Grace v. Dist. of Columbia, Civil Case No. 15-2234 (RJL)

MATTHEW GRACE and PINK PISTOLS, Plaintiffs, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA and CATHY LANIER, in her official capacity asChief of Police for the Metropolitan Police Department, Defendants.

Civil Case No. 15-2234 (RJL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

October 17, 2017

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The District of Columba has long sought to limit the carrying and possessing of firearms in our City. The most recent restriction sought to confine the issuance of concealed carry licenses to persons with a special need for self-defense—i.e, those individuals who, in the judgment of the District's police force, have a "good reason" for carrying a handgun on his or her person. See D.C. Code § 22-4506(a)-(b). On May 17, 2016, I found that the District's "good reason" requirement likely placed an unconstitutional burden on the individual right, enshrined in the Second Amendment, to carry firearms for self-defense both in and outside the home. See Grace v. District of Columbia, 187 F. Supp. 3d 124, 152 (D.D.C. 2016). Accordingly, I entered an Order preliminarily enjoining the District from denying concealed carry licenses to applicants who met all eligibility requirements other than the good reason requirement. The District, not surprisingly, appealed. The case was set for argument together with an appeal from Wrenn v. District of Columbia, 167 F. Supp. 3d 86 (D.D.C. 2016), another case in this District involving the constitutionality of the good reason requirement.

On July 25, 2017, a panel of our Circuit Court issued an opinion holding that "[t]he District's good-reason law is necessarily a total ban on exercises of th[e] constitutional right" of law-abiding citizens in the District "to carry firearms for personal self-defense beyond the home, subject to longstanding restrictions." Wrenn v. District of Columbia, 864 F.3d 650, 667 (D.C. Cir. 2017). Concluding that further development of the record was unnecessary and that remanding the cases for that purpose "would be wasting judicial resources," id., the panel instead "remand[ed] with instructions to enter permanent injunctions against enforcement of the District's good-reason law." Id. at 668; see also id. at 655-56 (describing the "ensemble of Code provisions and police regulations" that comprise "the 'good-reason' law"). Two months later, our Circuit Court denied petitions lodged by the District (and supported by its amici) seeking rehearing en banc; indeed, no member of the Court of Appeals requested a vote. See Per Curiam Order, Nos. 16-7025 & 16-7067 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 28, 2017) (en banc). Following our Circuit's denial of rehearing en banc, the District, curiously, announced that it would not petition the Supreme Court...