News

Federal Court Denies D.C.’s Request for Delay in Concealed-Carry Case

Second Amendment Foundaton

On May 28, 2015, the federal district court judge handling the Second Amendment Foundation’s (SAF) challenge to the District of Columbia’s “good reason” concealed-carry permit requirement denied the city’s request for an immediate administrative stay of his ruling last week granting a preliminary injunction against further enforcement of the requirement.

SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb said in a statement, “The Second Amendment Foundation is pleased that the court ruled immediately against the city and has forced them to start issuing carry permits. By now they should realize that when we say we will do everything in our legal power to force them to recognize that people have Second Amendment rights, we mean it.” The city has required concealed-carry applicants to provide justification for wanting a permit to carry firearms outside the home for personal protection. Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. ruled that the requirement “impinges on Plaintiff’s Second Amendment right to bear arms,” so the city would have been legally required to start offering carry permits under more lenient rules. Second Amendment Foundaton The city’s request for a stay, which Scullin denied, would have put that process on hold. The District is also seeking a stay pending appeal. The case is Wrenn v. District of Columbia.

When Judge Scullin denied the District’s administrative stay request, he also set two important dates. By June 22, SAF and its co-plaintiffs must file papers opposing the city’s stay pending appeal request, and the city must respond by June 26.

“Bearing arms is a civil right,” Gottlieb said, “not a government-regulated privilege subject to arbitrary discretion. This case isn’t about making a political statement, but about making the District of Columbia comply with an earlier court ruling, and with the constitution.” “The city is running out of wiggle room,” he added, “and should immediately start issuing permits to all citizens who meet the legal qualifications.” Under Judge Scullin’s order, attorneys representing SAF and the District will appear in court July 7 to argue the city’s motion for a stay pending appeal of his initial May 18 ruling.

In non-legal terms, that means the District wants the judge to put a hold on his ruling while (or if) the District appeals the ruling to an appeals court. If Judge Scullin agrees and stays the decision, it could be years before the District’s appeals is heard, then possibly further delays if the appeals court decision is appealed.

The Mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, The Shooter's Log, is to provide information—not opinions—to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (32)

  1. Supreme Court has ruled that INALIENABLE RIGHTS are NOT granted by the U.S. Constitution, but merely affirmed. Meaning that NO government body such as Congress, Judiciary or White House can legislate against these INALIENABLE RIGHTS! So why is Congress and the White House meddling? Because most don’t know of these rights, and are allowing this to occur! Come on NRA, ACLU, etc…get o the stick and fight!

  2. So why hasn’t this ruling affected the CA concealed carry requirement? It the exact same thing. If a federal court stepped in and cleared this ruling, why hasn’t the same happened for Peruta vs San Diego?

  3. Sadly the “DUMB MAJORITY” is running the “US of A” into a deep hole of worthlessness.This once great nation is no longer the country the world respects and trust’s.

    “We The People” are no longer served by the people we voted for and trusted to run this country the right way.

    “We The People” are now serving our elected “Masters in Washington”. Who only serve themselves.Too many of the “DUMB MAJORITY”, are too busy with their own life problems to concern themselves with the running of this nation and it’s problems.Thus the continued lowering of the American standard of living. The “bar of life” that was once set high in America, is now so low, you need to crawl on your belly to get under it.

    There are too few of us “SMART MINORITY” to make the changes this country needs to put America back on top. Our numbers are too few to make the difference with a vote.The only way for the “SMART MINORITY” to help right the continuing wrongs of this country.Is by a BLOODY REVOLT. YES, BLOOD must be spilled to thin down the numbers of the “DUMB MAJORITY”. So the “DUMB MAJORITY” will become the “DUMB FEW”.That is the only way I see this once great country, becoming a great nation again.

    Tyranny has many faces, right now the “DUMB MAJORITY” is one of them.

  4. Total bs about Obama. People just can’t stand that a black man was elected TWICE to the White House. Guess what? There’s gonna be another Dem in the White House in ’16 too! GOP is sick!

    1. @ John Simpson:

      Are you really that shallow to still be making the same mundane statements from the old liberal talking points playbook? Seriously dude wake up… we are way-way past racial biased here.

      Look around you – it’s in your face, and yet you still refuse to see the overwhelming mass of destruction caused by this unprofessional and inexperience idiot corrupting the Executive Branch of our Country.

      Even those that did ignorantly hold racial biased at the start of Obama’s reign have moved well beyond such bigotry and on to the realization that at this point color never mattered when such evil has been unleashed upon the world.

      I don’t think anyone gives a rat’s ass who’s in the White House come 2016 because by then our attentions will instead be focused on fighting off the World’s terrorist Obama helped build up.

      Dude please get a clue and stop living in 2008!

    2. I think you misunderstood. I know John and he’s the most conservative gentleman I know. He was commenting on the state of or party. We all have to work harder. Thanks.

    3. Arnold R. I call B.S. How can you possibly know or presume to know what John Simpsons intended by his comments? If he isn’t articulate enough to get his point across who are you to tell us what he meant. He’s a big boy and the intent of his words seem clear enough to me. His words hardly seem an indictment of the state of the party, rather he appears to be calling us racists. While I did not vote for Obama, I was proud that we as a nation have moved to the point where we could elect an African American to our highest office.

    4. “Even those that did ignorantly hold racial biased at the start of Obama’s reign have moved well beyond such bigotry and on to the realization that at this point color never mattered when such evil has been unleashed upon the world.”

      In other words, there’s a convenient ex-post-facto rationalization now.

      While Obama is certainly inept and doing his best Neville Chamberlain imitation, it was that moron Dubya who totally destabilized the Middle East unnecessarily. Obama is just playing (badly) with the cards that Bush dealt him.

    5. @ Rick:

      Nope. No “other words” needed if you possessed the ability to comprehend the simplicity of the words I wrote to begin with. For if you had such abilities you could plainly see there is nothing in my comments that justifies anyone’s prejudices –before, or after the fact.

      I simply made use of a disgustingly acute paradigm such as intolerance over skin color to show how even one man’s ignorance or evil, take your pick, can override even the most shamefully hardened case of racism when more deadly consequences are placed at stake.

      As for you still playing the tired old Bush-blame-game, that’s just sad. Obama is in charge now and has been for many years – it was he that chose to pull troops out that caused the destabilization amongst countless other boneheaded and senseless amateur moves.

    6. Come on J Simpson that’s all you’ve got, little kid play ground sh@#. You libtards socialist are all the same “destroyers of the free world” if you want to be like Europe then leave my country and take the Manchurian President with you!

  5. I’m not going to share my opinion on the D.C. carry issue. What I will do is share a quote from the Czech Republic’s ‘Prager Zeintung’ from 28 April, 2015: “The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgement to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.”

    1. Bob Blakely.

      The quote was made in 2010, NOT 2015. And said that Obama was just the FOOT of the Fools, while Congress was the BODY of Fools.

    2. Rick: I can’t believe you cite a fictional, novel as your source concerning Lincoln and slavery! Adds credibility to the concept, a nation of.fools.

    3. Ron,

      “Rick: I can’t believe you cite a fictional, novel as your source concerning Lincoln and slavery! Adds credibility to the concept, a nation of.fools.”

      If you’re going to bust someone for being a fool, you might want to work on your reading comprehension a bit lest someone holds up a mirror: *TOM* said that, not *RICK*.

    4. Ref Bob Blakely quote referring to Obama as the Prince of fools, elected.by a nation of fools: Who.cares who wrote it! Truth is valid upon its face.

  6. Given this gun control issue has been laid in their own front yard, the newly elected Republican majority in Congress has once again blown an excellent opportunity to flex its collective muscle. You see, Washington D.C. has no parent state like all other cities and counties in the US; it thereby lawfully depends upon Congress to make its equivalent laws in the absence of having a state government.

    With that said, many states have in force what is known as preemptive gun laws, which means – no county, city, or municipality may ever make a more restrictive local gun ordinance that would supersede that of an existing state law. So with Congress having the same authority to act as if it were Washington DC’s equivalent of a state authority, it could implement a preemptive law as well, and do away with the city’s carry permit requirement.

    Doing so would put this matter to rest once and for all because it would yank the issue right out from under the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction, and it would also provide the new Congress an opportunity to show it has dropped at least one testicle.

    I was expecting great things with this new Congress. Instead I have been extremely disappointed at how impotent they’ve turned out after all that chest thumping they did to get my vote.

    1. You are correct. Our so-called Republican majority are a bunch of scared little “d” democrats in Republican clothing. They are liars and only care about getting reelected and “running” things and “getting something done.” While Harry Reid trampled all over the Republicans while in power, Mitch McConnell’s biggest priority is returning the Senate to “regular order.” Which means giving the Democrats what they want. There was no way our new attorney general should have been confirmed. There is no reason to give this President even one thing he desires. Mr. Majority leader should take the dem’s lead and change the Senate rules so that 51 senators can do whatever they want. This is the nuclear option of all nuclear options and will result in an incredible swing in policies, but I believe it is time to force the American people to understand how ridiculous it is that the US Federal government has so much day to day input in our lives.

    2. You hit the nail on the head G-man! I’m a life long conservative. Oh how the Republican Party has moved to the left and act like cowards hiding under the bed!

  7. “The city has required concealed-carry applicants to provide justification for wanting a permit to carry firearms outside the home for personal protection. Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. ruled that the requirement “impinges on Plaintiff’s Second Amendment right to bear arms,” so the city would have been legally required to start offering carry permits under more lenient rules.”

    I have to admit that I haven’t paid too much attention to this case, but it seems as if the case is about moving from “may issue” (need a “good” reason) to “shall issue” (no justification needed). BUT, if they’re trying to invalidate “may issue” what does that case do to the neighboring “may issue” state of MD if the court ruled that “may issue” is an infringement on 2nd Amendment rights?

    1. Man, if there is one city where you wanna be packing, it’s D.C.! Gotta find out whose permits they honor, if any.

  8. As with all fascist government entities, the District of Columbia (otherwise know as “Mordor on the Potomac”) fears its sheeple and wants complete control over them. Fascists do not care about laws that do not align with their dictates and will trample them into the mud churned up by their jack boots. If you think this is hyperbolic, you aren’t paying attention to what the Feds and quite a few State governments are about. Even here in Texas where we are try to get a version of open carry passed this session in the legislature, one of the versions of the law included a provision giving the State the right to confiscate arms from citizens during times of great crisis. Government bureaucrats everywhere have a desire to control the populace.

  9. You might want to get a Lawyers interpretation on the Ruling, Because I fairly certain, It doesn’t mean what you think it means.

    1. Hi Maguis: could you please explain what you believe is the meaning of the ruling? How is Woody wrong? No being a lawyer, and having read my share of legalise, I know that it is easy to for us regular people to misunderstand a legal document.

    2. I did contact C.D. Michel about the ruling. Michel is the lawyer running the similar “shall-carry” Peruta case in California. He said the Washington ruling was so new, he hadn’t had time to review the case thoroughly, thus, he didn’t want to comment about its potential effects. But SAF thinks it’s a win. Hard to see how it isn’t.

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

Time limit exceeded. Please click the reload button and complete the captcha once again.

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.