District Court enjoins D.C.'s "good reason" requirement for CCL

KyJim · May 19, 2016, 08:54 AM

District Judge Richard Leon has temporarily enjoined D.C.'s requirement that an applicant show "good reason" for issuance of a concealed carry license. There is a story in the Washington Post. The story notes an earlier decision by a visiting judge (Scullin) which found the D.C.'s complete ban on concealed carry to be unconstitutional. D.C. amended its code requiring "good reason" to carry, outside of a generalized desire to protect one's self (I'm simplifying the code). District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly refused in March to stay enforcement of the provision while litigation on the amended code proceeded.

Judge Leon's opinion is 46 pages long and begins by following Heller's lead and traces the right, and sometimes the requirement, to carry outside the home to Colonial days. D.C. is sure to appeal this temporary injunction.

The full opinion is at: http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/doc...gun-case/1996/

Gary Slider · May 19, 2016, 07:12 PM

The US District Court for DC has ordered (5/17/16) a preliminary injunction be granted against the “Just Cause or other Proper Reason” for obtaining a Permit to Carry in DC. You can read the case at the first link below and the Order of the Court at the 2nd Link.
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin...?2015cv2234-45 (250k)
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin...?2015cv2234-46 (7.8 MB)

The DC Metro Police Dept posted this on their website 5/19/16: In light of the preliminary injunction issued by Judge Richard Leon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in Grace v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 15-2234, the Metropolitan Police Department will not require applicants to comport with the “Good Reason” requirement under D.C. Official Code § 7-2509.11(1)(A) & (B), while the injunction is effective (see “Grace Preliminary Injunction” document, attached below).

Applicants must still meet all other requirements when applying for a license to carry a concealed firearm. Applicants who were previously denied pursuant to the “Good Reason” requirement may submit a new application. The application fee for re-applicants meeting this criteria will be waived. New applicants should use the existing forms until such time as the Department is able to revise forms in accordance with the court’s order. Questions should be directed to the Firearms Registration Section at (202) 727-4275. http://mpdc.dc.gov/page/applying-con...pistol-license
DC will most likely ask for a Stay of this ruling and Appeal. They will be spending the Taxpayers Money to appeal and not their own.

Arizona Governor signed two bills that benefit those who carry. SB 1266 puts teeth in Arizona’s Preemption law. It allows for damages etc against local authorities that pass ordinances that are not in line with state law. HB 2338 states that K thru College/Universities can’t have policies that forbid the carrying of firearms on right of ways through their campus. This includes streets, alleys. paths and sidewalks. Handgunlaw.us believes the key word in the law is “Through” which to us does not mean every sidewalk, street etc that is on campus. Again another very gray area in the law open to interpretation. These two statutes do not become law until about August 5, 2016. AZ Law states 90 days after the Legislature adjourns a signed bill becomes law. http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/52leg/2r/bills/sb1266s.htm
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/52leg/2r/bills/hb2338h.htm

Starting Aug 1, 2016 the state of Louisiana will issue 5 year or lifetime permits to Honorably Discharged Veterans Free! Active Duty Military will still be required to pay ½ the costs that civilians pay for the 5 year and lifetime permits. http://www.legis.la.gov/legis/ViewDo...aspx?d=1002916

Al Norris · May 20, 2016, 08:22 AM

Duplicate posts/threads merged based upon time stamps.

johnwilliamson062 · May 23, 2016, 07:17 AM

I wonder what they are saying about this at Calguns.

