The Court handed down it’s decision on Monday on the requested motion–and Attorney Alan Gura was the big winner, again:
After reviewing the entire file in this matter, the parties’ submissions and the applicable law, and for the above-stated reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS that Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED; 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 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 -22-Case 1:15-cv-00162-FJS Document 13 Filed 05/18/15 Page 23 of 23
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 SO ORDERED.
This seems to be an airtight Federal case, rather than a state's rights issue. This flies in the face of the U.S. Court of Appeals that upheld NYS's and NYC's justifiable carry provision and is likely to be challenged. However if it isn't, this will set a precedent for NYS, NYC, MA, MD, and CA.
Looking forward to hearing what happens with Peruta v. Gore next month when the argument is heard en banc.
Uncle Duke
After reviewing the entire file in this matter, the parties’ submissions and the applicable law, and for the above-stated reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS that Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED; 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 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 -22-Case 1:15-cv-00162-FJS Document 13 Filed 05/18/15 Page 23 of 23
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 SO ORDERED.
This seems to be an airtight Federal case, rather than a state's rights issue. This flies in the face of the U.S. Court of Appeals that upheld NYS's and NYC's justifiable carry provision and is likely to be challenged. However if it isn't, this will set a precedent for NYS, NYC, MA, MD, and CA.
Looking forward to hearing what happens with Peruta v. Gore next month when the argument is heard en banc.
Uncle Duke
NRA Life Member, 2nd Amendment Foundation Member,GOAL Member
Range Safety Officer, NRA Pistol,Home Firearm Safety, PPIH/PPOH Instructor. UT, MD, DC, MA Basic Firearm & LEOSA Instructor, NRA LE Pistol/Shotgun, Patrol Rifle, and Select-Fire Instructor