The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a motion for contempt against the District of Columbia for its failure to carry out the injunction in Wrenn et al v. D.C. which stopped the District from enforcing its ordinance requiring applicants for concealed carry permits to have a “good reason” for having a permit. The reasons why are set forth in the motion . . .

Defendants represented…that the PLaintiffs’ applications would be reprocessed without the “good reason”/”proper reason” requirement. It was understood that licenses would not necessarily issue immediately to the extent that there were any outstanding training requirements, but at least, the preliminary approval for the licenses would be issued forthwith. Defendants’ counsel suggested PLaintiffs might be nearer the start of the 90-day application review process, but PLaintiffs disagreed — they had already waited well-over 90 days, and there was nothing left to review.

At no time during several conversations through May 21 did Defendants suggest that they would do nothing pending further review of the Court’s order, nor did Defendants suggest that the order was in any way ambiguous, or that they would file a motion seeking clarification of the order. Defendants also met and conferred regarding a requested stay of the Court’s order, to which Plaintiffs did not agree. Plaintiffs repeatedly urged the Defendants to file a notice of appeal if they wish to seek a stay of the Court’s order. Defendants stated that they would seek a stay, but did not state when they would do so, and would not commit to any date by which to notice an appeal.

Mr. Powers’ experience is particularly troubling. He is a licensed D.C. firearms instructor, who was (finally) allowed to register his handgun. There is no question that Powers meets all background check and training requirements. There is no legal basis to deny him a permit. District law does not provide for this sort of 90 day delay….

Unwilling to start the appellate and stay proceedings, unable to get consent for a stay, but also having no intentions of actually issuing licenses absent a “good” or “proper” reason, Defendants have taken it upon themselves to “review” the Court’s order for a 90 day period. See attached Declaration of Lawrence Powers and Exhibit A. Pending this review, Defendants are not issuing permits….

The games continue. Defendants supposedly not understanding the Court’s order, they will ignore it. Of course, Defendants understand the order perfectly well. They simply dislike it….

Defendants are and should be held in contempt.

For their part, the Free Beacon reports that defendants have finally gotten round to filing a request for a stay of the court’s earlier injunction, claiming that the District will suffer “irreparable harm” since the “good reason” clause is essential to its “statutory regime” of denying civil rights to its residents based on the whim of bureaucrats. It also thinks that District residents are incompetent fools who don’t deserve the right to keep and bear arms:

The risk of a gun-related tragedy–accidental or deliberate–by new licensees who have no particularized fear of any specific danger to their safety, outweighs plaintiffs’ speculative fears about any imminent need to defend themselves from a random, public attack.

Stay tuned for more details.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

29 COMMENTS

  1. I would pay to see the looks on the faces of DC bureaucrats as the bailiff takes them into custody. Or the judge tells them to get out their checkbooks.

  2. “The risk of a gun-related tragedy–accidental or deliberate–by new licensees who have no particularized fear of any specific danger to their safety, outweighs plaintiffs’ speculative fears about any imminent need to defend themselves from a random, public attack.”

    Wow. Just… Wow.

    Now *that’s* contempt right there…

    • “There aren’t enough training hurdles to disqualify everyone, we *need* the ability to just disarm people on a whim!”

    • Translation:

      A concealed carry licensee may randomly attack or unintentionally harm someone … which is sufficient rationale for government to deny rights.

      A violent criminal may randomly attack someone … which is NOT sufficient rationale for citizens to exercise rights.

      And I haven’t even mentioned the fact that violent criminals attack people several orders of magnitude more often than concealed carry licensees (who have training and no violent criminal record) attack or accidentally harm bystanders. How can any government entity say this stuff with a straight face?!?!?!?

      • A person with a printing press or a voice might, with negligent regard for civil discourse, publish or say something that devastates the delicate sensibilities of some protected species. We might have Klansmen advocating for Jim Crow or Nazis advocating national socialism! Hence, a license to print or speak must be accompanied by a compelling demonstration of “need”.

        • Plaintiff fails to take note of the fact that Defendant has never been out from under a constant state of “Contempt” and therefore is duplicative process and an undue burden on the Court. A finding of such would just be a redundant recital from merely a single party to the argument.

        • or we might insult the “Religion of Peace” and its followers by any number of things they deem offensive, including, but not limited to:

          1. Equal Rights for Women (including Shannon Watts)
          2. Depictions of their founder, good or bad
          3. eating non-halal meat, such as YUMMY BACON, proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy
          4. drinking alcohol, such as Bourbon, more proof God loves us and wants us to be happy.’
          5. demanding separation of church and state
          6. allowing interest on loans and investments
          7. watching women’s sports without them wearing burqas
          8. letting women drive
          9. letting women leave the house without a male escort or permission of their husband/father/brother/molestor
          10. criticizing the supreme leader. . . oh wait, Democrats will get mad with that one

          There must be a showing of need to eat bacon, let women drive, drink bourbon, or otherwise act like citizens in a free and open republic.

      • Translation-
        Unless we get a new judge we know we are fu@ked. So we are delaying as much as possible.