KyJim · May 25, 2016, 11:34 AM

There's a follow up reporting claiming the D.C. Attorney General has ordered D.C. employees to ignore the district court order. http://thefederalist.com/2016/05/25/...s-gun-permits/. The writer says he went to seek an application for his CCL and police department employees told him the D.C. Attorney General ordered them to ignore the court order and deny applications. I have to question whether the AG actually ordered the police department to defy the court order because she certainly does not have that authority. At most, she might advise various departments to do so. Whether "ordered" or "advised" to ignore the injunction, those in responsible positions risk sanctions after an intermediate step or two.

rwilson452 · May 25, 2016, 11:56 AM

Quote:

There's a follow up reporting claiming the D.C. Attorney General has ordered D.C. employees to ignore the district court order. http://thefederalist.com/2016/05/25/...s-gun-permits/. The writer says he went to seek an application for his CCL and police department employees told him the D.C. Attorney General ordered them to ignore the court order and deny applications. I have to question whether the AG actually ordered the police department to defy the court order because she certainly does not have that authority. At most, she might advise various departments to do so. Whether "ordered" or "advised" to ignore the injunction, those in responsible positions risk sanctions after an intermediate step or two.

It would seem to me that if the AG did do this the judge might get rather upset and take action against the AG.

Lohman446 · May 25, 2016, 12:51 PM

Correct me if I am wrong but wouldn't ordering others to not follow a judges order be classified as contempt of court by both the person doing the ordering and the people (knowingly) following the order?

**Spats McGee** · May 25, 2016, 06:05 PM

Yes. Knowingly directing one's minions to disobey a court order (like an injunction) would certainly be grounds for contempt.

ETA: However, the webpage for applying for a concealed carry license indicates that:

Quote:

Originally Posted by MPDC

In light of the preliminary injunction issued by Judge Richard Leon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in Grace v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 15-2234, the Metropolitan Police Department will not require applicants to comport with the “Good Reason” requirement under D.C. Official Code § 7-2509.11(1)(A) & (B), while the injunction is effective (see “Grace Preliminary Injunction” document, attached below).

Source: http://mpdc.dc.gov/page/applying-con...pistol-license

johnwilliamson062 · May 25, 2016, 10:36 PM

It may just have been a temporary measure until they formally decided how they were going to handle things(triplicate and all).

62coltnavy · June 1, 2016, 12:29 AM

At the current time, the order is subject to an administrative stay issued May 27 while the court of appeals considers an emergency motion for stay pending appeal. Grace has been ordered to respond the the request for stay by this friday, and the city to file any reply by next monday. Judge Kavanaugh would have denied the administrative stay.

Dreaming100Straight · June 1, 2016, 07:57 PM

The same decision reached in this District Court case is essentially what was reached by the appellate panel of the 9th Circuit in Peruta vs. San Diego, but that decision was vacated when the issue was taken up en banc. It was argued a few months ago and the folks at Calguns are waiting on a decision.

barnbwt · June 1, 2016, 08:37 PM

"We find it unconstitutional to deny all concealed carry in DC"
<DC gnashes and wails about blood in the streets>
"Very well, if you'll stop complaining we'll grant a lengthy stay so you can develop a process that vets applicants and issues permits, so long as you promise to comply, and actually issue permits"
<DC fails to comply utterly w/ the 'good cause' requirement, denying practically all applications>
"We order you to approve applications and issue permits, this 'good cause' criteria is clearly overly broad and a de facto ban"
<DC gnashes and wails about the Wild West>
"Very well, if you'll stop complaining, we'll grant a lengthy stay to further review your process, whose prohibitory effect we've already established is unconstitutional, so you have time (again) to create a process that vets applicants and actually grants approvals, as originally ordered"
...months later...
<DC cooks up yet another scheme to deny issuing permits, failing utterly to comply with the first court order>

I really don't understand why these judges aren't taking the disrespect personally, at this point. The last guy who wrote for the majority that struck down the CC ban had such strong language in the opinion, that I thought we'd start seeing some backbone from the judges when the DC cops predictably slow-walked a stone wall in the face of justice. We very nearly had DC officials openly order non-compliance shortly before a stay was granted, with the implicit assumption of good faith on DC's part to comply. Can't help but think if this was a racial or gender issue in the state of Alabama, we'd be seeing several civic officials in the hoosegow by now on contempt charges.

