DC: Fed Court of Appeals rules public carry of firearms a "core" right

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Alamo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Oct 4, 2010
    8,085
    113
    Texas
    But not without restriction.



    https://www.buzzfeed.com/amphtml/zo...court-just-ruled-carrying-guns-in-public-is-a


    https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3900192/7-25-17-DC-Circuit-Wrenn.pdf

    ETA another link to the opinion: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/inter...EE1CAB3A06C85258168004F3EE5/$file/16-7067.pdf


    We pause to draw together all the pieces of our analysis: At the Second Amendment’s core lies the right of responsible citizens to carry firearms for personal self-defense beyond the home, subject to longstanding restrictions. These traditional limits include, for instance, licensing requirements, but not bans on carrying in urban areas like D.C. or bans on carrying absent a special need for self-defense. In fact, the Amendment’s core at a minimum shields the typically situated citizen’s ability to carry common arms generally. The District’s good-reason law is necessarily a total ban on exercises of that constitutional right for most D.C. residents. That’s enough to sink this law under Heller I.

    2-1 panel decision.
     
    Last edited:

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    Yeah, this could be a really big win. Rather than create some mid-level scrutiny, it basically applies (from what I can tell from a quick read) the absolute Heller standard to carrying laws. "Keep and bear arms" requires equality between both halves of the conjoined right.

    Now, just like there are certain reasonable limits on keeping guns in the house (that are still being sketched out), there is a fundamental right to being able to carry.

    I am reluctant to even articulate this, but... constitutional carry. For otherwise law abiding citizens. Its important to note that it was a negative action; it nullified DC's "good reason" requirement. It was not a positive action; it did not say "carrying any firearm is constitutional." It sure implied it. It came REALLY close to saying it. It might develop into saying that.

    And the resulting decision rests on a rule so narrow that good-reason laws seem almost uniquely designed to defy it: that the law-abiding citizen’s right to bear common arms must enable the typical citizen to carry a gun.
     

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,914
    113
    Avon
    Will the circuit take it up en banc if requested? (I read in one of the articles that it failed to do so on two prior, related decisions.)

    Pretty sound decision: a de facto ban on bearing arms is per se unconstitutional, and requires no level of scrutiny for a balancing test.

    (Over on the other coast, Peruta could not be reached for comment...)
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    Will the circuit take it up en banc if requested? (I read in one of the articles that it failed to do so on two prior, related decisions.)

    Pretty sound decision: a de facto ban on bearing arms is per se unconstitutional, and requires no level of scrutiny for a balancing test.

    (Over on the other coast, Peruta could not be reached for comment...)

    Whether a circuit takes something en banc is up to a vote of the sitting judges. There were seriously odd procedural things with this case (peculiar to DC) which they previously avoided. I don't think that's a predictor of whether they'll hear the substantive decision.

    I can envision a collective shrug and dodge en banc so it goes to SCOTUS quicker.
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    if they petition to SCOTUS, can SCOTUS combine Peruta and this case together? or is Peruta finished?
    Peruta is dead.

    But, Wrenn may have been the case they were waiting for.

    That happens sometimes. When a Supreme Court (state or federal) gets SO many petitions a year, they can wait until one is in the proper procedural presentation or has a certain set of facts that they want.

    ETA:
    "Peruta" as in that case, at that procedural juncture, in front of SCOTUS, is dead. It may be resuscitated (maybe) based on other factors, but it would be an historic event that bound it to Wrenn after cert was denied.
     

    SwikLS

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Oct 26, 2015
    1,172
    113
    The Bunker
    Peruta is dead.

    But, Wrenn may have been the case they were waiting for.

    That happens sometimes. When a Supreme Court (state or federal) gets SO many petitions a year, they can wait until one is in the proper procedural presentation or has a certain set of facts that they want.

    ah I see so if they take up Wrenn and affirm this decision then Peruta is null and void? (essentially?)
     

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,914
    113
    Avon
    ah I see so if they take up Wrenn and affirm this decision then Peruta is null and void? (essentially?)

    Peruta is already "null and void", so to speak. Once SCOTUS denied cert, the most recent appeals court ruling (9th circuit en banc) was allowed to stand.
     

    Alamo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Oct 4, 2010
    8,085
    113
    Texas
    ...

    I am reluctant to even articulate this, but... constitutional carry.....

    Dunno. I don't think they were going there with this. The majority opinion seems very comfy with licensing schemes as long as the scheme does NOT prevent the majority of otherwise law-abiding citizens from carrying in public. I read it as they threw out DC's licensing law because the "good reason" requirement PREVENTS most ordinary law abiding citizens of DC from exercising a core right.

    Their summary (I think) paragraph states:

    We pause to draw together all the pieces of our analysis: At the Second Amendment’s core lies the right of responsible citizens to carry firearms for personal self-defense beyond the home, subject to longstanding restrictions. These traditional limits include, for instance, licensing requirements, but not bans on carrying in urban areas like D.C. or bans on carrying absent a special need for self-defense. In fact, the Amendment’s core at a minimum shields the typically situated citizen’s ability to carry common arms generally. The District’s good-reason law is necessarily a total ban on exercises of that constitutional right for most D.C. residents. That’s enough to sink this law under Heller I.

