[Search function isn't working for me at the moment, so I don't know if there is already a Wrenn thread here or not...]

Just issued by D.C. circuit, still open to en banc reversal... but... clearly coming down on our side (the one (woman) judge who wrote the dissent also wrote a dissent in Heller, claiming that since D.C. is not a state the Constitution (2nd amendment) didn't apply...). This decision amounts to: Everything Hawaii has in place regarding carrying firearms outside the home, as applied, de facto, is unconstitutional. In other words, if being an "exceptional case" isn't a valid/constitutional requirement for "keeping" arms, it can't be a constitutional/valid legal requirement for "bearing" arms either.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3900192/7-25-17-DC-Circuit-Wrenn.pdf

Quotes [all emphasis mine]:

We conclude: the individual right to carry common firearms beyond the home for self defense—even in densely populated areas, even for those lacking special self-defense needs—falls within the core of the Second Amendment’s protections.

These points confirm that the rights to keep and bear arms are on equal footing—that the law must leave responsible, law abiding citizens some reasonable means of exercising each.

We do not agree with the Ninth Circuit that a ban on concealed carry can be assessed in isolation from the rest of a jurisdiction’s gun regulations. As we’ve noted, text and history and precedent urge that the Second Amendment requires governments to leave responsible citizens ample means for self-defense at home and outside. So a regulation’s validity may turn partly on whether surrounding laws leave ample options for keeping and carrying.

Since possession and carrying are on par with each other, it will follow that the same categorical treatment should apply to the District’s ban on carrying.

This point brings into focus the legally decisive fact: the good-reason law is necessarily a total ban on most D.C. residents’ right to carry a gun in the face of ordinary self defense needs, where these residents are no more dangerous with a gun than the next law-abiding citizen.

We pause to draw together all the pieces of our analysis: At the Second Amendment’s core lies the right of responsible citizens to carry firearms for personal self-defense beyond the home, subject to longstanding restrictions. These traditional limits include, for instance, licensing requirements, but not bans on carrying in urban areas like D.C. or bans on carrying absent a special need for self-defense. In fact, the Amendment’s core at a minimum shields the typically situated citizen’s ability to carry common arms generally.

* * * * *

I'm having a momentary celebration... as there are so few opportunities for those in this legal realm...

Just issued by D.C. circuit, still open to en banc reversal... but... clearly coming down on our side (the one (woman) judge who wrote the dissent also wrote a dissent in Heller, claiming that since D.C. is not a state the Constitution (2nd amendment) didn't apply...).

WTF?  I hope she doesn't mind cops searching her home without a warrant too since the constitution doesn't apply (assuming she lives in DC)

Is there anything pending in the 9th Circuit that, upon defeat, could be appealed to the Supreme Court since they refused to hear Peruta?

It would put more pressure on the Supreme Court to hear a case if there are dissenting lower Appeals court decisions.

The D.C. Circuit atty. pushing this case is still considering whether to pursue an En Banc decision.
If he loses, I don't think he'll push it to the Supreme Court and risk another Heller.
If he doesn't appeal, does this mean their Circuit gets the right but the 9th Circuit doesn't ?

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer (IANAL) and thus everything below is just my personal layperson opinion based on the little reading I've done and could be completely wrong. 

WTF?  I hope she doesn't mind cops searching her home without a warrant too since the constitution doesn't apply (assuming she lives in DC)

That was my condensed (possibly slightly sarcastic) summation of one of her legal arguments, not to be taken completely literally, though it was part of her dissent in Parker at the D.C. circuit (which became Heller when at SCOTUS). Besides, the Second Amendment, according to lots of people like this judge, isn't considered it to be a "real" Amendment like the others, which she would defend even for D.C., because, you know, gunz. Oh, and she is an appointee of a Republican president. 

Is there anything pending in the 9th Circuit that, upon defeat, could be appealed to the Supreme Court since they refused to hear Peruta?

At least Young and Nichols (among possibly others further down the pipeline), coming up for orals likely in the fall, consider the open carry question in a circuit (9th) that has already ruled that there is no right to concealed carry, so it can be banned without any right being infringed. I'm sure the Ninth would "like" to rule that there is also no right to carry openly outside the home, and can thus also be banned, but that leaves them in the position of upholding the absurdity pointed out by Justice Thomas in his dissent of Peruta denial of cert: "I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen."

It would put more pressure on the Supreme Court to hear a case if there are dissenting lower Appeals court decisions.

The (apparently) significant defining feature for SCOTUS to grant cert is the existence of "splits" among the circuits... different circuits ruling contradictory to each other on the same legal issue. "Errors" are not as important as "splits". So the Ninth could be "wrong" in their reasoning that concealed carry is not a right, but that wouldn't in itself be grounds for granting cert. Though Justice Thomas (and Gorsuch) seem to disagree with that position in their dissent in Peruta denial of cert.

The D.C. Circuit atty. pushing this case is still considering whether to pursue an En Banc decision.
If he loses, I don't think he'll push it to the Supreme Court and risk another Heller.
If he doesn't appeal, does this mean their Circuit gets the right but the 9th Circuit doesn't ?

Correct. Circuit decisions only apply to the jurisdictions of that circuit. Even after SCOTUS ruled, Heller only applied to D.C. (not being a state and thus subject to all kinds of "special" considerations and differences), and was not applied to all the states until SCOTUS ruled in McDonald v. City of Chicago, where SCOTUS made clear that, yes, the Second Amendment applies to the entire United States. We're behind the 8-ball here in the Ninth, which is why we need SCOTUS to rule that bear/carry has the same protections as "keep" , which is the only ruling that will liberate us from the absurdity that is Hawaii's unconstitutional laws where (de facto) banning carry is not considered an infringement. Norman (open carry out of Florida) is also currently before SCOTUS as petition for cert, likely to be heard in conference first thing in the fall.