We really need to get congress to start meddling in DC affairs again; it would do the District good, being run by folks from outside the rarified (purple/hazy) air for a change, and would do the nation as a whole good, giving congress a diversion from regulating the rest of us.

TCB

May 19, 2016, 08:54 AM	#1
KyJim Senior Member Join Date: July 26, 2005 Location: The Bluegrass Posts: 9,142	District Court enjoins D.C.'s "good reason" requirement for CCL District Judge Richard Leon has temporarily enjoined D.C.'s requirement that an applicant show "good reason" for issuance of a concealed carry license. There is a story in the Washington Post. The story notes an earlier decision by a visiting judge (Scullin) which found the D.C.'s complete ban on concealed carry to be unconstitutional. D.C. amended its code requiring "good reason" to carry, outside of a generalized desire to protect one's self (I'm simplifying the code). District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly refused in March to stay enforcement of the provision while litigation on the amended code proceeded. Judge Leon's opinion is 46 pages long and begins by following Heller's lead and traces the right, and sometimes the requirement, to carry outside the home to Colonial days. D.C. is sure to appeal this temporary injunction. The full opinion is at: http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/doc...gun-case/1996/

May 19, 2016, 07:12 PM	#2
Gary Slider Senior Member Join Date: October 10, 2006 Location: New Martinsville, WV Posts: 432	US Ct Just Cause Injunction- DC Police Update. . . Arizona . . . Louisiana . . . Upda The US District Court for DC has ordered (5/17/16) a preliminary injunction be granted against the “Just Cause or other Proper Reason” for obtaining a Permit to Carry in DC. You can read the case at the first link below and the Order of the Court at the 2nd Link. https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin...?2015cv2234-45 (250k) https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin...?2015cv2234-46 (7.8 MB) The DC Metro Police Dept posted this on their website 5/19/16: In light of the preliminary injunction issued by Judge Richard Leon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in Grace v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 15-2234, the Metropolitan Police Department will not require applicants to comport with the “Good Reason” requirement under D.C. Official Code § 7-2509.11(1)(A) & (B), while the injunction is effective (see “Grace Preliminary Injunction” document, attached below). Applicants must still meet all other requirements when applying for a license to carry a concealed firearm. Applicants who were previously denied pursuant to the “Good Reason” requirement may submit a new application. The application fee for re-applicants meeting this criteria will be waived. New applicants should use the existing forms until such time as the Department is able to revise forms in accordance with the court’s order. Questions should be directed to the Firearms Registration Section at (202) 727-4275. http://mpdc.dc.gov/page/applying-con...pistol-license DC will most likely ask for a Stay of this ruling and Appeal. They will be spending the Taxpayers Money to appeal and not their own. Arizona Governor signed two bills that benefit those who carry. SB 1266 puts teeth in Arizona’s Preemption law. It allows for damages etc against local authorities that pass ordinances that are not in line with state law. HB 2338 states that K thru College/Universities can’t have policies that forbid the carrying of firearms on right of ways through their campus. This includes streets, alleys. paths and sidewalks. Handgunlaw.us believes the key word in the law is “Through” which to us does not mean every sidewalk, street etc that is on campus. Again another very gray area in the law open to interpretation. These two statutes do not become law until about August 5, 2016. AZ Law states 90 days after the Legislature adjourns a signed bill becomes law. http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/52leg/2r/bills/sb1266s.htm http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/52leg/2r/bills/hb2338h.htm Starting Aug 1, 2016 the state of Louisiana will issue 5 year or lifetime permits to Honorably Discharged Veterans Free! Active Duty Military will still be required to pay ½ the costs that civilians pay for the 5 year and lifetime permits. http://www.legis.la.gov/legis/ViewDo...aspx?d=1002916 __________________ ___________ Gary Slider Co-Owner Handgunlaw.us Member Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network.

June 1, 2016, 08:37 PM	#12
barnbwt Senior Member Join Date: May 17, 2012 Posts: 1,085	"We find it unconstitutional to deny all concealed carry in DC" <DC gnashes and wails about blood in the streets> "Very well, if you'll stop complaining we'll grant a lengthy stay so you can develop a process that vets applicants and issues permits, so long as you promise to comply, and actually issue permits" <DC fails to comply utterly w/ the 'good cause' requirement, denying practically all applications> "We order you to approve applications and issue permits, this 'good cause' criteria is clearly overly broad and a de facto ban" <DC gnashes and wails about the Wild West> "Very well, if you'll stop complaining, we'll grant a lengthy stay to further review your process, whose prohibitory effect we've already established is unconstitutional, so you have time (again) to create a process that vets applicants and actually grants approvals, as originally ordered" ...months later... <DC cooks up yet another scheme to deny issuing permits, failing utterly to comply with the first court order> I really don't understand why these judges aren't taking the disrespect personally, at this point. The last guy who wrote for the majority that struck down the CC ban had such strong language in the opinion, that I thought we'd start seeing some backbone from the judges when the DC cops predictably slow-walked a stone wall in the face of justice. We very nearly had DC officials openly order non-compliance shortly before a stay was granted, with the implicit assumption of good faith on DC's part to comply. Can't help but think if this was a racial or gender issue in the state of Alabama, we'd be seeing several civic officials in the hoosegow by now on contempt charges. We really need to get congress to start meddling in DC affairs again; it would do the District good, being run by folks from outside the rarified (purple/hazy) air for a change, and would do the nation as a whole good, giving congress a diversion from regulating the rest of us. TCB __________________ "I don't believe that the men of the distant past were any wiser than we are today. But it does seem that their science and technology were able to accomplish much grander things." -- Alex Rosewater

May 20, 2016, 08:22 AM	#3
Al Norris Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 29, 2000 Location: Rupert, Idaho Posts: 9,660	Duplicate posts/threads merged based upon time stamps.

May 23, 2016, 07:17 AM	#4
johnwilliamson062 Junior member Join Date: May 16, 2008 Posts: 9,995	I wonder what they are saying about this at Calguns.

May 25, 2016, 11:34 AM	#5
KyJim Senior Member Join Date: July 26, 2005 Location: The Bluegrass Posts: 9,142	There's a follow up reporting claiming the D.C. Attorney General has ordered D.C. employees to ignore the district court order. http://thefederalist.com/2016/05/25/...s-gun-permits/. The writer says he went to seek an application for his CCL and police department employees told him the D.C. Attorney General ordered them to ignore the court order and deny applications. I have to question whether the AG actually ordered the police department to defy the court order because she certainly does not have that authority. At most, she might advise various departments to do so. Whether "ordered" or "advised" to ignore the injunction, those in responsible positions risk sanctions after an intermediate step or two.

May 25, 2016, 12:51 PM	#7
Lohman446 Senior Member Join Date: April 22, 2016 Posts: 2,192	Correct me if I am wrong but wouldn't ordering others to not follow a judges order be classified as contempt of court by both the person doing the ordering and the people (knowingly) following the order?

May 25, 2016, 10:36 PM	#9
johnwilliamson062 Junior member Join Date: May 16, 2008 Posts: 9,995	It may just have been a temporary measure until they formally decided how they were going to handle things(triplicate and all).

June 1, 2016, 12:29 AM	#10
62coltnavy Senior Member Join Date: February 1, 2011 Posts: 356	At the current time, the order is subject to an administrative stay issued May 27 while the court of appeals considers an emergency motion for stay pending appeal. Grace has been ordered to respond the the request for stay by this friday, and the city to file any reply by next monday. Judge Kavanaugh would have denied the administrative stay.

June 1, 2016, 07:57 PM	#11
Dreaming100Straight Senior Member Join Date: February 3, 2013 Posts: 1,235	The same decision reached in this District Court case is essentially what was reached by the appellate panel of the 9th Circuit in Peruta vs. San Diego, but that decision was vacated when the issue was taken up en banc. It was argued a few months ago and the folks at Calguns are waiting on a decision.