“We are bound to leave the District as much space to regulate as the Constitution allows—but no more. Just so, our opinion does little more than trace the boundaries laid in 1791 and flagged in Heller I. And the resulting decision rests on a rule so narrow that [may-issue] 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.” – Judge Thomas Griffith in Appeals Court Denies D.C.’s Request for Full Court Hearing on Gun-Carry Law Struck Down in July [via freebeacon.com]

IMI-Israeli Ammo

36 Responses to IMI Systems Quote of the Day: Shall-Issue Concealed Carry In D.C. Clears Another Hurdle

    • “I guess the DC DCA finally got tired of getting smacked down by SCOTUS on this issue?”

      I’m having trouble wrapping my head around why *none* of the judges on that panel voted for en banc.

      It makes no sense to me. The Progs are welded to the party plank of gun control with a blind passion.

      Could it be they are finally waking up to the fact that it’s pure political poison to middle America, who they *must* have to win elections?

      • “Could it be [Progressives] are finally waking up to the fact …”

        I highly doubt it.

        I have always said that the outcome of court cases is almost entirely a function if which judge hears the case. In other words, whether or not you prevail is basically a lottery. In this particular case, gun rights supporters in D.C. have thus far hit the judicial lottery. Unfortunately, that could all change at the next hearing/ruling if a gun-grabber judge hears the case.

        • This was every judge saying there’s no need for an en banc hearing.
          Maybe they’re actually good judges who realize being a judge is about applying the law as written, not an they’d prefer it.

      • It just occurred to me that they might be worried that what we hope for is about to happen. Kennedy retiring or a liberal vacating the court by some means. They are in DC and probably all go to the same parties, restaurants, etc.

        If they did a rehearing, that would take time. Then the case gets appealed to the SC. More time. The balance shifts. The SC hears it. The SC decides strongly in favor of the 2A elucidating a specific 2A test that will result in the striking down of most gun laws if applied with any degree rationality. If lower courts don’t follow such a test faithfully, then the SC just issues an opinion or order without even having oral argument.

        It’s just a thought.

        • Eh, not particularly logical. The court can expedite anything it wants to, and the issue was already briefed: it is not required to allow additional briefing for an en banc proceeding, and orals could be heard by the end of the year or in the spring. It could conceivably issue an opinion affirming or reversing before the end of the current Supreme Court session.
          Moreover, a party seeking certiorari in the Supreme court faces an extremely high burden,as the Court takes so few cases to begin with; the odds are that almost all cases will be denied, and that the winner in the court of Appeals will thus prevail.True, a public entity has a greater chance than an individual, but the odds still are not good.

          I think that these justices were well aware that no matter who won, the case would be moving on to the Supreme Court, so why bother? Denying review accelerates the cert process by a few months any way.

        • “Denying review accelerates the cert process by a few months.” Maybe those few months are more important than we would expect. I honestly cannot think of a reason a court with judges that far left wouldn’t at least have a close vote on rehearing this case. If cert is denied, D.C. is shall issue. If it is granted, then they run the risk of the U.S. being shall issue.

          Proceeding from the premise that these liberal judges ignore the law, I can’t think of a good reason as to why they would do this.

        • Mark, here’s why its logical:

          As the case stands now, there is a clear circuit split. The 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 9th Circuits have all ruled that “may issue” is legit. The D.C. Cir said it’s not. This is the kind of situation where the Supreme Court grants cert. Also, when a law is overturned as unconstitutional, the Supreme Court is more likely to grant cert, which is the case here. By letting the decision stand, it is almost certain that the Supreme Court will take the case, and there is a decent chance Kennedy will say “may issue” is good enough.

          If the court granted en banc review, the liberals would have certainly won given how liberal the bench is. If that happened, there would no longer have been a circuit split. (Some people claim the 6th Cir has split from the rest, but that is not true. The 6th said states have to allow concealed carry if open carry is banned, but it didn’t opine on may vs shall issue). Plus, you would no longer have the situation where a law had been overturned. In that scenario, the Supreme Court would probably not grant cert. The case is over. Later, however, after Trump replaces either Kennedy, Ginsberg, or Breyer (ages 81, 84, and 79), the conservatives would be able to take up the next gun case and adopt strict scrutiny and any other broad protection for gun rights they wanted.

