The Judge in the D.C. District Court has smacked down at least one aspect of DC’s attempt at evading the Second Amendment in Wrenn v. D.C. The Court in this case did not buy D.C.’s assertion that the good cause requirement was related to the city’s interest in preventing crime:
While, as stated, Defendants argue that the District of Columbia’s “good reason”/”proper reason” requirement relates reasonably to its interest in preventing crime and protecting public safety, they have not established that relationship.
The fact that an individual may be able to demonstrate a greater need for self-protection, and therefore meets the “good reason”/”proper reason” requirement, does not indicate, in any way, whether that person is less likely to misuse handguns or may be less dangerous.
The Court also rejected D.C.’s assertion that they had a legitimate interest in reducing the number of handguns in public places:
Furthermore, even if the Court were to accept the proposition that handguns are used disproportionately in the commission of violent crimes, how is that use related to whether or not a person has a greater need for self-protection? Moreover, isn’t it possible that even persons who cannot manifest a present need for self-protection are just as likely to be victims of a violent crime. Simply put, the District of Columbia’s “good reason”/”proper reason” requirement will neither make  it less likely that those who meet this requirement will present a risk to other members of the public or commit violent crimes than those who cannot meet this requirement. Therefore, after reviewing the record in this case, the Court finds that Defendants have failed to demonstrate that there is any relationship, let alone a tight fit, between reducing the risk to other members of the public and/or violent crime and the District of Columbia’s “good reason”/”proper reason” requirement.
This is very good news. SAF only chose to file for a preliminary injunction on the “good cause” requirement, and they got it. D.C. is now not permitted to enforce this requirement. Good show!
A huge win and thanks to all involved. Again.
The judge here – Scullen – is the same who forced DC into Shall-Issue in the first place, and I suspect the DC Circuit will issue a stay. Still, it’s a big effin’ deal.
Cannot wait for the eyes to pop in DC. The talking heads are going to explode.
Exactly opposite of what the 3rd circuit said in the Drake case. Yoohoo, SCOTUS, we need you to step in and make a decision on carry.
Does this make DC shall issue?
I would say yes. Now all those who refused permits can reapply and get them
Effectively, yes.
This District Ct not Circuit Ct. It can be appealed at the Dc Circuit and Reid got all those extra Obama judges in.
King vs Burwell was taken straight from the hands of an En Banc possibility by the Supreme Ct . That wasa strong indication they did not trust the En Banc judges.
Makes me happy to be a life member of SAF. No, they’re not perfect.. but they’re out there pushing all the time.
AND they are effecting change….unlike other organizations.
Several old friend in DC celebrating… And the pols have to be crying
The more of these patchwork decisions, the better the chance of SCOTUS taking one of these cases up.
Amazing decision. A court who did it’s job is a wonderful sight! Now we need this nationwide.
I have to say that contributing to SAF pays off. They keep winning these cases Chicago , DC. Next NYC.
Going deep in enemy territory.
Yeah, dollar for dollar, they are the most effective 2A org out there.
I want to buy Alan Gura a beer and a box of .22LR
Don’t forget folks, DC doesn’t make a distinction between resident and non-resident, so feel free to apply no matter where you are. >:)
Tempting, but DC is not quite convenient enough for me to get to do to the paperwork