or any type rational thought.

Quote

Huge gun rights victory

D.C. Declines to Take Wrenn CCW Case to SCOTUS

Apparently fearing a devastating loss that could crush arbitrary concealed carry laws in a handful of states, the District of Columbia has declined to appeal its loss of a concealed carry case that struck down its “needs based” permit requirement, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) learned today.

The SAF case is Wrenn v. District of Columbia. A three-judge panel on the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia struck down the city’s “good cause” requirement as unconstitutional in July. The court declined a request for an en banc panel review last month.

“We believe the city was under intense pressure to take the hit and not appeal the ruling by the U.S. District Court of Appeals,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “If the District had lost the case before the high court, it would have dealt a fatal blow to similar requirements in California, New Jersey, Maryland and New York, for example, and that prospect had anti-gun politicians in those states quaking in their shoes.”

Gottlieb recalled that the District’s loss in 2008 when the Supreme Court struck down its handgun ban as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment opened a floodgate for legal challenges to state laws. That led to SAF’s 2010 victory in McDonald v. City of Chicago, which not only nullified the Windy City’s handgun ban but more importantly incorporated the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment.

“Let’s face it,” Gottlieb said, “anti-gunners are determined to cling to their dogma of public disarmament rather than admit that their resistance to common sense concealed carry reform amounts to nothing more than stubborn denial. These people simply do not want to enter the 21st Century. They refuse to accept the Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment protects and affirms an individual right to not only keep arms, but to bear them as the Founders understood.

“However,” he added, “this decision opens the gate farther to an inevitable high court confrontation because there are now conflicting opinions on concealed carry from the different circuit courts. Common sense says that the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause will not allow that conflict to continue.”


Donate Now and Win Back Firearms Freedom One Lawsuit at a Time


The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control pyright © 2017 Second Amendment Foundation, All rights reserved.

Now Washington DC  and Illinois is Shall Issue. And NJ is still no issue. Never would have thought that. 

I really am disappointed this didn't go to SCOTUS. This needs to be settled once and for all.

------

The city’s attorney general said the decision not to appeal the ruling was a strategic one. He worries if the city were to appeal to the Supreme Court and lose, it would affect similar gun regulations elsewhere including in Maryland, New Jersey and New York.

-------

And SCOTUS can't address the circuit split without a case that challenges it, right?  So we're still F'd for 5-10 years

23 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

And SCOTUS can't address the circuit split without a case that challenges it, right?  So we're still F'd for 5-10 years

Its always a long game, the other side always plays and we should too. It does however make it a lot more likely that SCOTUS will have to take the next case that comes to them. That doesn't guarantee a win btw.

"We" need to keep challenging NJ's carry laws, eventually NJ will lose. If that happens at the appellate level we win even if the case doen't make it to SCOTUS.

how will the SAPPA case play out in all of this.       I agree with Oakridge,  We should be bombarding the courts with cases as well as the other few states where the 2A is not recognized .

26 minutes ago, Oakridgefirearms said:

"We" need to keep challenging NJ's carry laws, eventually NJ will lose. If that happens at the appellate level we win even if the case doen't make it to SCOTUS.

Easy to say. Harder to do. Are you going to sacrifice yourself and family to be the test case?   Look a SAPPA. Hundreds of thousands of dollars and years of time.  Meanwhile you're a felon and career could be in jeopardy. 

The law is owned by the rich.