The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a motion for contempt against the District of Columbia for its failure to carry out the injunction in Wrenn et al v. D.C. which stopped the District from enforcing its ordinance requiring applicants for concealed carry permits to have a “good reason” for having a permit. The reasons why are set forth in the motion . . .
Defendants represented…that the PLaintiffs’ applications would be reprocessed without the “good reason”/”proper reason” requirement. It was understood that licenses would not necessarily issue immediately to the extent that there were any outstanding training requirements, but at least, the preliminary approval for the licenses would be issued forthwith. Defendants’ counsel suggested PLaintiffs might be nearer the start of the 90-day application review process, but PLaintiffs disagreed — they had already waited well-over 90 days, and there was nothing left to review.
At no time during several conversations through May 21 did Defendants suggest that they would do nothing pending further review of the Court’s order, nor did Defendants suggest that the order was in any way ambiguous, or that they would file a motion seeking clarification of the order. Defendants also met and conferred regarding a requested stay of the Court’s order, to which Plaintiffs did not agree. Plaintiffs repeatedly urged the Defendants to file a notice of appeal if they wish to seek a stay of the Court’s order. Defendants stated that they would seek a stay, but did not state when they would do so, and would not commit to any date by which to notice an appeal.
Mr. Powers’ experience is particularly troubling. He is a licensed D.C. firearms instructor, who was (finally) allowed to register his handgun. There is no question that Powers meets all background check and training requirements. There is no legal basis to deny him a permit. District law does not provide for this sort of 90 day delay….
Unwilling to start the appellate and stay proceedings, unable to get consent for a stay, but also having no intentions of actually issuing licenses absent a “good” or “proper” reason, Defendants have taken it upon themselves to “review” the Court’s order for a 90 day period. See attached Declaration of Lawrence Powers and Exhibit A. Pending this review, Defendants are not issuing permits….
The games continue. Defendants supposedly not understanding the Court’s order, they will ignore it. Of course, Defendants understand the order perfectly well. They simply dislike it….
Defendants are and should be held in contempt.
For their part, the Free Beacon reports that defendants have finally gotten round to filing a request for a stay of the court’s earlier injunction, claiming that the District will suffer “irreparable harm” since the “good reason” clause is essential to its “statutory regime”
of denying civil rights to its residents based on the whim of bureaucrats. It also thinks that District residents are incompetent fools who don’t deserve the right to keep and bear arms:
The risk of a gun-related tragedy–accidental or deliberate–by new licensees who have no particularized fear of any specific danger to their safety, outweighs plaintiffs’ speculative fears about any imminent need to defend themselves from a random, public attack.
Stay tuned for more details.