          They are taking a small gamble on Kennedy now versus risking it all against the next Trump appointment.

  1. I fully expect the lib-prog DC government to drag its feet and try to tapdance around this decision, as they have in the past (getting slapped down by the courts each time). It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

      • That’s so frustrating. At some point, a matter is no longer just a difference of constitutional opinion to be decided by the courts. It’s a flagrant civil rights violation and abuse of the courts through frivolous litigation. There ought to be personal legal civil and criminal consequences for that conduct.

        • State and local governments who continuously deny 2A rights should be treated like southern states have been on many racial issues. They should have to seek pre-approval for their laws before they become effective.

    • I notice that the Washington Post (aka Pravda-on-the-Potomac) hasn’t included this story in their online edition today (although other local news agencies have done so). Could it be that this decision is so onerous to those anti-gun prog-heads that they just can’t bring themselves to let anybody know that their belief system got slapped down by the court? Either that, or WaPo’s editorial board is hard at work on a scintilating and devastating editorial blasting the decision (which will convince nobody who is not already a true believer), and is delaying the news story until then.

    • “I fully expect the lib-prog DC government to drag its feet and try to tapdance around this decision, ”

      What is there to “expect”. If you read the linked article you see that the DC DA told the police to “carry on” until “the court orders otherwise”. This means yet another suit must be brought seeking enforcement of the first appeals court decision.

      There is no “dancing”. What we have here, is abject defiance.

      • Nope nope nope. Unless the City petitions for certiorari AND obtains a stay from either the court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, shall issue goes into effect in one week when the Court of Appeals issues a permanent injunction against the may issue law and orders the City to process carry applications. I do not see the City defying that order. Its ONLY remedy at this point is a stay pending a cert petition (the processing of which by the Supreme court could take several months).

        • The DC DA instructed the metro police to ignore the ruling until the court issues a specific order. Assuming that an order to desist is a routine attachment to the ruling, an attachment that will be formally issued at a date subsequent to the date of the decision, the metro police are to continue the “may issue for good cause” policy in existence. There will likely be no court order for police to revisit the existing applications. Coppers will delight in making everyone apply and pay again.

          Just for informational purposes, in a civil matter, one can be awarded a judgement for compensation, yet not collect….UNTIL, you receive a second court order directing the constabulary to deliver a compliance order to the loser. Even then, if the loser does not comply, another court order is required to direct the local constabulary to compel compliance, or arrest the loser for contempt of court. Thinking the federal courts operate similarly. Since there is no penalty (jail or money) for defying the appeals court ruling, I would expect DC to continue denying carry permits until the SC takes up the case. If the supremes do not grant cert, “may issue” will remain in effect (legally or not) until the SC does address the matter. Courts are not about “justice”, they are about law and procedure.

      • They are allowed to “carry on” until this coming Thursday when the en banc denial becomes a mandate. At that point only Roberts can issue a stay to allow to continue to deny based on good reason test.

        • “They are allowed to “carry on” until this coming Thursday when the en banc denial becomes a mandate. ”

          The DC DA has more authority inside DC than the appeals courts. We have seen so many instances of defiance of Heller and McDonald go unpunished (not even sure there is a a mechanism for “punishment” of judges or government officials who defy federal court orders.), it is difficult to seriously entertain the notion that another ruling against gun control will change anything. The game is not over in DC.

    • Actually, I hope SCOTUS takes it, rules properly, and makes California and the rest of the Iron Curtain states cry.

      (I’ve heard some say that they suspect that this was the case SCOTUS was waiting for, when denying Peruta cert.)

      • “(I’ve heard some say that they suspect that this was the case SCOTUS was waiting for, when denying Peruta cert.)”

