The US District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied an en blanc hearing on Wrenn v. District of Columbia, a case that argues against DC’s “good reason” requirement to be issued a concealed carry permit. With the rejection of the city’s request for en blanc, the court lets stand a July ruling that rejects the good reason requirement as unconstitutional.
The July ruling stated that DC must issue permits to adults who pass a fingerprint-based background check and attend safety training. This eliminates DC’s requirement for an applicant to show “special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community as supported by evidence of specific threats or previous attacks that demonstrate a special danger to the applicant’s life.”
In other words, this makes DC a “shall issue” district while providing support that “may issue” concealed carry permit policies as a whole are unconstitutional. The July ruling also further affirmed that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms outside the home.
What’s especially significant are reports that not a single justice supported the en blanc request- the decision was unanimous to let the ruling striking down DC’s good reason test stand. This greatly increases the possibility that Wrenn v. District of Columbia or a similar concealed carry case will end up before the US Supreme Court, where a favorable ruling could affirm our right to bear arms outside the home nationally.
DC will be able to continue enforcing the good reason requirement until the appeals court issues its mandate in about a week. Thereafter, DC will either be compelled to drop the requirement or get a stay from the US Supreme Court.
This case, as with Heller and McDonald before it, is being fought by the Second Amendment Foundation lawyer Alan Gura. To learn more about how to support this organization and its efforts to defend the Second Amendment in our court system, visit the Second Amendment Foundation (saf.org).