    • I wonder if these people stop and listen to the words they are saying.

      The quote might as well of read: “Meh….frack your rights”

    • They should be held in contempt of English, too. “Particularized” is a verb, not an adjective. They meant particular, but it would have come out, in essence, that they are denying a civil right for no particular reason.

      Which would be exactly true.

  3. It’s always ok for government to break laws violating civil rights. When they do the punishment is to tell them not to do that again. It used to be that you could vote them out of office but bureaucracies are so large and agents appointed and employed that you can’t actually cleanse government of bad apples anymore. They collect and pile up like government giveaways. At some point you have to hold individual government agents and employees directly accountable and drag their behinds into court. Put them individually on trial and in federal prison for their crimes, the crime of restraining the civil rights of americans.

    • “At some point you have to hold individual government agents and employees directly accountable and drag their behinds into court.”

      That sounds good on paper. Ever try to actually identify the rogue government agent/employee? Ever try to get a prosecutor to actually charge an agent/employee? I am really liking the whole tar and feather idea at this point.

      • If your a federal judge it’s not hard to pubish and individual. You have the officers from the U.S. marshals go pick him or her up and throw there carcas in the federal joint until they say uncle. It their attorney gets them out. But either way it’s gonna be a of deal if minor officials from the DC Gustapho, I mean city government are locked up. They will not enjoy even a brief stay in jail and are likely to obey court orders. They will also be fined sometimes thousands of dollars for each order they fail to process. You don’t mess around with federal judges. Even the IRS and the justice dept who laughed at congress are complying ( grudgingly) with federal court orders. They know anybody who doesn’t will be arrested and peronally fined.

    • That’s because America is now a Democracy. We vote people into office so that they have power over the people. We the people serve big daddy government.

      If this were still a Republic these offices would be serving us the people.

  4. Good for the SAF. At least they are taking action to try to get this resolved. Amazing that the police, who in most cases are not very good with their guns, are OK to carry around firearms while the public cannot do the same. Are the police really at that much more risk than the average person ? Why do they need guns and we don’t ? Could it be because the criminals have guns ? If so, then that proves that the restrictive gun laws are not working to keep guns off the streets.

    • Go visit the Federal museums along the mall in DC. Observe the armed guards who check purses and bags. It’s really hard to imagine they are all crack shots under stress.

      Now, reflect on the “need” for museum guards to be armed. I’ll readily grant that the Hope Diamond ought to be guarded by skilled marksmen; and, they ought to have carbines. Perhaps some of the objets d’art. Who is going to steal a steam engine or airplane from the Smithsonian?

      Oh; but I forgot. The government is instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. The People are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable needs, among them, life . . .

      • I have not been to one of those museums in more than 10 years, but armed guards is a loud statement that the Feds really fear a Charlie Hebdo type attack at a major tourist attraction, and don’t want to be the French police. An attack like that due to lack of an armed presence would be cause for an Impeachment hearing on any President, no matter the party in power, but especially in the current situation. Whether the armed guards are any good against determined terrorists with “real” AK’s and grenades bought in European subway stations and walked or driven in from Mexico is another story.

  5. I can guarantee you these are the reasons why many DC residents say f*** it, and are carrying without a permit.

  6. How can a police department or police themselves expect respect from citizens when they actively promote denial of a person ability to lawfully protect themselves?

  7. The risk of a gun-related tragedy–accidental or deliberate–by new licensees who have no particularized fear of any specific danger to their safety…

    Citation needed. Please quantify the risk of accidental “gun-related tragedy”. Regarding deliberate “gun-related tragedy”, include in your response a justification for an increase in deliberate crime perpetuated by firearm carry licenses.

    Courts really need to start requiring statistical analysis for this type of horse manure. There is no risk of accidental “gun-related tragedy”. That risk is so low that any increase or decrease as a result of licensing is immaterial. And criminals – the ones who perpetuate deliberate “gun-related tragedy”, are going to commit crimes regardless of licensing. Criminals don’t follow laws. That’s sort of inherent with being a criminal.

    • The City’s motion for a stay does EXACTLY that. It argues that the trial court was WRONG WRONG WRONG and should reverse itself or at least issue a stay pending appeal because it is OBVIOUS that he will be reversed. (It seems that the brief was intended for a different audience (meaning it is really aimed at the Justices of the D.C. Circuit), and that the stay motion will be filed in the D.C. Circuit along with the notice of appeal.)

  9. So paraphrase Curtis Sliwa: “I hope they kick that lying WHORE, Cathy Lanier, in the crotch so hard her momma feels the vibrations.”

    • I think Lanier would issue, and the more likely culprit is the City administration and its lead attorney. Unlike a sheriff (who is usually an elected official), a city police chief is appointed by the City Council, is an employee, and may be fired at will.

      • No she wouldn’t. She is a gun banner. That is why they hired her. She is a good little Femme Gestapo.

  11. Would it be too much to ask that during Jade Helm the Senate Sergeant At Arms and several kitted-out US Marshals arrest the DC Mayor, the entire City Council, and Chief Cathy for civil rights violations? Or at least summarily fire them all?

Comments are closed.