I’m clueless when it comes to court rulings and stuff like that but it’s my understanding that if a Federal Appeals Court in one “district” makes a powerful and important ruling like this it doesn’t necessarily mean that it applies elsewhere.That is,even though a top Federal Court has basically ordered DC to be “shall issue” a state like Massachusetts can still make you go through a two year application for a license and then,for no good reason,deny the application.That’s my understanding of how things stand here...you have to apply to the local police chief for a license and he/she can deny it without even giving a reason.
No.
It only applies in the jurisdictions that make up the appeals court’s district.
In this case, that jurisdiction is limited to D.C.
It creates a clear split in rulings between the districts, however.
In theory, that means the Supreme Court should be more likely to take a case. In practice, the Supreme Court has not been willing to take this type of case about the Second Amendment.
If the libs were confident of a victory, this would have been automatically appealed. They were worried that if it had been upheld, then it would have been applicable to ALL the states. My suspicion is that liberal AGs in states like California did NOT want D.C. to appeal this, because in essence, the 9th Circuit has upheld “may issue.”