Looks like Round 2 of Palmer v. DC (showing that DC's hastily introduced may-issue carry license scheme still isn't Constitutional or in keeping with the Court's orders) is well under way. The court issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting DC from enforcing the requirement that a person have a "good cause" before getting a license to carry.
Brief explanation and link to pdf of injunction available at story:
https://www.firearmspolicy.org/news/leg ... urt-today/
Brief explanation and link to pdf of injunction available at story:
https://www.firearmspolicy.org/news/leg ... urt-today/
A little over three months after Brian Wrenn, two other law-abiding gun owners, and the Second Amendment Foundation asked a federal court to stop Washington, D.C. from enforcing one of its new handgun carry license laws, Senior United States District Court Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., issued a significant legal decision granting their motion for a preliminary injunction.
In response to Judge Scullin’s earlier decision in the case of Palmer v. D.C., which struck down D.C.’s total ban on carrying handguns outside the home, the District of Columbia passed new set of “may issue” license laws, including a “good cause”/”proper cause” requirement. Plaintiffs then filed suit, claiming that the “good cause” requirement was a violation of their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
As explained in today’s decision, a party seeking a preliminary injunction must demonstrate “(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) that it would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction were not granted, (3) that an injunction would not substantially injure other interested parties, and (4) that the public interest would be furthered by the injunction.”
"Be Prepared"
