Appeals Court Blocks D.C. “Carry” Case

U.S. Law Shield was disappointed to read that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has stayed — that is, temporarily blocked — a lower court’s order that had mandated the District process concealed carry applications and disregard its “good” or “proper” purpose requirement.

In the case of Wrenn v. District of Columbia, a district-court the judge had made a preliminary finding that the “good” or “proper” purpose requirement likely offends the Second Amendment and ordered the District to stop enforcing it.

D.C.’s Metropolitan Police Department routinely denies most applications on the “good” or “proper” basis, and District officials have even acknowledged in court filings that the very purpose of the requirement is to limit the number of permits issued.

Upside: The “administrative stay” issued by the Court of Appeals revealed no opinion on the underlying merits of the case, stating the stay “… [was] to give the court sufficient opportunity to consider the merits of the motion for stay and should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits of that motion.”

Read Law Shield’s previous coverage of the Wrenn case in our blog here and here. Our coverage of a related case, Palmer v. District of Columbia, occurs here and here.

Everything that is written earlier could be made in real life because now there is such opportunity as viagra buy online remember that it is convenient. But you can be mistaken and write here so buying viagra online can be more expensive.