Judge Scullin Issues Preliminary Injunciton; D.C. Permits to be Shall Issue

Gun Watch ^ | 19 May, 2015 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

In two opinions issued today, 18 May, 2015, Judge Scullin essentially ended the Palmer v. D.C. case by refusing to issue a contempt citation against the D.C. government.  But, in another ruling on the new D.C. law, Judge Scullin issued a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of particular sections of the D.C. permit to carry law.   Those sections of the law are the ones that allow the police chief to turn down permits if they do not have "good reason" for them.  Here are the last paragraphs of the opinion:

ORDERS that Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction are enjoined from enforcing the requirement of D.C. Code § 22-4506(a) that handgun carry license applicants have a "good reason to fear injury to his or her person or property or has any other proper reason for carrying a pistol," including, but not limited to, the manner in which that requirement is defined by D.C. Code § 7-2509.11 and 24 D.C.M.R. §§ 2333.1, 2333.2, 2333.3, 2333.4, and 2334.1, against Plaintiffs Brian Wrenn, Joshua Akery, Tyler Whidby, and other members of Plaintiff Second Amendment Foundation, Inc.; and the Court further

ORDERS that Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction, are enjoined from denying handgun carry licenses to applicants who meet the requirements of D.C. Code 22- 4506(a) and all other current requirements for the possession and carrying of handguns under District of Columbia law; and the Court further

ORDERS that, pursuant to Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs shall post security in the amount of $1,000.00; and the Court further

ORDERS that counsel shall appear for a conference with the Court on Tuesday, July 7, 2015, at 11:00 a.m. to discuss an expedited schedule for the resolution of this case.

It is likely that the D.C. Government will ask for a stay on the implementation of this preliminary injunction, and it may be granted.   In an article in the Washington Times, Alan Gura says that he expects the D.C. government to appeal the ruling.

“The issue here is not whether the District of Columbia’s ‘good reason’/’proper reason’ requirement is a reasonable or wise policy choice. Rather, the issue is whether this requirement, no matter how well intended, violates the Second Amendment,” Judge Scullin wrote.

The preliminary injunction leaves in place other concealed carry permit requirements, including the completion of firearms training and restrictions on where concealed weapons can be carried.

The lawsuit is not challenging those restrictions.

Lawyer Alan Gura, who is representing the Second Amendment Foundation in the lawsuit, said he was pleased with the ruling but expects the District to appeal.

“We’re going to fight all the way,” he said.

While the preliminary injunction is in place, the D.C. law is a shall issue law.  D.C. v Palmer is now dead, but the lawsuit against the new D.C. laws "may issue sections",   D.C. v. Wrenn, is very much alive.  

Alan Gura essentially swapped the D.C v. Palmer for D.C. v. Wrenn, and got a preliminary injunction against D.C. in the process.   Preliminary injunctions are not granted casually.

It will take a bit to see how this sorts out, but it appears that Alan Gura has achieved another significant win in the fight to restore the second amendment. 


©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

[marktwain]

This is masterful by Gura and Scullin. D.C. has some period where it *must* issue permits. D.C. is forced to appeal if they do not want a shall issue law; and Scullin says that "good cause" requirements for a permit are unconstitutional.

[logi_cal869]

I hope Gura has people he can trust...

[CurlyDave]

If you dig up the ruling and read it over, it is really quite favorable. D.C. had been saying that less guns=less crime, and Scullin put them on notice that this is not in agreement with some FBI statistics, and that this point was subject to debate and scientific examination.

The Judge also quotes the D.C. Police Chief, Lanier, as saying: “Law abiding citizens that register firearms, that follow the rules, are not our worry.” D.C. is going to have a very hard time wiggling out of that corner they have put themselves in.

[marktwain]

Yes, it is a key point that Judge Scullin did not accept their unproven premise that less guns = more public safety.

It is the key assumption in the whole disarmist world view. Subject it to question, and their whole scheme falls apart.

They rely on that assumption for virtually all of their arguments.

[catman67]

Pssst!

Someone should tell Maryland!

[marktwain]

A couple of corrections on the titles of the cases in this article.

The first case was Palmer v. D.C. not D.C. v. Palmer

The second case is Wrenn v. D.C. not D.C. v. Wrenn