TexasCHLforum.com

The D.C. Wrenn Circuit case is certainly worth the read. You can locate it in pdf format with a simple google search.

Will the Supreme Court hear the case? Who knows. Remember, it refused to hear the Peruta case out of California. It also let stand the AR15 ban cases out of Maryland and Illinois.

My take is that the Supreme Court is uncomfortable writing on second amendment cases because it is confused about what to do and concerned about the gravity of its decision one way or the other. I bet it would rather hear a commerce clause case any day of the week.

Well, stay-tuned folks and we will see what happens!

dlh wrote:The D.C. Wrenn Circuit case is certainly worth the read.

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/ ... 685640.pdf

dlh wrote:Will the Supreme Court hear the case? Who knows. Remember, it refused to hear the Peruta case out of California.

I think this makes it almost a certainty that the SCOTUS will hear this case or one like it very soon. We now have a conflict between different circuits of the appeals court. Yhis means different rights apply in different parts of the US. SCOTUS is the only way to resolve this conflict and they are generally loath to allow such conflicts to remain.

The fact that it is a Second Amendment case makes it harder to get them to hear it because I agree that they are not wanting to get involved if they can. IIRC, it takes four votes to hear a case and the court is pretty closely split on this issue right now. I think it will get heard and go 5-4 in our favor, but that is far from set in stone. The fact that this is the DC circuit makes this one more likely to get heard also. And the 9th seems to get overturned a lot, so....

If we make a giant leap in the future and assume that the Supreme Court has taken the case and ruled 5-4 in a permanent stay of the D.C.ruling, doesn't that put all of the "may issue" State laws in jeopardy? If I understand it correctly, the Maryland approach is the same as the D.C. one.

District will appeal to SCOTUS. SCOTUS will stay the ruling while they make up their mind. SCOTUS will send it back to to full DC circuit and after a year of jerking around they will go back to status quo.

chasfm11 wrote:If we make a giant leap in the future and assume that the Supreme Court has taken the case and ruled 5-4 in a permanent stay of the D.C.ruling, doesn't that put all of the "may issue" State laws in jeopardy? If I understand it correctly, the Maryland approach is the same as the D.C. one.

That would be great, but it seems unlikely. I can’t see California accepting it without a huge fight, they are doing everything they can to get rid of all guns. Interestingly enough no gun signs in CA don’t carry the force of law like they do in Texas.

"I can’t see California accepting it without a huge fight", not sure how California would fight a Supreme Court ruling, if they did the State and local municipalities would be shelling out alot of money!

crazy2medic wrote:"I can’t see California accepting it without a huge fight", not sure how California would fight a Supreme Court ruling, if they did the State and local municipalities would be shelling out alot of money!

Sorry, what I meant was they would use their substantial influence and resources to prevent it from making it there, or being ruled on in our favor. A ruling like that would significantly change the landscape of all “may issue” locations.

crazy2medic wrote:"I can’t see California accepting it without a huge fight", not sure how California would fight a Supreme Court ruling, if they did the State and local municipalities would be shelling out alot of money!

Same way DC is fighting it now: write a new law to replace over-ruled one, but throw in impediments counter to intent of law. High fees, extra background checks, more security container laws, limited number of places to process applications, etc etc. Would force 2A proponents into more litigation

Here's what I don't understand. Hopefully one of our resident lawyers can edumicate me a bit.

A lower court rules that parts of President Trump's travel ban are unconstitutional. So those parts get put on hold until the case is resolved, 6+ months later.

A lower court rules that parts of DC gun restrictions are unconstitutional. Yet those parts stay in force pending the eventual resolution of the case.

Setting aside who is right and who is wrong, in both cases we have a court deciding that the government is acting in an unconstitutional manner. And in both cases, that allegedly unconstitutional behavior is causing irreparable harm to the people. So why do we allow that harm to continue, pending final resolution, in one case and not in the other?

Soccerdad1995 wrote:Here's what I don't understand. Hopefully one of our resident lawyers can edumicate me a bit.

A lower court rules that parts of President Trump's travel ban are unconstitutional. So those parts get put on hold until the case is resolved, 6+ months later.

A lower court rules that parts of DC gun restrictions are unconstitutional. Yet those parts stay in force pending the eventual resolution of the case.

Setting aside who is right and who is wrong, in both cases we have a court deciding that the government is acting in an unconstitutional manner. And in both cases, that allegedly unconstitutional behavior is causing irreparable harm to the people. So why do we allow that harm to continue, pending final resolution, in one case and not in the other?

THIS!!

Soccerdad1995 wrote:Setting aside who is right and who is wrong, in both cases we have a court deciding that the government is acting in an unconstitutional manner. And in both cases, that allegedly unconstitutional behavior is causing irreparable harm to the people. So why do we allow that harm to continue, pending final resolution, in one case and not in the other?

It's simple. In one case the government is violating a basic human right of United States citizens. In the other case the government is inconveniencing foreigners.

ScottDLS wrote:District will appeal to SCOTUS. SCOTUS will stay the ruling while they make up their mind. SCOTUS will send it back to to full DC circuit and after a year of jerking around they will go back to status quo.

yet another example of "justice delayed is just denied", a quote I've heard attributed to several disparate sources......

Soccerdad1995 wrote:Here's what I don't understand. Hopefully one of our resident lawyers can edumicate me a bit.

A lower court rules that parts of President Trump's travel ban are unconstitutional. So those parts get put on hold until the case is resolved, 6+ months later.

A lower court rules that parts of DC gun restrictions are unconstitutional. Yet those parts stay in force pending the eventual resolution of the case.

Setting aside who is right and who is wrong, in both cases we have a court deciding that the government is acting in an unconstitutional manner. And in both cases, that allegedly unconstitutional behavior is causing irreparable harm to the people. So why do we allow that harm to continue, pending final resolution, in one case and not in the other?

This is my understanding of how it works, with the standard disclaimer that IANAL.

In any case where the court is asked for temporary restraining order, the court looks at two things. The first is whether or not the petitioner has a reasonable chance of winning the case. If not, no order. Then they ask which causes the greater potential harm - allowing the act or allowing the order. The TRO is granted if the harm is greater when the act is allowed than when it is stopped.

So, in the case of the immigration ban, the court decided that there was a good chance that Trump's order was illegal and that there was more harm to society by allowing it to take effect. In the case of the guns, they decided there was a good chance of winning, but that the harm to citizens was minimal if the law stayed in effect instead of being overturned immediately.

SCOTUS is not getting this one: DC won't take concealed carry fight to Supreme Court