National D.C. gun ruling again raises an issue the Supreme Court has been reluctant to review

[Joe Link]

When a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided an important gun rights case last week, some advocates were already thinking ahead.

Clark Neily of the Cato Institute told my colleague Ann E. Marimow that the 2-to-1 ruling against the District's requirement of a "good reason" to obtain a permit to carry a gun in public was "thoroughly researched and carefully reasoned."

It would "make an ideal vehicle for the Supreme Court to finally decide whether the Second Amendment applies outside the home," Neily said.

As if.

The fact is the justices have shown a remarkable lack of interest in deciding that issue, or in expanding upon their landmark 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. They have had multiple chances to define with specificity what the Second Amendment protects beyond Heller's guarantee of individual gun ownership in one's home, and they have declined each opportunity.

Just last month, the court decided to stay out of a similar case from California, where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit decided that the Second Amendment does not protect the right to carry a concealed weapon in public.

Declining to even review the ruling brought an impatient rebuke from Justice Clarence Thomas.

It "reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right," wrote Thomas, who was joined by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch.

Thomas said he found the 9th Circuit's ruling "indefensible."

But "even if other members of the court do not agree that the Second Amendment likely protects a right to public carry, the time has come for the court to answer this important question definitively. Twenty-six states have asked us to resolve the question presented," he wrote.

D.C. gun ruling again raises an issue the Supreme Court has been reluctant to review

Read More

 

[Slobray]

The city has not decided on its next legal move, but it seems likely to ask the full D.C. Circuit to review the panel's decision.

Snip

when Heller was decided in that court a decade ago, the full circuit declined to review and overturn the panel's groundbreaking endorsement of an individual right to gun ownership. But the court has changed dramatically since then. It is more liberal now, with a majority of judges appointed by Democratic presidents.

I would say the above unfortunately shows the future of Wrenn v. DC:

DC will ask for an en banc review,
Some anti-constitutional judge (probably funded by Bloomberg) on the circuit will make a sua sponte call for a vote on whether the case should be reheard en banc,
The anti-constitutional judges on the court will vote for an en banc review,
Merrick Garland will set aside the original ruling in the case and state that it is not to be used as case law,
Garland will then ensure that his flunkies (the antis) significantly outnumber the constitutional judges for the en banc,
The antis will overwhelmingly rule that "there is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public (just like the 9th Circus did, as to not create a circuit split),
Wrenn/SAF will petition the Circuit for a full-court re-hearing,
Garland and his band of flunkies will deny the petition for a full-court en banc rehearing,
Wrenn/SAF will petition SCOTUS,
SCOTUS will refuse to hear it,
Concealed carry will be outlawed in DC.​

Ray

 

[RicInOR]

D.C. Appeals Court Strikes Down 'Good Reason' Licensing Scheme

Second Amendment advocates praised the latest ruling, including Alan Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF).

He said the ruling "contains some powerful language that affirms what we've argued for many years, that requiring a so-called 'good-cause' to exercise a constitutionally-protected right does not pass the legal smell test."

Gottlieb added, "We are particularly pleased that the opinion makes it clear that the Second Amendment's core generally covers carrying in public for self-defense."

 

[titsonritz]

D.C. Appeals Court Strikes Down 'Good Reason' Licensing Scheme

"In the days after the ruling it was too early to tell how far the case would rise through the appeals process. The Supreme Court in June declined to consider another Second Amendment case, Peruta v. California, in which the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a San Diego County law requiring gun owners to prove they have "good cause" to apply for concealed carry permits."

So what, they just don't like California?