Two separate interviews with attorneys on today's on NRA News Cam and Company show discussing today's Wrenn decision:

Attorney Stephen Halbrook (representing Norman before SCOTUS, he wrote the petition for cert), and Independence Institute research director and attorney Dave Kopel.

https://www.nratv.com/series/cam-and-company/video/cam-and-company-2017-steve-halbrook-appeals-court-blocks-dcs-concealed-carry-law/episode/cam-and-company-season-13-episode-143

https://www.nratv.com/series/cam-and-company/video/cam-and-company-2017-dave-kopel-easier-to-avoid-a-decision-than-make-it/episode/cam-and-company-season-13-episode-143

I hope this will filter down to Hawaii...

I hope this will filter down to Hawaii...

It will, but probably not in your lifetime.

hopefully the state appeals it to SCOTUS and they hear it ........ ROFLMAOOOOOOOO

Here is another article.

Excerpt:

"D.C. has 30 days to challenge the ruling before it will take effect. Gun rights advocates have challenged and defeated overly restrictive gun laws in D.C. many times, most notably in D.C. v. Heller, which upheld the individual right to keep and bear arms. Now advocates hope the Supreme Court adopts the ruling in D.C. v. Grace for the entire country."

http://www.libertyheadlines.com/appeals-court-washington-dc-must-expand-concealed-carry-firearms/?AID=7236

Another article about this decision.  CC in Hawaii in my lifetime?  Being that I am already collecting SSA payments, if it did come to pass the shock of it all might give me a heart attack and cause me to pass, making my prediction of not in my lifetime true.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/07/27/huge-week-for-guns-federal-circuit-court-has-done-what-supreme-court-would-not.html

One week ago I sent an email to every single Hawaii state legislator (House and Senate) and to all the members of the Hawaii County Council with the below two paragraphs, all the quotes from Wrenn above in the OP, and the link to the decision itself.

It's now a week later and I have heard back from exactly one legislator. The same one that was the only one to respond last time I sent a similar email to all of them regarding research that showed that CCW/open carry license throughout the U.S. where such licenses are available are far more law-abiding than not just the general population, but far more law-abiding than cops, so the claims of "public safety" being jeopardized (thus justifying denial of such exercise of the "right to bear") by citizens carrying firearms in public are FALSE.

That one legislator in both cases was Senator Mike Gabbard, who coincidentally, was the only legislator that responded to my requests to introduce CCW and handgun mag limit changes and actually incorporated some of my suggestions into the bills proposed (of course they didn't even receive any hearings in any committees). Here is his response: "Thanks for sending me this news about second amendment rights."

From all the rest: not a peep.

* * * * *

July 26, 2017
 
Dear Legislator,
 
Just issued by the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday, July 25, 2017, Wrenn v. District of Columbia strikes down, as unconstitutional, the D.C. carry-in-public ("bear(ing) arms") licensing law that requires a law-abiding citizen provide a "good cause" meeting the police department's criteria in order to be issued a license to carry. This court decision is important to Hawaii because all the laws Hawaii has in place regarding carrying firearms outside the home, as applied, de facto, are similarly unconstitutional because Hawaii laws merely substitute the term "exceptional case" as the requirement rather than the term "good cause" as in Wrenn v. D.C. The Court ruled that "the rights to keep and bear arms are on equal footing—that the law must leave responsible, law abiding citizens some reasonable means of exercising each". In other words, if being an "exceptional case" isn't a valid/constitutional requirement for "keeping" arms (and obviously the Court ruled it isn't (in the D.C. case of "good cause")), it can't be a constitutional/valid legal requirement for "bearing" arms either.
 
As legislators who have taken an oath to uphold the constitutions of the United States and the state of Hawaii, you must act in accord with this ruling and rescind and repeal the obviously unconstitutional Hawaii laws that ban ordinary law-abiding Hawaii citizens and residents from bearing arms outside the home for self-defense. Currently zero (0) persons in the state of Hawaii have qualified as "exceptional cases" to hold licenses to lawfully bear arms outside the home for self-defense. Two such licenses have been issued in the past 15 years, one to a judge and the other to a member of the military. Obviously Hawaii police chiefs and the state law they interpret is de facto, as applied, a ban and a violation of the constitutions and an egregious abridgment of the enumerated rights of Hawaii citizens who may not currently exercise their constitutionally-guaranteed right without threat of arrest, conviction, and imprisonment by the law enforcement authorities.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3900192/7-25-17-DC-Circuit-Wrenn.pdf

Update to the case, the appeals court rejected to rehear the case before the full court, so the 2-1 ruling that DC must issue CCW permits stands.  It's possible this one may go to the supreme court..

http://www.wnd.com/2017/09/2nd-amendment-advocates-cheer-concealed-carry-decision/

Another update, DC won't appeal the ruling to SCOTUS so they must issue CCW permits now.  How thoughtful, they took one for the team so SCOTUS wouldn't apply CCW everywhere.

I was looking at their CCW requirements, their CCW fees including a 2 day class comes out to over $500 plus you must get a psychologist to clear you and the mountains of paperwork required.  On the plus side, they do give out non-resident CCW permits.  Wonder if Tulsi will get one.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/05/dc-stands-down-on-strict-gun-law-easing-path-to-get-concealed-carry-permits-in-capital.html

Another update, DC won't appeal the ruling to SCOTUS so they must issue CCW permits now.  How thoughtful, they took one for the team so SCOTUS wouldn't apply CCW everywhere.

Because they know if they do it will go country wide and every left leaning sate will hate them for it