By Dave Workman
Senior Editor
In a major coup against arbitrary concealed requirements, the Second Amendment Foundation won a preliminary injunction in federal court that smacks down the District of Columbia’s “good reason” requirement for obtaining a concealed carry permit in the city.
The case, known as Wrenn v. District of Columbia, is already being eyed by some in the Second Amendment right-to-carry movement as a possible candidate for Supreme Court review if the city appeals. The ruling may be read here.
SAF’s Alan Gottlieb
SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb was delighted with the May 18 ruling, from federal Judge Frederick J. Scullin. In his 23-page order, the judge noted that “The District of Columbia’s arbitrary ‘good reason’/‘proper reason’ requirement…goes far beyond establishing…reasonable restrictions. Rather, for all intents and purposes, this requirement makes it impossible for the overwhelming majority of law-abiding citizens to obtain licenses to carry handguns in public for self-defense, thereby depriving them of their Second Amendment right to bear arms.”
In a statement issued immediately after learning of the ruling, Gottlieb noted, “This is a devastating loss for the District and its anti-gun-rights policy. We’re delighted with the judge’s ruling because once again, the court has thwarted the District’s blatantly obvious effort to discourage the exercise of Second Amendment rights by forcing permit applicants to jump through a series of hoops and then frustrate them by requiring an arbitrary ‘good reason’ for the exercise of a constitutionally-protected civil right.”
Judge Scullin ordered that the city is “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.”
He further wrote that the District’s “good reason/proper reason” requirement “has far more than a ‘de minimis’ effect on [their] rights it completely bars the right from being exercised, at all times and places and in any manner, without exception” and that the requirement “impinges on Plaintiff’s Second Amendment right to bear arms.”
Later in his ruling, Judge Scullin provided a strong signal about the ultimate outcome of this case.
“This Court,” he wrote, “finds that Plaintiffs have established that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the District of Columbia’s ‘good reason’/‘proper reason’ requirement was unconstitutional when enacted and continues to violate their Second Amendment right to bear arms for the purpose of self-defense every day that the District of Columbia continues to enforce it. Thus, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have established that they will suffer irreparable harm if the Court does not grant their motion for a preliminary injunction.”
Attorneys for both sides were ordered to attend a July 7 conference with the court to “discuss an expedited schedule for the resolution of this case.”
“You can’t ask for more than that,” Gottlieb said. He noted that this is the second time in a row the District has lost on a carry issue in a case involving SAF. He was referring to the Palmer case, which SAF also won, and which forced the city to adopt a carry law, which they tried to make as difficult as possible.
“This is getting to be rather tiring,” he observed. “To quote the renowned American folk trio, Peter, Paul and Mary, ‘when will they ever learn, when will they ever learn?’”
Judge Scullin’s opinion was reminiscent of Judge Benson Everett Legg’s initial ruling in Woollard v. Gallagher, a case challenging Maryland’s arbitrary “good and substantial” requirement – reversed by an appeals court decision. Judge Legg noted that the Maryland requirement was “A law that burdens the exercise of an enumerated constitutional right by simply making that right more difficult to exercise.”
There have been other cases challenging the discretionary permitting laws in New York and New Jersey that also haven’t made their way to the high court. But a lawsuit challenging an equally arbitrary permitting requirement in the nation’s capital just might earn the high court’s attention. Anti-self-defense advocates could be fearful of what the Supremes might do with a right-to-carry case.
In Moore v. Madigan, the SAF case that forced Illinois to adopt a concealed carry, Judge Richard Posner noted in his majority opinion, “The right to ‘bear’ as distinct from the right to ‘keep’ arms is unlikely to refer to the home. To speak of ‘bearing’ arms within one’s home would at all times have been an awkward usage. A right to bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home.”
That ruling also covered the similar Shepard v. Madigan case, filed by the National Rifle Association.
Once again, SAF and its co-plaintiffs were represented by Virginia attorney Alan Gura.
This is a case gun rights organizations will be watching closely, as the Supreme Court has been so far reluctant to accept for review any of several cases that have been submitted on the subject of carry outside the home, and what – if any – restrictions might be placed against that right by local authorities, and still be allowed under the Second Amendment.
