As some of you may be aware, Attorney Alan Gura has been waging a legal battle against the District of Columbia (as well as other jurisdictions) based upon their unconstitutional infringement of the Second Amendment generally, and DC residents concealed carry rights in particular.

Having already won a court decision compelling the District–and in particular, it’s Police Chief Cathy Lanier (pictured above)–to issue concealed carry permits to lawful, qualified residents, Gura naturally ran into the usual anti-gun rearguard position: “Sure, we’ll issue permits–on terms of our own choosing. Terms that nobody except our rich friends and political comrades will ever be deemed to have satisfied.”

And those terms invariably require that the applicant have some special and unusual reason to be granted a concealed carry permit.  This is the kind of restriction still being employed in liberal states like New Jersey and New York, and which was being employed in California until the recent Peruta decision by the 9th Circuit.

Gura responded to Lanier’s demand that applications show some special reason–above and beyond simply being law-abiding Americans with civil rights–by filing a motion for an injunction with the US District Court for DC, to prohibit Lanier from imposing those special conditions.

Today that Court handed down it’s decision on the requested motion–and Gura was the big winner, again:

Two questions come to mind:

1) When Peruta v. San Diego gets it's en banc review, will this decision from the D.C. Circuit be considered precedent?

2) If Peruta v. San Diego gets overturned after the en banc review, does the fact that the circuits disagree make it more likely that the SCOTUS will take on the issue (once and for all!)?

Whatever happens, it's an exciting development!

Two questions come to mind:

1) When Peruta v. San Diego gets it's en banc review, will this decision from the D.C. Circuit be considered precedent?

2) If Peruta v. San Diego gets overturned after the en banc review, does the fact that the circuits disagree make it more likely that the SCOTUS will take on the issue (once and for all!)?

Whatever happens, it's an exciting development!

The DC ruling actually cited Peruta.  As others have mentioned the DC ruling does not necessarily have any bearing when the 9th hears Peruta again en banc.  Hawaii has neither the wherewithal or the money to do this on their own and I don't expect Cali to go quietly, so Hawaii will just sit and wait.  This will almost invariably end up in SCOTUS where it will be pretty much finalized.  It will be some time before Hawaii sees CCW.

How long do you think? I am kind of expecting sometime in 2017. I figure if the decision is handed down by the end of the year our legislature will drag their feet for another year before they are forced to give in.

I think we should dare them to let us try it, give us CCW and watch for three years to see if gun crimes really do rise like they predict.

How long do you think? I am kind of expecting sometime in 2017. I figure if the decision is handed down by the end of the year our legislature will drag their feet for another year before they are forced to give in.

I think we should dare them to let us try it, give us CCW and watch for three years to see if gun crimes really do rise like they predict.

My guess is 5 years for a ruling.  If we get a republican president, I think we'll get CCW through congress earlier than that.