    I would like you to be right and me to be wrong tho.

    Did you mean perhaps the SCOTUS could run with this, affirming this decision because "of course 'keep' and 'bear' (in public) are coequal and core rights, and oh by the way licensing a core right is wrong" ? I hope so but don't think so.
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    Yeah... I'm really not sure (which is kinda a good thing). As recently as a few years ago, I would've said licensing schemes are rock solid. So, being unsure is a step toward freedom. :)

    If there's a not-too-onerous licensing scheme that allows equal access to the license for all law-abiding citizens without a "good reason" requirement, I *think* that'll be constitutional. Indeed, the DC Circuit didn't have to answer that. They only said that the good-reason requirement cannot be necessary. They said nothing affirmatively about what WOULD be enough.

    But, in a hope-against-hope way, this could be the invitation for SCOTUS to directly address the keepANDbear issue they dodged in Peruta. Moreover, what does this do to the myriad of GFZs? Sure, some of them could be found legitimate. But, IMHO some of the more suspect onies - state colleges for example - become problematic.

    I've fancied for years now that the 2A lends itself to the same analysis as 1A issues. The DC Circuit looked to similarities, so that bodes well.
     

    Alamo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Oct 4, 2010
    8,085
    113
    Texas
    It just sank in that the appeals panel did not just explain the law to the lower courts and remand the cases back to them with a "go and sin no more," the panel directed a permanent injunction against DC's law. Boom.
     

    SwikLS

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Oct 26, 2015
    1,172
    113
    The Bunker
    Peruta is already "null and void", so to speak. Once SCOTUS denied cert, the most recent appeals court ruling (9th circuit en banc) was allowed to stand.

    wait, I thought Peruta allowed Calizuela to keep its may issue status. no?

    I guess what I'm asking is if SCOTUS takes up Wrenn then Peruta will be overturned along with any may issue status of any other states?

    thats is, despite rejecting it and letting the 9th circus ruling stand.
     
    Last edited:

    KLB

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Sep 12, 2011
    23,003
    77
    Porter County
    Peruta is dead.

    But, Wrenn may have been the case they were waiting for.

    That happens sometimes. When a Supreme Court (state or federal) gets SO many petitions a year, they can wait until one is in the proper procedural presentation or has a certain set of facts that they want.

    ETA:
    "Peruta" as in that case, at that procedural juncture, in front of SCOTUS, is dead. It may be resuscitated (maybe) based on other factors, but it would be an historic event that bound it to Wrenn after cert was denied.
    Doesn't the fact that the circuit courts have now finally split on this increase the likelihood of the USSC taking it?
     

    KLB

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Sep 12, 2011
    23,003
    77
    Porter County
    wait, I thought Peruta allowed Calizuela to keep its may issue status. no?

    I guess what I'm asking is if SCOTUS takes up Wrenn then Peruta will be overturned along with any may issue status of any other states?

    thats is, despite rejecting it and letting the 9th circus ruling stand.
    Yes. If they rule against may issue requirements.
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    wait, I thought Peruta allowed Calizuela to keep its may issue status. no?

    I guess what I'm asking is if SCOTUS takes up Wrenn then Peruta will be overturned along with any may issue status of any other states?

    thats is, despite rejecting it and letting the 9th circus ruling stand.

    Its important to recognize the different approaches of DC and Cali. DC required a positive showing of "good cause" to be able to carry. Cali (apparently) left it to counties to decide whether to issue. San Diego county had a "good cause" requirement that appears functionally the same as DC's. But, application of constitutional principles to local jurisdictions is different than applying it to states. (SCOTUS will usually prefer to interpret state law, figuring it will then trickle down to municipalities.) Moreover, it appears that San Diego came out and said anyone that lists "self defense" as the cause will be able to get a permit, if they met all the other requirements.

    In Wrenn, the DC circuit basically said that if the licensing scheme allows for regular law abiding citizens to get the license, then it is probably constitutional.

    If, post-Peruta, Cali's scheme (and by extension, the individual counties' schemes) allow regular law abiding citizens to get licenses, then it will probably be constitutional.

    Doesn't the fact that the circuit courts have now finally split on this increase the likelihood of the USSC taking it?

    And this, yes. Sometimes it is more difficult to get cert granted on "new" issues if you're the first one to bring it. The court waits to see if a common interpretation develops or if there's a split. There now appears to be a split. :)
     

    jedi

    Da PinkFather
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    51   0   0
    Oct 27, 2008
    37,669
    113
    NWI, North of US-30
    : At the Second Amendment’s core lies the right of responsible citizens to carry firearms for personal self-defense beyond the home, subject to longstanding restrictions.
    :facepalm:
    Hum no..no...no...
    The core of 2A is that the people have the RIGHT to overthrow their own government via violence (ie. Arms) if need be.

    Its not about self defense.
    Its not about carrying in the house or public.
    Its a reminder to the .gov that the people can remove the .gov just like the founding fathers removed violently their king.
     
    Top Bottom