Wrenn v. Dist. of Columbia

Citation864 F.3d 650
Decision Date25 July 2017
Docket NumberNo. 16-7025, No. 16-7067,16-7025
Parties Brian WRENN, et al., Appellants v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Appellees Matthew Grace and Pink Pistols, Appellees v. District of Columbia and Peter Newsham, in his official capacity as Chief of Police for the Metropolitan Police Department, Appellants
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)

Alan Gura, Washington, DC, argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellants.

Herbert W. Titus, Robert J. Olson, William J. Olson, Jeremiah L. Morgan, and John S. Miles, Vienna, VA, were on the brief for amici curiae Gun Owners of America, Inc., et al. in support of appellants.

Holly M. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, argued the cause for appellees. With her on the brief were Karl A. Racine, Attorney General, Todd S. Kim, Solicitor General, and Loren L. AliKhan, Deputy Solicitor General. Richard S. Love, Assistant Attorney General, entered an appearance.

Adam K. Levin and Jonathan E. Lowy, Washington, DC, were on the brief for amicus curiae The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence in support of appellees District of Columbia and Cathy L. Lanier.

Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Joshua N. Auerbach, Assistant Attorney General, Maura Healey, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of New York, Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Oregon, Robert W. Ferguson, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Washington, Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of California, George Jepsen, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Connecticut, Douglas S. Chin, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Hawaii, Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Illinois, and Tom Miller, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Iowa, were on the brief for amici curiae States of Maryland, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, and Washington in support of appellees.

Paul R.Q. Wolfson, Washington, DC, and Walter A. Smith, Jr. were on the brief for amici curiae DC Appleseed Center for Law & Justice, et al. in support of defendants-appellees.

Deepak Gupta, Washington, DC, was on the brief for amicus curiae Everytown For Gun Safety in support of appellees.

Loren L. AliKhan, Deputy Solicitor General, Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, argued the cause for appellants. With her on the briefs were Karl A. Racine, Attorney General, Todd S. Kim, Solicitor General, and Holly M. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General.

Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Joshua N. Auerbach, Assistant Attorney General, Maura Healey, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney

General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of New York, Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Oregon, Robert W. Ferguson, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Washington, Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of California, George Jepsen, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Connecticut, Douglas S. Chin, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Hawaii, Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Illinois, and Tom Miller, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Iowa, were on the brief for Maryland, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, and Washington in support of appellants.

Paul R.Q. Wolfson, Washington, DC, and Walter A. Smith, Jr. were on the brief for amici curiae DC Appleseed Center for Law & Justice, et al. in support of defendants-appellants.

Deepak Gupta, Washington, DC, was on the brief for amicus curiae Everytown for Gun Safety in support of defendants-appellants.

Adam K. Levin and Jonathan Lowy, Washington, DC, were on the brief for amicus curiae Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence in support of appellants District of Columbia and Cathy L. Lanier.

David H. Thompson, Washington, DC, argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief was Charles J. Cooper, Howard C. Nielson, Jr., Washington, DC, Peter A. Patterson, Ada, MI, and John D. Ohlendorf, Washington, DC.

Mark Brnovich, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Arizona, John R. Lopez, IV, Solicitor General, Keith Miller, Assistant Solicitor General, Alan Wilson, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of South Carolina, Marty J. Jackley, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of South Dakota, Ken Paxton, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Texas, Sean D. Reyes, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Utah, Patrick Morrisey, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of West Virginia, Brad D. Schimel, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Wisconsin, Peter K. Michael, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Wyoming, Luther Strange, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Alabama, Leslie Rutledge, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Arkansas, Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General, Offi ce of the Att orney Generalfor the Stat e of Indiana,Chris Koster, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Missouri, Timothy C. Fox, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Montana, Adam Paul Laxalt, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Nevada, Michael DeWine, Attorney General, Offic e of the Attorney G eneral for the State of Ohio, an d E. Scott Pruitt, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma were on the brief for Arizona, Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming in support of plaintiffs-appellees.

Dan M. Peterson and C.D. Michel, Long Beach, CA, were on the brief for amici curiae Western States Sheriffs' Association, et al. in support of plaintiffs-appellees.

Paul D. Clement, Erin E. Murphy, and Christopher G. Michel, Washington, DC, were on the brief for amicus curiae National Rifle Association of America, Inc. in support of plaintiffs-appellees.

Herbert W. Titus, Robert J. Olson, William J. Olson, Jeremiah L. Morgan, and John S. Miles, Vienna, VA, were on the brief for amicus curiae Gun Owners of America, Inc., et al. in support of plaintiffs-appellees.

Before: Henderson and Griffith, Circuit Judges, and Williams, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge Henderson.

Griffith, Circuit Judge:

Constitutional challenges to gun laws create peculiar puzzles for courts. In other areas, after all, a law's validity might turn on the value of its goals and the efficiency of its means. But gun laws almost always aim at the most compelling goal—saving lives—while evidence of their effects is almost always deeply contested. On top of that, the Supreme Court has offered little guidance. Its "first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment" is younger than the first iPhone. District of Columbia v. Heller (Heller I) , 554 U.S. 570, 634, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008). And by its own admission, that first treatment manages to be mute on how to review gun laws in a range of other cases. See id. at 634, 128 S.Ct. 2783. But listening closely to Heller I reveals this much at least: the Second Amendment erects some absolute barriers that no gun law may breach. This lesson will prove crucial as we consider the challenges presented in these cases to the District of Columbia's limits on carrying guns in public.