        Do you mean Justice Kennedy may be hinting he’s good with carry outside the home?

        If so, what was wrong with Peruta being granted cert?

    • To be blunt, a denial of cert is not as good as it sounds. Yes, it means shall issue for D.C. residents–but not necessarily any visitors–but it also means that it stays a Circuit Court decision that applies ONLY in D.C. and NOT to the jurisdictions that maintain “may issue” systems. For example, if cert is denied, Peruta v., Gore, holding that there is NO right to concealed carry, remains good law in the Ninth Circus. ONLY if the Supreme Court grants review and affirms does the decision apply nationally.

      I read on another forum a very interesting question: will the :may issue” states lean on D.C. to NOT petition for cert to avoid the possibility that the decision goes national?

  2. ….Until Politicians, and “other Government agency” become fearful of the citizenry once again ! THERE WILL be accountability, and severe repercussions for INFRINGEMENTS on any specified Constitutional Rights !

  3. Now we get to see if the four progtards on the Court want to risk another round of freedom being expanded. I suspect not.

  4. uncommon_sense says:
    September 29, 2017 at 09:47
    “Could it be [Progressives] are finally waking up to the fact …”

    They will never give up on their beloved Communism.

  5. This might be a strategic move on the part of the liberal judges. If they granted en banc review, they would have more than enough votes to reverse (the D.C. Circuit is very liberal). The problem for them is that by the time they’re finished, Justice Kennedy may have retired (or one of the liberal justices may have passed) with a much more conservative Justice serving as the replacement.

    By denying en banc review, there is a very high likelihood that the Supreme Court will take the case. There is now a direct split on the “may issue” language, and when a law is overturned (like D.C.’s was) there is a much greater chance the Court will take the case. With it going up to the Supreme Court now, Kennedy will be the deciding vote, and it’s not at all clear how he will rule. The concern has long been that he would support “may issue” and that’s why the Court has not taken up any of the other past concealed carry cases.

    • That’s a possibility; good observation. One of Trump’s few smart moves has been judicial nominations. This week’s selection of Willett and Ho for the 5th circuit appellate court is hard to out do. I know he’s going by a known list for the SC, but still, it’ll be exciting to see who he picks for the next opening. That excitement could grow frenzied, depending on whom he’s replacing.

  6. We should not be surprised that the DC Circuit Court ruled the way it did.

    Most people have lost sight of the fact that in the Heller case, it was the DC Circuit Court that ruled in favor of Dick Heller’s right to have a functional gun, rejecting DC’s onerous laws. It was the DC Circuit Court that reversed an unfavorable ruling by the lower court, and it was the DC Circuit Court’s ruling that was upheld by SCOTUS.

    The DC Circuit made its ruling in Heller, and I guess they meant it.

    • Heller was in 2007 (in the DC Circuit). That was before Harry Reid nuked the judicial filibuster and Obama packed the court. It’s a very different bench today.

  7. “And the resulting decision rests on a rule so narrow that [may-issue] laws seem almost uniquely designed to defy it:”

    If it legislates like a duck…

  8. Congress could fix this in an half a day.
    Congress is the only ones to make laws in the district of Columbia why they allow those hacks to pretend to make “laws”
    Is beyond me.

    “At certain times, and presently since 1973, Congress has allowed certain powers of government to be carried out by locally elected officials. However, Congress maintains the power to overturn local laws and exercises greater oversight of the city than exists for any U.S. state. Furthermore, the District’s elected government exists at the pleasure of Congress and could theoretically be revoked at any time.”

  9. Congress needs to do their job and make the laws for the district of Columbia .
    They could fix this in half of a day.

    “At certain times, and presently since 1973, Congress has allowed certain powers of government to be carried out by locally elected officials. However, Congress maintains the power to overturn local laws and exercises greater oversight of the city than exists for any U.S. state. Furthermore, the District’s elected government exists at the pleasure of Congress and could theoretically be revoked at any time.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *