Ammo For Sale

« « Why are anti-gun activists so violent? | Home | Yes and no » »

& Stimpy

DC will not appeal the Wrenn case to the supreme court. DC has released a statement basically saying they were stupid to challenge gun cases in the past.

This is good news for DC. And likely bad news for Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, and more.

7 Responses to “& Stimpy”

  1. Paul Koning Says:

    Bad, because it doesn’t set a precedent outside whatever district, so the unfortunates who live in those other states will have to win their own lawsuits?

  2. J T Bolt Says:

    We lost lawsuits, and appealed them. No cert. Normally the Supreme Court likes to hear cases where there is some circuits ruling one way (DC and Chicago, and 3 others) and some ruling against (Maryland, California.)

  3. Kermit Says:

    What Paul said. Regardless of appeals by D.C., doesn’t this set up exactly the sort of cross-circuit conflict in precedent that the Supreme Court prefers to have in their cases? Wouldn’t this make it that much easier for a suit from a may-issue state to achieve cert now?

  4. Standard Mischief Says:

    >outside whatever district

    Yep, DC is it’s own circus. I was hoping it would cover Guam, Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, but a quick look into the matter and no dice.

  5. KM Says:

    Well then, I was obviously wrong in my statement on the other post about this. I thought DC would be certain to appeal since they didn’t have to burn their own personal money to take it further.

    Glad they aren’t going to do it!

  6. wrangler5 Says:

    Hold not thy breath for any improvement for DC citizens. Expect an elaborate and expensive multi-step application system with opportunities for the bureaucrats to declare the citizen has failed to comply with the process and must start (and pay) over, similar to what I’ve read NY City does with their concealed carry permit process to people who are not among the favored.

    It will be years before that system has been developed and in place long enough to demonstrate an unconstitutional infringement, and more years of litigation to fight it.

    While I understand the traditional reluctance of appellate courts to write a remedy outside the facts presented in the case before them (not that liberal judges exhibit any of this reluctance) but sometimes I wish that the Supremes would take one of these cases and just rule that any lawful gun owner can carry any gun any place in the US except the White House, a jail/prison area, or a courtroom in which a trial is proceeding. And yes that would include police stations and courthouses, as well as airports, schools, churches, public buildings (including Congress) and any business open to the public.

  7. Paul Koning Says:

    Wrangler: sounds good to me. It would also fix the defenseless victim problem for airplanes. And it would eliminate the need for the TSA, which can’t happen soon enough. Unfortunately, all this requires a court that obeys the Constitution, which is an unheard of concept.
    Meanwhile, the DC problem could be fixed very easily by Congress (which has plenary authority over DC under the Constitution), but they don’t have the integrity either.