I

These cases involve the District's third major attempt in forty years at managing what the D.C. Council sees as the tension between public safety and the Second Amendment. In 1976, the District banned all handgun possession. D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.01(a), 7-2502.02(a)(4) (2001). When that ban was struck down in Heller I , the Council followed it with a ban on carrying. Id. § 22-4504 (2009). And when that was struck down in Palmer v. District of Columbia , 59 F.Supp.3d 173 (D.D.C. 2014), the Council responded with the law challenged here, which confines carrying a handgun in public to those with a special need for self-defense.

The challenged D.C. Code provisions direct the District's police chief to promulgate regulations limiting licenses for the concealed carry of handguns (the only sort of carrying the Code allows) to those showing a "good reason to fear injury to [their] person or property" or "any other proper reason for carrying a pistol." Id. § 22-4506(a)-(b).1 The Code also limits what the police chief may count as satisfying these two criteria, in the course of promulgating regulations and issuing licenses.

To receive a license based on the first prong—a "good reason to fear injury"—applicants must show a "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." Id. § 7-2509.11(1)(A). The police chief's regulations further limit licenses granted on this basis to those who "allege, in writing, serious threats of death or serious bodily harm,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
44 cases
  • Crawford v. Commonwealth
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court
    • 26 Mayo 2022
    ...and this right exists outside the home. See Caba v. Weaknecht , 64 A.3d 39, 50-52 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) ; see also Wrenn v. District of Columbia , 864 F.3d 650, 665 (D.C. Cir. 2017) ; Moore v. Madigan , 702 F.3d 933, 935-40 (7th Cir. 2012).14 In Ortiz , the Cities of Philadelphia and Pittsburg......
  • Duncan v. Becerra
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • 29 Marzo 2019
    ...the simple Heller test. Because it flunks the Heller test, there is no need to apply some lower level of scrutiny. Cf. Wrenn v. D.C. , 864 F.3d 650, 666 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (" Heller I 's categorical approach is appropriate here even though our previous cases have always applied tiers of scrut......
  • Hirschfeld v. Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco & Explosives
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • 13 Julio 2021
    ...855, 137 L.Ed.2d 1 (1997) (referring to the "significant governmental interest in public safety"); see also Wrenn v. Dist. of Columbia , 864 F.3d 650, 655 (D.C. Cir. 2017) ("[G]un laws almost always aim at the most compelling goal—saving lives—while evidence of their effects is almost alway......
  • Young v. Hawaii
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 24 Julio 2018
    ...that the Second Amendment indeed protects a general right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. See Wrenn v. District of Columbia , 864 F.3d 650, 665 (D.C. Cir. 2017) ; Moore v. Madigan , 702 F.3d 933, 936–37 (7th Cir. 2012).4 Three others have simply assumed the Second Amendment ap......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • Constitutional Law - Ninth Circuit Strikes Down Licensing Law in Favor of Second Amendment Right to Open Carry - Young v. Hawaii.
    • United States
    • Suffolk University Law Review Vol. 52 No. 2, March 2019
    • 22 Marzo 2019
    ...702 F.3d 933, 942 (7th Cir. 2012) (holding Second Amendment right extends outside of home). (25.) See Wrenn v. District of Columbia, 864 F.3d 650, 665 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (holding Second Amendment protects right to publicly carry for self-defense); Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933, 936 (7th Cir.......
  • Second Amendment Federalism.
    • United States
    • Stanford Law Review Vol. 73 No. 3, March 2021
    • 1 Marzo 2021
    ...to an erroneous self-defense-related jury instruction did not constitute unconstitutional ineffective assistance of counsel). (179.) 864 F.3d 650 (D.C. Cir. (180.) Id. at 655 (quoting D.C. CODE [section] 7-2509.11 (1)(A), invalidated by Wrenn, 864 F.3d 650). (181.) Id. at 657 (quoting McDon......
  • THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO CARRY FIREARMS ON CAMPUS.
    • United States
    • William and Mary Law Review Vol. 63 No. 3, February 2022
    • 1 Febrero 2022
    ...(37.) Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933, 934, 942 (7th Cir. 2012). (38.) See id. at 942. (39.) Id. (40.) Wrenn v. District of Columbia, 864 F.3d 650, 655, 666, 668 (D.C. Cir. (41.) Id. at 655 (quoting D.C. Code [section] 22-4506(a)-(b) (2009)). (42.) See id. at 661. (43.) United States v. Masc......
  • The Right to Armed Self-defense in Light of Law Enforcement Abdication
    • United States
    • The Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy No. 19-1, January 2021
    • 1 Enero 2021
    ...in public for self-defense”), vacated pending rehearing (en banc), 915 F.3d 681, 682 (9th Cir. 2019); Wrenn v. District of Columbia, 864 F.3d 650, 661, 668 (D.C. Cir. 2017); Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933, 942 (7th Cir. 2012) (invalidating such a ban and noting that “self-defense . . . is a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT