Last week, US District Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. granted a preliminary injunction in the case Wrenn v. D.C., that blocks the District of Columbia from enforcing part of its new CCW permit law requiring people to prove a specific “good reason” in order to receive a concealed-carry permit.
Then D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine asked the judge to stay the injunction while the city pursues an appeal of the case. In just 48 hours, Scullin rejected a short-term stay of the decision but left open the possibility the District could obtain a stay pending appeal of his previous ruling, which called the city’s requirement that gun owners demonstrate a “good reason” to obtain a permit unconstitutional. He set a hearing on the matter for July 7.
Meanwhile, Plaintiffs’ attorney Alan Gura filed a motion to hold the District in contempt for failing to follow Judge Scullin’s preliminary injunction in the case after the SAF learned the city is denying permit applications for 90 days to “review” Judge Scullin’s order. The SAF is noting in its new complaint to the court that, “Since ‘good reason’ and ‘proper reason’ no longer need be investigated, there is no need for the process to take even 90 days, let alone 180 or more days. Nor does the Court’s order allow for a 90-day ‘review’ period. The order itself is unambiguous. If Defendants do not understand it, they should have moved immediately for clarification. In any event, the Court’s order is supposed to be in effect now. All elements of contempt are plainly established: (1) there was a court order in place; (2) the order required certain conduct by the defendant; and (3) the defendant failed to comply with that order.” (Because the defendant is a bunch of crooks. — JP) We’re unsure of the current status of the contempt motion.
